Federalism

Missouri Now Refuses to Enforce Certain Federal Gun Laws

Biden's Justice Department has some problems with this.

|

Missouri's Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed into law over the weekend the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

The law (Missouri House Bill 85) defines various federal laws that Missouri considers an inherent violation of its citizens' rights under the Second Amendment:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services and that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law abiding citizens;
(2) Any registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
(3) Any registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

Such laws, the new Missouri law insists, "shall be invalid to this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state….No entity or person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations,statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms."

Any "political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs a law enforcement officer" who violates Missouri citizen's rights by enforcing laws like those listed above "shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, [or] suit in equity…and subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars per occurrence. Any person injured under this section shall have standing to pursue an action for injunctive relief…."

Sovereign immunity, the law states, shall not apply. Hiring someone later on who had previously committed such rights violation also leaves the hiring "political subdivision or law enforcement agency…subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars per employee hired" and any citizen has standing to sue about that point.

Republican state Rep. Jered Taylor, a sponsor of the bill, told local TV Fox2 that he thinks the bill, which had been introduced before but didn't make it to law, passed now because the Biden administration is making people nervous about gun rights:

"We're going to enforce all the state laws that we have in relation to gun laws," Taylor said. "We're just not going to help the feds enforce some of their unconstitutional or things that will be coming that we've been threatened with this administration. I think the current administration and the Democrats being in control of the Senate and Congress has really kind of lit a fire under some of the Republicans in our party."

Among the most controversial aspects is the fact that Missouri state gun laws have no equivalent to federal prohibition of those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from legally possessing a weapon; the state does bar felons from legal ownership. The state does not require licenses or permits for buying or carrying weapons.

Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and a writer at the Volokh Conspiracy, argued on Twitter that while it is more than fine for state law enforcement agents to refuse to use time or resources enforcing federal laws, an aspect of the law that seems to bar state courts and judges from enforcing federal gun-related laws is likely unconstitutional, as is Missouri fining federal agencies for enforcing federal law in the state, per the holdings in McCulloch v. Maryland.

The Biden administration thinks aspects of this new Missouri law cannot stand. His Justice Department has already informed Missouri that "HB 85 threatens to immediately disrupt the working relationship between federal and state law enforcement officers, many of whom work shoulder-to-shoulder on various joint task forces, for which Missouri receives ample federal grants and other technical assistance"and "raises significant concerns under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

The Justice Department specifically wants the state to clarify that though the law says "No entity or person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority" to enforce laws that violate the Second Amendment, that they don't mean to include federal officers under the prohibition (though the language seems to say that to this non-lawyer—it includes state officials which implies it also applies to as baldly stated any entity or person).

If the law "were construed to apply to federal officers operating in the State of Missouri," says Biden's DOJ, "then this section would violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which prohibits the states from regulating the federal government."

The part of the law that imposes potential fines on agencies that hire anyone who has violated Second Amendment rights also, DOJ insists,"appears to discriminate against federal law enforcement officers and others who worked with them….This kind of targeting of former federal employees and individuals who worked cooperatively with the federal government may well be unprecedented and raises significant concerns under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine."

These are issues that will doubtless be litigated in the future.

NEXT: Cops Punched a Man Hanging From a Window and Tased Him After He Fell. They Got Qualified Immunity.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and a writer at the Volokh Conpiracy, argued on Twitter that while it is more than fine for state law enforcement agents to refuse to use time or resources enforcing federal laws, an aspect of the law that seems to bar state courts and judges from enforcing federal gun-related laws is likely unconstitutional, as is a state directly fining federal agents for enforcing federal law in the state, per the holdings in McCulloch v. Maryland.

    The Biden administration thinks aspects of this new Missouri law cannot stand.

    So we can probably say the #DefundThePolice movement to be officially dead in the water.

