Posted on 02/19/2022 9:20:43 AM PST by John Semmens
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced he is suing the State of Missouri claiming its recently enacted law allowing gun-owners the right to sue state or federal officials if their Second Amendment rights are violated “is unconstitutional because it fails to conform with the ‘federal supremacy’ clause, Garland contended. “The right to bear arms is a federally granted right that cannot be altered or expanded upon by any state action.”
“Law enforcement works best when state and local officials fully comply with federal authorities,” the AG argued. “Often times nailing someone on a federal gun charge is the easiest first step toward getting dangerous people behind bars. Take the case of Patricia and Mark McCloskey who waved around firearms that posed a deadly threat to a group of peaceful protestors that broke into their property a couple of years ago. We mustn’t allow a law protecting their rights impede our efforts to put the McCloskeys in jail.”
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt called Garland’s example “a powerful argument in favor of the law he wants overturned. Protecting the right to self-defense is a fundamental objective of the Second Amendment. It is because of gun control zealots like Biden and Garland that states must have their own statutes to deter federal efforts to strip citizens of these rights.”
If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...
https://libertyusa21.wordpress.com/semi-news-semi-satire/
Libtards sue to stop constitutional rights law 🤪
Got to here: Garland contended. “The right to bear arms is a federally granted right....”
And immediately thought - the feds don’t “grant” me sh&#. My rights come from God.
It applies especially to the Federal Government, Garland ya BFF.
“The right to bear arms is a federally granted right that cannot be altered or expanded upon by any state action.”
So, does that make the 1846 ruling of the Ga State Supreme court the actual law of the land since no one has opposed it.
* Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
“The right to bear arms is a federally granted right...”
Uh, no. Even if you think the federal government is The Creator, and endows such rights, doesn’t make it so.
Getting closer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.