A gun law bill that passed the Missouri House last month would punish a police department through civil lawsuits if an officer enforces federal gun laws.
A twin of the bill is also moving through the Senate. The “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jered Taylor, R-Nixa, is aimed at disregarding any federal firearms actions by the Biden administration.
Someone could cue, asserting a violation of their right to bear arms, starting at $50,000Thoughts,
Updates
+1 y
12 other state's have proposed the same bill but Missouri is the first to pass it.
Do you support federal gun law nullification or the SAPA bill?
That bill, if enacted as MO law, would immediately be enjoined due to its blatant unconstitutionality via Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. This paragraph is known as The Supremacy Clause. ========= Article VI ... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ... =========
In short, it says is United States Federal law reigns supreme over state law.
Frankly, I'd take a very hard line on this shit if I was President. I'd consider having the US Justice Department investigate consider filing Federal charges against any state legislature that obviously attempts to override the Supremacy Clause. To me, that's a form of insurrection or rebellion - the kind of thing that you send in tanks for. Eisenhower reminded us of this fact in 1957 at Little Rock AR.
1. The current United States Attorney for the District of Western Missouri is Acting U. S. Attorney Teresa A. Moore. In Jefferson City, MO, at the US Court House, she would file a lawsuit "United States v. Missouri" stating the Revised Statutes of Missouri (whatever the law's number will be) violates Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. 2. The United States District Court would summarily enjoin the law while Missouri mounts a defense. That is, IF Missouri mounts a defense which would be worthless. 3. Assuming Missouri defends in the case, it would lose. 4. Missouri might then appeal to the United States Appellate Court for the 8th Circuit. 5. The 8th Circuit won't bother hearing an appeal because the ruling of the Western Missouri District Court is obvious. 6. Once the 8th Circuit rejects Missouri's appeal, that's it. The Missouri law is void.
7. HOWEVER, if Missouri rejects the Federal Court ruling and attempts to enforce the law, the President will write a proclamation that: A) He is aware that Missouri is unconstitutionally violating federal law B) Remind Missouri that, as President, he is the Chief Executive responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States. C) Inform Missouri that it must obey the rulings of the Western District and 8th Circuit. D) And, finally, that Missouri enforcing its law is federal Obstruction of Justice. It must stop immediately. 8. If Missouri does not stop, then the President will issue an Executive Order echoing what he said in the earlier proclamation and then authorize the Secretary of Defense to do what is necessary to enforce Federal law. This will immediately include nationalizing the Missouri National Guard neutralizing Missouri's authority over it and making it part of the United States Military.
At that point, it's a wild west scenario, but, I wouldn't be as merciful as Eisenhower was. I'd have the US Attorney for the District of Western Missouri charge the Governor of Missouri with federal Obstruction of Justice and have the troops arrest him right in Jefferson City.
The people starting to buy legal arms the most right now, and in my opinion being targeted by this legislation aren't white. Legal black gun owners have been skyrocketing... oddly enough, if you look at any gun control law (including the ones during prohibition), they coincide with black people having more legal weapons. My observation may be coincidence, but most white people have plenty of guns, ammo, and magazines already (outside CA and NY) but the people that would be affected the most by new restrictions on legally buying/owning firearms will be black and latino.
Federal court might not uphold it depending on if they manage to get their 13 person supreme court... On the other hand, these laws reflect the will of the people in those states, so regardless of the laws passed, how likely is anyone to enforce them? What, is Antifa going to show up and be shot? National guard is deployed from local garrisons, so that's a no go as well. Also that no one joins the military to suppress US citizens and the oath you take on joining is literally to uphold and defend the constitution first, then follow orders.
If an order conflicts with the constitution, disobeying orders and/or mutiny will be upheld as acceptable in a court martial. Like if you're told to fire on civilians who don't represent a threat, so on and so forth, or seize their weapons in violation of the constitution you have sworn to uphold and defend. Following that order will have you standing tall in front of the man.
It isn't so easy to get your military to fire on people who share the same culture and language anyway. They had to bring in mercenaries to do that in New Orleans after Katrina as the guard, well, guarded, rather than shoot civilians.
@razelove This: "Federal court might not uphold it depending on if they manage to get their 13 person supreme court"
That's false. This would be unanimous in the current US Supreme Court. However, you may not understand the appeals process... The case would first be in US ("federal") district court. Then the case MIGHT be appealed to the US Court of Appeals. They would likely reject the appeal. If the appeal isn't rejected but lost, any subsequent appeal would go to the US Supreme Court, but they might not take it - they don't take many cases. My point is that this is so egregious and apparent that this wouldn't even get past District Court. The Appeals Court would reject any appeal.
Why? There is no clearer violation of the Supremacy Clause than a state saying its law is paramount over federal law and creating a law to obstruct enforcement of federal law is the same thing.
Since you are young and not likely aware of the last time this occurred, let me give you links to the history lesson that you need to learn...
From the Eisenhower Presidential Library... www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/.../civil-rights-little-rock-school-integration-crisis and UCSB's The American Presidency Project... https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ ========= On May 17, 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools are "inherently unequal." In September 1957, as a result of that ruling, nine African-American students enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The ensuing struggle between segregationists and integrationists, the State of Arkansas and the federal government, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, has become known in modern American history as the "Little Rock Crisis." The crisis gained world-wide attention. When Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine students from entering the school, President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to ensure the safety of the "Little Rock Nine" and that the rulings of the Supreme Court were upheld. The manuscript holdings of the Eisenhower Presidential Library contain a large amount of documentation on this historic test of the Brown vs. Topeka ruling and school integration.
Do not fuck with the Federal Government of the United States of America by any means outside of the courtroom.
==== Back to Missouri, instead of passing this ridiculous unconstitutional law, Missouri should challenge any federal actions / laws in US District Court. It might actually succeed there.
Ok, you're still citing examples of law vs. law. Jim crow had no basis in the constitution to be backed, and as Eisenhower said was in direct violation. I don't think they would appeal the supremacy clause, but the legality of the law being applied. You don't need to worry about the supremacy clause if you have enough attention and power to get the law itself into court and a motion to suspend it as the legality of it is debated. At worst a stop-gap measure, at best overturning it.
If I remember right, courts can only review cases and laws that are petitioned to them, they cannot simply state that a law or decree is unconstitutional or not if no case is brought before them. My statements aren't that these are magic Harry Potter invisibility cloaks to hide from federal law, but that they will allow challenges to be issued to laws and executive orders.
Also that on a local, state, and federal level, they won't be enforced even if it means disobeying direct orders or mutiny. That part scares me, as both parties seem to be pushing this country towards a civil war which is ludicrous. Fabricate irreconcilable differences to drive people apart, and get them to fight, but it is happening.
You do realize that legally 40% of Americans own more guns than the total population of America, right? Stolen and illegal weapons do not factor in there. What percent total do you think are police, National Guard, and military combined? Well, this handy graph illustrates that, unfortunately I couldn't find anything for active ATF or FBI agents, but for the sake of this exercise let's consider the number to be negligible. You have to zoom in a lot to see the number of active police officers down there at the bottom.
Oh, population here is only people 16 or older, which is reflected in the 40% of gun owners. I should have made that clear too. Not saying there will be infants with mortars.
"I don't think they would appeal the supremacy clause, but the legality of the law being applied."
I understand... and I agree that's what they SHOULD be doing. But that's not what they are doing. But by creating a law punishing assistance to federal enforcement, that's deliberately obstructing enforcement of federal law and that's a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
But, yes, MO should challenge in district court the constitutionality of any federal law or executive action.
That would make sense. I believe they are doing this obstruction law as a political act to ensure that MO stays red.
This: "If I remember right, courts can only review cases and laws that are petitioned to them, they cannot simply state that a law or decree is unconstitutional or not if no case is brought before them."
Yes, that's right. The US Justice Department can initiate a case though. It would here in the District of Western MO. Furthermore, the DOJ would request an interim enjoinment of the Missouri law. That means they'd request the district court to prevent the law from being enforced while the court decides the case. Courts often do that; if the court has a likely belief in the outcome of a case, they often act on an interim basis. Then, once the court rules, the interim order expires and whatever the court orders is the result. Stuff like this happens all the time.
Also, in the interests of ideological fairness, I think all those "Sanctuary City Laws" in which local law enforcement not to assist ICE are equally wrong.
I hope that is the outcome then, that the court investigates and challenges both the MO and federal law in fairness. Our law down here is deliberately vague, that we uphold that second and will hold any laws that infringe it to strict scrutiny before they're enforced, so court first. I really want to see an end to this nationwide violence and a return to work, community, and forward progress.
Louisiana, BLM and Antifa tried starting riots down here... a lot less of them left than showed up, the community down here didn't like being told what to do, and the police they turned to weren't very sympathetic either. It would be quite humorous if you didn't look at other cities breaking down into chaos.
Sorry your state is caught in the middle of a political tug of war. If you had more wetlands it would be a lot easier to make those problems just, go away... lol
@WowwGirl 1. @OlderAndWiser understands me, I believe, as I agree with what he succinctly said. I just elaborated on the legal process and history. 2. How do you know I don't already have a weapon here? Or might have weapons better than guns?
Because you wouldn't last ten miles outside of Saint louise if you where. So where did the tranny get beat to death last week because it was only in local news?