    1. Which must be a very sad day for libertarians, who hate government force.

      1. As opposed to you who loves force good and hard.

        1. Force is a tool. All tools can be used for both good and evil.

          1. And you’re definitely part of the dark side of that force.
            Darth Tony, the Sith who used petty bureaucracy and overweening regulation to choke the life out of people.

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can DD do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

            2. I can do it with just my thumb and forefingers as an educated and mentally actualized Sith Lord.

              But it’s the emperor who will show you the true nature of the force. Joe Biden is your master now.

              The Scranton guy.

            3. Others might simply have said it was a tool, ML.

      2. I own guns and will use them, defund away.

        1. No you won’t.

            1. Antifa, right?

              1. Antifa prefers helpless victims. As all fascists do.

                1. Fascists prefer victims who are both helpless and seemingly all-powerful simultaneously. It’s a trick they do.

                  Sometimes the fascisms overlap in their targets. College professors and socialist types, both unmanly, which can only mean overly educated. Lots of Jews among them.

                  Teachers unions. Artists. Journalists. Entertainers. Scientists.

                  No daddy, this time they really are all Jewy and out to get us with their Jewiniess! We’re not Nazis, the anti-Nazis are daddy!

                  The anti-fascists prefer victims who are fascists.

                  1. The anti-fascist are fighting fascists who they simultaneously say are all powerful but weak?

                    Do you even read what you write before you post?

                  2. Yup. Jews are always the makers, shakers and re-awakers in the world.
                    Your list is limited. Jews are everywhere where things are done, good, bad or otherwise.
                    That’s why the status quo hates them so much.

                  3. “The anti-fascists prefer victims who are fascists.”

                    So when do the mass suicides start?

              2. Not if Paul keeps his guns.

    2. Kansas rolled over and showed its belly when two of its citizens got rung up for making suppressors against the wishes of the BATFE. My guess is the same thing will happen in Missouri, if the Feds want to push it.

      It gets interesting when they don’t, though…

      1. The Obama administration raided medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times during his first term. This could go the same way: People will still be arrested and prosecuted on federal law while public opinion firms up. As more states jump on the bandwagon, however, the feds may eventually start backing down–especially if a Republican goes to the White House.

        And more states are jumping on the bandwagon, with Texas being a big one.

        “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott gathered with Republican lawmakers at the Alamo Thursday to ceremonially sign several gun-related bills passed during the recent legislative session, including one making the open carry of handguns without a license legal, and another allowing state residents to buy Texas-made gun silencers without a federal license.

        —-WSJ

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-firearms-bill-revives-gun-rights-strategy-rejected-by-u-s-courts-in-past-11623954667?

        Recreational marijuana is still illegal everywhere in the United States under federal law. It’s just that subsequent administrations have refrained from enforcing federal law in states where marijuana is legal. I bet this is the way it goes with suppressors, etc.

        1. …with Texas being a big one…. I see what you did there.

    3. For starters, most healthy people want a job that satisfies their needs, but a job without a social support system can set … Selected Works Cited from Internet.more detail open this link…….VISIT HERE.

    4. The Democrats didn’t seem to mind refusing cooperation with the Feds in drug and immigration enforcement, creating sanctuary cities and states. But now they’re not happy with local non-cooperation. Seems more than a little hypocritical. Of course, I’m sure they would tell you that their causes are righteous and Republican causes are murderous.

  2. This was inevitable, Colorado sheriffs years back said no mas to enforcing new guns laws in the state, so ramp it up to the federal level and don’t help out. Of course the new ATF head honcho may take that as a challenge.

    1. That is Acting Director Michael Sullivan to you. How long can he keep acting.

  3. Who the fuck ever told Jesus freak Limbaugh addicts that it was a good idea for them to have thoughts about things?

    The confederacy was run by geniuses compared to the Trumpistanians. Let them have the civil war they’ve been itching for ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed. Nobody remembers the fascist revolutions that failed. Let’s see if history remembers this one.

    1. So, #DefundThePolice… definitely dead.

      *scratches dumbest idea Abraham Lincoln looked at his wife and said, ‘Hey dear, I’m tired of kicking around the house, let’s go out tonight and take in a play’.*

      1. It’s revoltingly sad how much you think these little Republican message shop nuggets mean.

        Once a year or so the left lets some tone-deaf bullshit out of its clamped vagina. Fine. Meanwhile “Trump just says it like it is.”

        He told the country to inject bleach.

        And not only do you know perfectly well what “defund the police” means in policy terms, you also know perfectly well what kind of horrifyingly inadequate brain could have come up with the bleach thing. You can see the thought process, and you made that man president anyway.

        1. Wow, still spreading that lie that Trump told people to inject bleach. IIRC, the trouble with liberals is they know so many things that aren’t true.

          1. Tony doesn’t care. He’s paid to shitpost and lie here, so that’s what he’s going to do.

          2. You’re not getting the point. It’s not about the exact order of the words he used, it’s that you can listen to him speak and understand with 100% horrifying certainty that he really thinks that you can inject yourself with Clorox and kill the germs that way.

            And since you said it didn’t happen and since he claimed it did happen and was sarcasm, that leaves us with two lies to decide between.

            1. You *can* kill the germs that way. The problem is the nasty side effect of, you know, death.

              But I’m fairly sure he didn’t say people should spontaneously start injecting themselves with it.

            2. It’s not about what he actually said?

              Tony, did you have a psychotic break in the last week, or something like that? We’ve always been in disagreement, but you never came across as insane this way before.

            3. No, Tony, “… it’s that YOU can listen to him speak and understand with 100% horrifying certainty that he really thinks that you can inject yourself with Clorox…”

              NO one with a working understanding of the English language would come to that conclusion.

            4. “A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?”

              “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”

              Two treatments that were being studied at the time were treatments using UV-A light and nebulized hydrogen peroxide.

              Looking at the context it is clear to see the “injection” Trump was referring to was an injection of some type of disinfectant into the lungs.

          3. Even the sheep who hoarded hydroxychloroquine on his word weren’t stupid enough to start buying injectable floor disinfectant.

            Sometimes I think our fascism may be even too absurd for fascism. Trump a medical authority so on top of the cutting edge of virology that he feels he can publicly disagree with the world’s scientists.

            You know his ego has simply no lid. It’s a pathology. That’s his thing.

            But Kim Jong Il is a freaking mythic being with no rectum and most of the other ones are Jesus, so it’s kind of par for the cult course.

            1. Given that our ‘fascism’ calls itself antifascism, yes. And, there is no such thing as injectable floor disinfectant. Nor did the bad orange man say, or imply that injecting bleach was any more of a cure than fish tank cleaner. You can turn off the Trump Signal now, he’s out of office, but we’d never know, since so many of you left-leaning sorts simply bang on about the same things over and over again. Find someone new to focus your near-psychoses on.

            2. “Even the sheep who hoarded hydroxychloroquine on his word weren’t stupid enough to start buying injectable floor disinfectant.”

              Correct, the only people stupid enough to think he meant inject bleach are people like you

        2. “He told the country to inject bleach”

          Oh? When did he ever say that?
          Did you pick up an old talking-points memo from last year by accident, before you logged on to do tonight’s fifty-centing?

          1. It’s not just the one thing dear.

            1. Its not anything .

    2. Dear god tony, the irony in your comment could melt steel beams!

      1. Am I calling for violent revolution? Am I a right-wing authoritarian? No? Then what irony?

        1. Last summer never happened.
          Got it.

        2. No, you’re calling for the violent tyranny the revolution would be a response to.

          1. He’s managed to combine all the worst points of the Ancien Régime and the Jacobins.

          2. Violent tyranny only in the event of a civil war your Team will have started. Already did start as far as I can tell with my eyes and ears and CNN. But we’ve gone to martial law and back without much fuss before.

        3. There is only “right wing authoritarianism in the European political spectrum.

          (I loathe any single-axis model, for the record.)

          In the American conceptualization, all authoritarianism is on the left.

          If we absolutely must insist on the single-axis spectrum, than anarchism is the far right.

          http://www.findingfascism.com/2017/05/did-google-redefine-fascism.html?m=1

    3. You do realize the industrial base is in the south now as are the major military bases….and the population is greater in the south than north as well. There isn’t going to be any civil war but honestly the folks in the south would fight and the folks in the north would not…the north with it’s wokeness has made men into..well not the kind of folks u want to go to war with…that said there isn’t any war coming..

    4. Ho’s mad.

    5. Northern Ireland is not facist but it has a different set of gun laws vs U.K. One can own a handgun in northerIrelan but not in U.K. – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Northern_Ireland

      If we want to avoid the risk of oppression and civil war, we need to accept “split soveriegnty” – one set of laws in the urban areas, a different set of laws in the rural areas, or in different states. There needs to be a new tradition of the feds looking the other way not enforcing laws except in 14th Amendment cases.

    6. Really love to hear your concern for your fellow Americans. Say if you hate conservatives so much why not secede? Why are you itching to start another civil war?

  4. Why does Missouri think it’s o.k. to register cars but not guns? They are both consumer goods that can be dangerous to others if not used properly. Gun registration does not preclude the right to bear them.

    1. I agree with you that car registration is an unnecessary infringement.

    2. If I had to register to exercise my 1A rights you’d view that as an infringement, correct?

      1. Who’s fat Mike and how good are his drugs?

        1. He’s the lead singer/bassist of the punk rock band NOFX.

          I’ve never had any of his drugs so I can’t speak to quality, but at one show I went to he announced he would be checking into rehab after the tour. He was roundly booed for this decision.

      2. You have a second-amendment right to a well-regulated militia.

        1. Which means every able bodied man.

          1. Which means every able bodied man has his own weapon and has been able to purchase enough ammunition to be proficient with that weapon. As in “shall not be infringed”.

          2. And woman….not that I want to be one and not that it’s anyone’s fault that I can’t have babies, not even the Feds.

          3. It kind of doesn’t mean anything in today’s context.

        2. And right to bear arms.

          1. And bare arms.

            1. And pet bears!

              1. And radioactive pet bear cavalry!

          2. For the purpose of serving in a well-regulated state militia, none of which exist anymore.

            1. The word ‘state’ isn’t in the amendment. One of the worst habits the far right and the left have is deciding they know the mindset, intent, thoughts, and ‘actual meaning’ of what people say. Sometimes, words mean, drumroll, exactly what the fuck they say. And if the person who said them is around, they can be asked! No need to make wild assumptions!

            2. We’ll bring it back when we cut back on military spending.

        3. Can’t have a well-regulated militia if the militia don’t have weapons.

          You do know that all males (and women in the National Guard – so the feds even consider the militia distinct from the Guard) from like 17 to 45 is in the militia, by statute, right? Like, the federal government itself says this. And no, its not, like, something written a hundred years ago by old white men.

          1. Did you know that the US government is charged with providing for the defense of itself? How many guns are in the hands of people who intend to use them when they’re conscripted onto the state security force? How many of them can walk half a mile without a coronary incident? At least we agree that nobody over 45 gets a gun.

            I think it’s fun to study 2nd amendment case law. It’s all fucked up, and it interacts with the modern world in rather terrifying ways. That’s why I say scrap the whole thing as obsolete.

            Of course we agree that the 2nd amendment doesn’t give private militias the right to self-organize and enact their political beliefs by force. That’s not how this shit works here.

            So we’re in perfect agreement. Repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all the guns like a civilized society.

            1. So the mask finally slips off.

            2. Did you know that the US government doesn’t consider itself obligated to protect you from lawless violence?

        4. I form my (fill in geographic descriptor) militia dedicated to defending described territory. To do so effectively we need tactical nukes.
          I’ll see your insanity/inane comments and raise you with your own verbiage.

    3. Do you have to register you life, liberty or any natural right? The right to defend yourself including the access to tools to defend yourself preexists govt..period

    4. Guns are registered w/ the Feds when making the purchase through an FFL holder. Not a great argument, but typical of emotive ‘reasoning.’ versus rational thought.

    5. The feds don’t register cars, the states do. There’s no federal driver’s license. Take firearms regulation away from the feds, leave it to the states.

  5. The DoJ is probably correct on the narrow issue of whether this can apply to federal officers enforcing federal law, and maybe on the employment ban based on previous actions as a federal employee.

    The rest of the law seems fine.

    1. Very much agree. The state can’t tell the feds what to do. But the feds can’t tell the states, esp in the case of a fundamental enumerated right, to violate it. Or anything close.

    2. It can’t apply to federal officers – and, from my reading, doesn’t. It only applies to state officers.

      And I think the ban on employment could stick insofar as *any* ban on employment could stick (and mostly they can’t).

      1. In as much as it’s a ban on employment by political subdivisions of the state, not the private sector, I can’t see why it wouldn’t stick.

  6. So they want to force states to enforce federal gun laws, and prohibit them from enforcing federal immigration law. Got it.

    1. Marxism at it finest.

  7. Does this mean I can now go to Bass Pro in St Charles MO and buy a new gun without background check? Or any other identifying info? I have a feeling Bass Pro would say no.

    1. Yeah, that’s the downside: Federally licensed dealers will be reluctant to take advantage of this.

      1. Of course. We have two sovereigns, and you can’t ignore the one under orders of the other.

        My worry about this sort of thing is that people states like mine, MT (a 2nd Amdt Sanctuary State) are allowed to use concealed carry permits to bypass the usual background checks normally required by the ATF. But that implicitly requires some level of data sharing. Right now, with a MT CCW license, I can buy a gun in a store in MT, and walk out with it 15 minutes later. If I didn’t have the CCW license, I wouldn’t be able to pick it up for a couple days. I worry about losing that.

        1. Bruce maybe im misunderstanding you. Im around Missoula the most liberal area in the state I don’t have a ccw permit and it still only takes 15 to buy a gun without it

        2. I’ve never been in a situation where its taken more than 15 minutes to buy a gun – and we don’t have permitting of any kind where I live.

          It usually takes longer to fill out the 4473 than it does to get an answer back.

          1. It can take a lot longer if the federal administration wants it too. When the NICS was first created, the Clinton administration would routinely shut the system down “for maintenance” on the weekends of big gun shows, so that dealers there couldn’t complete sales.

            There’s nothing stopping Biden from resuming that, or just having the system routinely delay reporting back for 2 days and 23 hours.

            The Brady bill has a provision where, if the background check takes more than three “business days” days to complete, the sale can proceed without it. That was so the feds couldn’t shut down sales nation-wide by just shutting the NICS down.

            But they could just slow-walk all the checks if they wanted, and I would not be shocked if Biden had them start doing that.

    2. Speaking of Missouri, the McCloskeys—the older Yuppie couple who confronted with guns, a large protest that had broken into their gated community—both plead out today to misdemeanors. https://abc7.com/mark-mccloskey-senate-st-louis-patricia-gun-couple/10802606/

      Don’t you dare think of resisting the Mob when it comes for you…

    3. Bass Pro will say no. There’s never been a requirement that they sell to you.

      And they’re an FFL. Selling without following that procedure will mean the revocation of their FFL and no one will sell them guns. And they’ll get arrested by the feds.

      But you know what won’t happen? The local cops won’t come arrest you and turn you over to the feds. The AFT will have to discover the violation on its own and send some of its only 5000 agents out to make the arrests.

      1. Yes. Well, until the ATF complains and Biden proposes a new budget with an extra few billion for the ATF.

  8. Just for the record; the police oath in Missouri.
    “I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Missouri, against all enemies, foreign and domestic;  that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;  that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;  and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.  And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state by force or violence;  and that during such a time as I am a member of the (name of disaster or emergency organization), I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state by force or violence.”

    Supporting the US Constitution means supporting “shall not be infringed”, and all those federal laws are infringements.

    So this “new” law just repeats the existing oath of office.

  9. Adler is a joke. Sorry but the SC doesn’t get to decide if a law is constitutional..the States do as they created the Federal Govt. You can’t have the umpire a member of one side (the Feds). This was what Jefferson and Madison were saying in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798/99. We honestly need an amendment which gives a super majority of States the right to cancel any Federal Law…it is the only way to protect the Bill of Rights.

    On a side note..why isn’t Reason talking about the coup attempted by the national chairman and woke leftie “libertarians” in New Hampshire. You have to love the chair person unilaterially bars the duly elected board members, appoints who she wants, takes over the web site and confiscates the physical assets and then says you have to sign a loyalty oath to be a member. And why? She claims “nazis and alt right were taking over”..so she and the head of the national party decide to use Bolshevik tactics to overthrow an election…gotta love the cosmo woke DC “libertarians”..total little commies

  10. Eh, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

    I’m not going to cry tears over the laws cops have to obey pertaining to the laws they’re forbidden to enforce.

  11. These are issues that will doubtless be litigated in the future.

    I wouldn’t bet on it. This shit can only end one way and some of us would rather die a free man than to live as a slave. There ain’t no litigating that point.

  12. And how does this same principle apply with regard to immigration laws and “sanctuary cities”?

    1. Are you saying nations have borders?
      What are you, a nazi or something?

    2. There is no comparison. The Constitution says the Feds will provide a secure national border, and defense from invasion. The 2nd amendment to that Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”

      Any positions contrary to these are unconstitutional.

      1. They both defy federal supremacy.

        1. You don’t understand what federal supremecy is.

          Its doesn’t mean ‘the feds made it illegal so the states must arrest you for it’.

          It just means that in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins. As long as federal law is not unconstitutional.

          There is no conflict here. The state has simply withdrawn assistance to federal law enforcement in enforcing federal law. Which the state has every ‘right’ to do.

          Same as with marijuana, same principle as sanctuary cities.

          *in fact*, it was this very principle that was invoked to Prevent Arizona from enforcing federal law when it came to immigration. The feds there actually said local cops weren’t allowed to investigate immigration status violations – as that was solely a federal area of responsibility.

          1. No, they just pretended it was the same principle.

            The Supremacy clause makes federal “law” supreme. The Court interpreted that to mean that federal decisions contrary to said law would be supreme.

            If the Court were properly enforcing the supremacy clause, Arizona wouldn’t just have prevailed, the court would have issued a mandamus order compelling the feds to resume immigration law enforcement. Because it was the feds violating the federal law in Arizona, not the state.

  13. an aspect of the law that seems to bar state courts and judges from enforcing federal gun-related laws is likely unconstitutional,

    Unless I am mistaken, state courts do not try federal cases.

    Federal courts do.

    If you violate a state gun control law you end up in a state court – which will enforce state law.

    If you violate a *federal* gun control law you don’t end up in state court – unless the feds let a state handle a dual-violation of state and substantively similar federal law – you end up in a federal court.

    And federal judges are still capable of trying violations of federal gun control laws.

  14. House Minority Leader Crystal Quade (D-Springfield) said in a statement:

    “House Bill 85 is a radical, dangerous, and obviously unconstitutional attempt to declare that Missouri will refuse to follow federal gun laws. When people are looking for real solutions to crime, policing, and public safety, Governor Parson and the Republican legislature have instead chosen to preserve Missouri’s growing reputation for extremist and dangerous laws. The new law even allows criminals who violate federal gun law to sue our local law enforcement officers for a minimum $50,000 fine if they in any way assist with federal investigations. It quite literally defunds the police and gives that taxpayer money to convicted criminals. It is long past time for Republicans in Jefferson City to stop the political grandstanding, take their jobs as leaders seriously and pass real solutions to crime in our state.”

