Federal Court Strikes Down Missouri's Second Amendment Protection Act on Supremacy Clause Grounds

From today's U.S. v. Missouri, decided by Judge Brian Wimes (W.D. Mo.):

The Supremacy Clause provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." "By this declaration, the states are prohibited from passing any acts which shall be repugnant to a law of the United States." "The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national government." Further, "[t]he law of congress is paramount; it cannot be nullified by direct act of any state, nor the scope and effect of its provisions set at naught indirectly." As such, a state legislature's attempt to "interpos[e]" itself against federal law "is illegal defiance of constitutional authority." …

Section 1.420 [which is part of the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act] provides that certain federal firearms regulations are "infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, within the borders of this state, including, but not limited to," in summary, (1) taxes or fees on firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (2) registration of firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (3) registration or tracking of ownership of firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (4) bans on possession/ownership/transfer of firearms, accessories, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and (5) confiscation of firearms, accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

A federal law preempts a state law if the two are in direct conflict. A "direct conflict" occurs "[w]hen compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress …." If "Congress enacts a law that imposes restrictions or confers rights on private actors," and "a state law confers rights or imposes restrictions that conflict with federal law," then "the federal law takes precedence and the state law is preempted."

Under the uncontroverted facts, the NFA [National Firearms Act] sets forth taxation requirements on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms. Section 1.420(1) states "[a]ny tax, levy, feel or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition … that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens," is an "infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States … within the borders of [Missouri]." However, that Missouri states that the taxation requirements "create a chilling effect

…" is immaterial where Congress has lawfully imposed the requirements. Further, such a statement stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of federal firearms regulatory measures because it creates confusion regarding a Missouri citizen's obligation to comply with the taxation requirements of the NFA. As such, § 1.420 is preempted.

Under the uncontroverted facts, the NFA provides for the registration and tracking of firearms and their possession. The GCA [Gun Control Act] imposes other requirements on those engaged in the business of dealing or manufacturing or importing firearms or ammunition. These Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) must receive a license from the Attorney General and pay certain fees. Each FFL is required to maintain "records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms," and may not transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person without completing a Firearms Transaction Record. FFLs must also conduct background checks using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and verify a purchaser's identify for an over-the-counter sale of a firearm. Moreover, FFLS must ensure each firearm manufactured and imported must be identified by serial number and the licensees' identifying mark.

However, §§ 1.420(2) and 1.420(3) state "[a]ny registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition," and/or "[a]ny registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition," is an "infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States … within the borders of [Missouri]." Sections 1.420(2) and 1.420(3) create confusion regarding registration of firearms by purporting to invalidate federal registration and tracking requirements. The logical implication is that Missouri citizens need not comply with federal licensing and registration requirements "within the borders of [Missouri]." Since Missouri citizens must comply with federal registration and licensing requirements for firearms notwithstanding SAPA's definition of infringements, §§ 1.420(2) and 1.420(3) stand as obstacles to the full purposes and objectives of federal firearms regulatory measures and are preempted.

Moreover, the GCA also prohibits possession of firearms by certain categories of individuals, including those who have been convicted of a felony, those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, noncitizens not lawfully in the United States, unlawful users of controlled substances, and others. Sections 1.420(4) and 1.420(5) state "[a]ny act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law- abiding citizens" and/or "[a]ny act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens is an "infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States … within the borders of [Missouri]." As used in these provisions, "law-abiding citizen" is defined as "a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or in the state of Missouri." Sections 1.420(4) and (5) refer to as "infringements" limits on who may possess a firearm, as those limits are set forth in the GCA. SAPA's definition of "law- abiding citizen" expands who may lawfully possess a firearm within the state of Missouri and/or whose firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition may be subject to confiscation.

Sections 1.420(4) and 1.420(5) create confusion about the lawful possession, ownership, use, transfer, or confiscation of firearms within Missouri by purporting to reduce the scope of federal regulations pertaining to the possession, ownership, use, transfer, or confiscation of firearms, with which federal regulations Missouri citizens must comply. By attempting to alter the definition of a "law-abiding citizen" who may possess or own or transfer or use a firearm within Missouri, §§ 1.420(4) and 1.420(5) conflict with the GCA's definition of who may possess or own or transfer or use a firearm within Missouri, and as such, §§ 1.420(4) and 1.420(5) stand as obstacles to the full purposes and objectives of federal firearms regulatory measures and are preempted. For all of these reasons, § 1.420 is preempted and unconstitutional on its face….

Moreover, SAPA's other substantive provisions are unconstitutional independent of § 1.420 because they violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity…. Section 1.430 provides that all federal laws and acts that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment are invalid in Missouri, are not recognized by Missouri, and are rejected by Missouri. At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face. While Missouri cannot be compelled to assist in the enforcement of federal regulations within the state, it may not regulate federal law enforcement or otherwise interfere with its operations.

Section 1.440 imposes a duty on Missouri courts and law enforcement agencies to protect against infringements as defined under § 1.420. In creating an affirmative duty to protect against infringements, § 1.440 effectively imposes an affirmative duty to effectuate an obstacle to federal firearms enforcement within the state. In imposing a duty on courts and state law enforcement to obstruct the enforcement of federal firearms regulations in Missouri, § 1.440 violates intergovernmental immunity. "No State government can exclude [the Federal Government] from the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, [or] obstruct its authorized officers against its will …."

Section 1.450 regulates the United States directly in violation of the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Section 1.450 states that "[n]o entity … shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts …" that are deemed infringements under § 1.420….

Finally, §§ 1.460 and 1.470 are each independently invalid as discriminatory against federal authority in violation of the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Section 1.460 imposes a monetary penalty through civil enforcement action against any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs an officer who knowingly violates § 1.450 while acting under color of federal law—that is, any local law enforcement official who assists in federal firearms regulatory enforcement in a deputized capacity. Section 1.470 imposes a monetary penalty through civil enforcement action against any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs an officer who formerly enforced the infringements identified in § 1.420—that is, certain federal firearms regulations—or, an officer who has given material aid and support to others engaged in the enforcement of the infringements identified in § 1.420—that is, federal law enforcement. The exposure to monetary penalties set forth in § 1.460 and 1.470 arise from federally deputized state law enforcement officials' enforcement of federal firearm regulations. Moreover, these enforcement schemes are likely to discourage federal law enforcement recruitment efforts. For these reasons, § 1.460 and § 1.470 violate intergovernmental immunity and are invalid.…