@WowwGirl I DO live more than 10 miles outside of STL - more like 40. Unfortunately, I have to suffer through in my opinion's Pizza with that evil "St. Louis Style" pizza with that evil frankencheese, Provel. Thank God, I have gooey butter cake, toasted ravioli, and Lion's Choice to compensate... Oh, or the St. Louis Bread Company aka Panera to the rest of the world.
@WowwGirl For over 50 years, my wife's family has owned 40 acres with a business and three houses (including mine) in a rural community where my wife and I live with 9 animals including a horse. I have lived here doing rather well for many years now and have no worries about my survival.
Not in missouri sorry buddy not buying it I know all around the state. I was in st Charles last week actually You wouldn't last ten minutes outside the city , I stand by my statement. Only people who don't support guns here are urban. Like well you as a example
I was in St. Charles County on Sunday. Had to visit the horse chiropractor in Forestell.
Anyway, I am here and not going to waste much more time on this. I have to fire up my tractor to clean the horseshit my wife left in the barn lot while she's busy trailriding for 4 days at Brushy Creek.
And, actually, I am fine with and accept guns and understand their utility not just as weapons but as tools. Not ONCE did I say I advocated for or against guns.
My point in posting here is a matter of law, not of guns. The Missouri SAPA bill is, if passed, unconstitutional. Just like any laws in sanctuary cities which would obstruct federal justice. This is exactly what @OlderAndWiser succinctly described in his MHO-worthy post.
Sorry if I over reacted I get a lot of crap from people. I understand your point. III lv st charles mostly for the near casinos. There's a lake about a hour or so south that's nice. Lake of ozarks is nice if you haven't
THIS IS WHAT I WROTE 9 MONTHS AGO: ========== This is likely what would happen:
1. The current United States Attorney for the District of Western Missouri is Acting U. S. Attorney Teresa A. Moore. In Jefferson City, MO, at the US Court House, she would file a lawsuit "United States v. Missouri" stating the Revised Statutes of Missouri (whatever the law's number will be) violates Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. 2. The United States District Court would summarily enjoin the law while Missouri mounts a defense. ==========
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-4022 ) THE STATE OF MISSOURI; MICHAEL ) L. PARSON, Governor of the State of Missouri, ) in his official capacity; and ERIC SCHMITT, ) Attorney General of the State of Missouri, in ) his official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, brings this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges a Missouri state statute that purports to invalidate federal firearm laws within the State. The Missouri law uniquely discriminates against federal agencies and employees; impairs law enforcement efforts in Missouri; and contravenes the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. ... 10. In light of H. B. 85’s infirmities and the harms to federal law enforcement interests, the United States seeks a declaratory judgment that H. B. 85 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, is preempted by federal law, and violates intergovernmental immunity. The United States also seeks an order permanently enjoining the State of Missouri, including its officers, employees, and agents, from implementing or enforcing H. B. 85. ... Dated: February 16, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
SAYLER A. FLEMING United States Attorney Eastern District of Missouri
TERESA A. MOORE United States Attorney Western District of Missouri ...
STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM I. Constitutional and statutory background. A. The Supremacy Clause and preemption. 18. The Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U. S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.
TITLE: Missouri’s Gun-Rights Law Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules SUBTITLE: The 2021 law prohibits enforcement of federal gun restrictions if they go against Second Amendment By Joseph Pisani March 7, 2023 2:27 pm ET
A federal judge ruled that Missouri’s sweeping gun-rights law is unconstitutional, in a win for the federal government, which said the law hurt criminal investigations.
The 2021 legislation, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, made it illegal for state or local officials to cooperate with federal agents to enforce orders, rules or laws that go against the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.
The law also gave Missourians the right to sue local police departments for $50,000 in damages if officials prevented their right to bear arms. Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, signed the legislation into law in June 2021.
The federal government sued Missouri last year, arguing the new law impeded criminal law-enforcement operations in the state.
>>>>>>>>>
U. S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes said Tuesday the law violated the so-called supremacy clause of the U. S. Constitution, which says that federal laws take priority over state laws.
<<<<<<<<<
He also said the law was counterintuitive to its purpose.
“While purporting to protect citizens,” he wrote in the 24-page opinion, the law “exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the Federal Government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens within the limits of the Constitution.”
======== ... Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED the United States’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #8) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. #13 & #15) are DENIED. It is further
ORDERED SAPA is invalidated as unconstitutional in its entirety as violative of the Supremacy Clause. H. B. 85 is invalid, null, void, and of no effect. State and local law enforcement officials in Missouri may lawfully participate in joint federal task forces, assist in the investigation and enforcement of federal firearm crimes, and fully share information with the Federal Government without fear of H. B. 85’s penalties. The States of Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees and any others in active concert with such individuals are prohibited from any and all implementation and enforcement of H. B. 85. It is further
ORDERED the United States’ request for costs is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: March 6, 2023 /s/ Brian C. Wimes JUDGE BRIAN C. WIMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023) 1 Statement of GORSUCH, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 23A296 MISSOURI, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [October 20, 2023] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS would grant the application for stay.
Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, respecting the denial of the application for stay.
With the understanding that the district court “prohibited” only “implementation and enforcement” of H. B. 85 by the State of “Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees” and “any others in active concert with such individuals,” App. to Emergency Application 29a, I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances. An injunction purporting to bind private parties not before the district court or the “challenged” provisions “themselves,” however, would be inconsistent with the “equitable powers of federal courts.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U. S. 30, 44 (2021).
I think that local law enforcement and other local elected officials should have both the right and the obligation to enforce federal laws. That would abolish sanctuary cities and allow local law enforcement to enforce federal emigration law.
I rarely disagree with you, but on this one I do. If a state wants to take that stance they should be able to, just like if a state wants to ignore the drinking age or taxation. We were the last state to change our drinking age if I remember right, and what finally got that to happen was the feds removed all federal support contingent on that happening. No funding for Army Corps projects, Interstates, levees, so on and so forth. We caved quick.
If a state wants to rebel in large or small ways, left or right, they should be able to, but stop receiving federal aid. Reality under the current administration is CA and NY will receive funding from other states for defying federal law, and if we do, we'll be funding the forces that come to suppress us as well as their freedom to defy it.
It'll play out that way, and lead to this nation fragmenting more and more. No one is going to meekly surrender their weapons. Many people will/are die in violent confrontations and insurrections. Some local, state and federal forces will mutiny. Regardless of how this plays out, it's going to be a shit show where no one "wins".
@razelove When California fails to cooperate with the feds regarding emigrants who have been detained, and they are released, those emigrants are free to cross the border and commit crimes in Nevada or Arizona. When federal benefits are bestowed upon illegal aliens, then all taxpayers shoulder that burden, bit just the taxpayers in California.
Yeah, that's why I was saying under this administration they benefit from it. They should have their federal funding pulled and have to deal with their own bankruptcy. I've seen how violent it was in Vegas, but that had WAY more to do with all the meth than if someone was illegal or not.
If they get arrested in states that don't support those measures, detain and deport them. I'm thinking rather than home country have a pick of countries we want to be friendlier with, but give nothing of value to achieve that. Deport them to NK, and then countries who want us to keep them. I'm thinking C-130 cargo drops full of people. France, UK, so on and so forth.
It's the humanitarian response as we are legitimately overwhelmed. Al Jazeera has been writing about it a lot too, so maybe some cargo drops into Lebanon, so on and so forth. I guarantee no wall would be needed if the result was wind up in a random country, maybe Germany, maybe Afghanistan. It is merely moving them from our terrible conditions in this evil US empire as the left so righteously wants us to do. Make landing strips along the border and load up those C-130's, hit an RNG to see where they'll go and refuel in the air, drop that cargo out the back with a chute.
Hell, if Cali wants to be it's own country, do the same when they come over the mountains into Nevada, welcome to Brazil, you have no passport, money, or clothes. You'll do great.
Site went down for maintenance when I was typing... I meant with chutes as cargo drops lol, though those do mess up sometimes, no equipment is 100%. My cousin got all broken up when he messed up a relief drop, chute didn't deploy, and less people needed supplies when it landed. I figure that's like a net gain situation, he didn't get office hours or a court martial, same supplies, less people, lasts longer.
I think the Supremacy clause only applies to powers granted to the Federal government in the constitution and isn't in conflict with the constitution. So, if their laws are judged to be beyond their constitutional authority or a breach of the 2nd amendment, supremacy doesn't apply.
@jerdanro it’s up for debate in the courts but it would require a federal judge declaring that the law is unconstitutional. Until then whether you agree with it or not it’s a valid law.
Basically a judge would have to weigh the Supremacy Clause against the Second Amendment and do a balancing test as to which takes precedence here
Yeah, Louisiana has some in place already from when Obama was elected. You're just slow to the playing field lol It's always better to not make a big fuss when your state passes laws to ignore the federal government and just, you know, do it.
It's a joy of our corrupt politics down here, if they don't get things done, they don't get bribed, they don't get bribed, they might not get reelected, no reelection, they might get exposed for corruption, hence, Louisiana politicians get a lot done.
it's not about guns, it's about mental health I am brain injured, I don't act on any of my thoughts, but everyone has them killing people only gets you life in prison find a soulmate
Most Helpful Opinions