    1. Which of the neo-Confederate states will enact no-fly zones, do you think? Only I tend to fly over Missouri no matter where I’m going, and nothing irks me about air travel more than unnecessary geometry.

    2. >“House Bill 85 is a radical, dangerous, and obviously unconstitutional attempt to declare that Missouri will refuse to follow federal gun laws.

      So how is she on following federal drug and immigration laws?

      1. ^

  15. All the state has done is to codify the anti commandeering doctrine, which is well settled law, based on 5 scotus opinions dating back to 1842. In a nutshell, this says that if the fed wants fed law enforced, it’s up to the fed to do so.

    1. The “No entity or person” language goes beyond the anti-commandeering doctrine. It says that, not only is the county sheriff banned from assisting the ATF in enforcing a federal law that the state considers unconstitutional, but if an ATF agent goes into a gun store and looks through the 4473’s in order to find a suspect under that law, the sheriff could arrest the ATF agent, the gun store owner, and the gas station clerk that gave directions to the ATF agent.

      Change that to “No state or local government agency or employee” and it’s consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, but it’s rather weaker than the law the legislature probably intended.

  16. Does anyone remember liberal states declining to enforce immigration laws, forbidding state LEOs from co-operation and eventually becoming Sanctuary States or cities? Other than the difference in words, I don’t see any difference in the principles. Caveat: The fines are different.

  17. I must have missed the part of the 2nd Amendment that says “shall not be infringed UNLESS you ever in your life committed even a non-violent crime”.

    Fucking hypocrites.

  18. If the law “were construed to apply to federal officers operating in the State of Missouri,” says Biden’s DOJ, “then this section would violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which prohibits the states from regulating the federal government.”

    It doesn’t; it explicitly applies to state actors.

    DOJ insists that the state law “appears to discriminate against federal law enforcement officers and others who worked with them….This kind of targeting of former federal employees and individuals who worked cooperatively with the federal government may well be unprecedented and raises significant concerns under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.”

    It applies to any state actor who violates it. If the state actor is cooperating with a federal officer, and violates that law, then the sanctions apply. There is no discrimination against federal officers, who by the way, are not a recognized protected class anyway.

  19. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. WE This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  20. The fear that Missouri will apply this law to Federal officers is a red herring. The law clearly states:

    “No entity or person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall …”

    Clearly the FBI and the ATF are NOT employees of the state or any of its subdivisions. It just means the FBI and ATF are on their own in Missouri. As for the Supremacy Clause, it does NOT give Federal authorities the right to violate or ignore the Bill of Rights. If the ATF is going to ignore the Second and Fourth Amendments, then Missouri can ignore the Supremacy Clause.

    1. Learn English. “Including” does not exclude others.

    2. To expand on that: “Everyone, including Pat Paulsen” means “everyone”, not “Pat Paulsen”. In a legal document, that is bad drafting that will have some judge puzzling over why a former comedian on the Smothers Brothers show and joke Presidential candidate would be singled out, but in the end the “including” clause is meaningless because the main clause includes everyone.

      An “including” clause may be appropriate to clarify a selective main clause. For a silly example: “All former and present candidates for President, including Pat Paulsen and Harold Stassen, will receive Secret Service protection for life.” One might wonder how serious and well-supported a candidate must be to be covered, but the drafters show they mean everyone who could be construed as a candidate by including a “candidate” who was clearly just joking, along with a real politician who ran about 9 times, mostly with less support than the comedian.

  21. Libertarians need to stand behind 2nd Amendment Sanctuary States. These can be enclaves of freedom in the face of a growing tyrannical federal regime.

    “I’m from Missouri, show me your guns!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.