To: rktman
I don’t think this amendment has any teeth.
Some judge will just cite the supremacy clause and say that federal law trumps Missouri’s constitution.
4 posted on
08/07/2014 8:42:01 AM PDT by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: MrB
Agree. Ihis overdoes the "right" to carry. We ought always to question whether the person is behaving responsibly toward himself and others with a deadly instrument.
Taking away a gun from a raving maniac is not infringing his right exclusive of his responsibility to others with equal rights. The correct, durable word is "infringe," as given by our wise Founders.
7 posted on
08/07/2014 8:52:41 AM PDT by
imardmd1
(Fiat Lux)
To: MrB
Spot on, the only way it would mean anything is if Missouri is willing to go to WAR against the Federal government to protect their Constitution. This is just more local politicians beating their chest.
13 posted on
08/07/2014 9:25:27 AM PDT by
2001convSVT
(Going Galt as fast as I can.)
To: MrB
Some judge will just cite the supremacy clause and say that federal law trumps Missouris constitution.How far do you think enforcement of federal law will go without the support and assistance of Missouri LEOs and elected officials?
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
15 posted on
08/07/2014 9:46:52 AM PDT by
LonePalm
(Commander and Chef)
To: MrB
oh - you mean like Col pot law?
17 posted on
08/07/2014 10:30:58 AM PDT by
aumrl
(let's keep it real Conservatives)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson