Missouri Loses Court Bid to Nullify Federal Gun Laws
A federal appeals court found the law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
On Monday, a federal appeals court sided with the United States and affirmed a lower court’s order invalidating a Missouri law that conflicted with federal gun laws.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed that the law, which purported to invalidate federal gun laws, violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
“A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself,” stated 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton.
The Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The 2021 law purported to nullify federal laws as “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.”
“Any political subdivision or law enforcement agency” violating the Missouri law was subject to a $50,000 penalty and liable for attorney’s fees and costs. The law empowered private citizens to enforce it by creating a private cause of action.
Under Missouri law, federal laws deemed infringements were “invalid” in Missouri and “shall not be recognized by this state” and “shall be specifically rejected by this state.”
The Missouri law protected “firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition” with respect to law-abiding citizens.
The state invalidated any federal gun laws targeting those three items if they required registries, tracking of the items, registries, or ownership tracking.
Missouri law nullified federal gun laws that banned “the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of” guns or allowed their confiscation.
Federal taxes “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” were also invalid under the Missouri Law.
In 2022, the United States sued Missouri to block the law. The United States argued Missouri’s law would interfere with state-federal law enforcement cooperation by forcing state law enforcement to withdraw from joint task forces.
Missouri attorney General Andrew Bailey promised to “always fight for Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
so does this mean a state cannot nullify federal immigration laws either?
I’m sure the Left has a “That’s Different!” argument for that. I don’t expect it to make any sense but that’s not a requirement for those folks.
So the upshot is: a federal law that is constitutional can be nullified, but a federal law that is NOT constitutional can’t be nullified. What a time to be alive.
Although when it comes to immigration laws this one IS different because what Texas and others were doing was ENFORCING federal immigration laws. For that the left went even more mental than usual because you know…it’s what they do! 😂😂
There were also sanctuary cities that ignored, if not annulled, federal immigration laws.
Well by your argument then all federal gun laws are nullified. Because they violate the Second Amendment.
Precisely.
No, they can’t nullify them, but they can forbid their employees from helping to enforce them. As I read this decision, the problem was that the law said the federal laws were invalid, and the judge ruled that inseperable. If they’d simply forbidden any state employees from helping to enforce federal firearms laws, it might have gone through.
If that’s the case, it looks like a relatively simple rewrite. In the alternative, it’s a simple enough rewrite that the fact the judge ruled it inseperable might indicate enough hostility to it that he’d find some other excuse next time around.
Not a lawyer, of course, so take my comments for the very little they’re worth 😉
Some States already don’t cooperate on immigration enforcement task forces.
I think the problem is the fines and the private cause of action.
I think the state could rewrite the law to just forbid cooperation with Federal gun law enforcment
So why can states legalize drugs that are federally illegal?
They can’t make drugs legal under federal law, only under State law which is what the States who decriminalize Cannabis did. The Feds can still prosecute any violation of Federal laws in those States but generally the Feds have taken a hands off approach under Admin of both political parties.
This is a correct ruling. The proper course of action is to get the Federal government to respect the 2A, and that starts in November.
god help the usa
the government tries to control the good people
not the evil ones
but the good ones
That is because it is easier to control good people.
yup
until it isnt
Ironically, good people don’t need controlling.
“It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
Sheriff Bell
No Country For Old Men
Cormac McCarthy
Missouri: We gonna pass a law in support of upholding a certain part of the supreme law of the land.
Courts: The supremacy clause allows federal law to infringe on a certain part of the supreme law of the land, so stfu.
Missouri: Feds can’t use the supremacy clause within the supreme law of the land to invalidate the states up holding the supreme law of the land.
Courts: We said what we said.
Missouri: Molon Labe, MFer.
Federal Court: heard that bluff before. But I’ll arrest you for saying it.
balderdash n poppycock
The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that harm the constitution and the bill of rights. Since powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, the states can determine for themselves if a federal law does just that.
The Supremacy Clause does not mean that federal laws are supreme in and of themselves. It means federal laws are supreme when they are in pursuance of upholding the constitution and our freedoms. Federal firearm laws are not made in pursuance with upholding the second amendment; they are the opposite, meant to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
That is why the Tenth Amendment is so important: it prevents (in theory) the federal government from claiming that regulating arms is perfectly okay because they are not infringing your second amendment right to keep and bear arms. But too bad if you can’t buy one because federal laws restricting their sales are supreme.
““A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself,” stated 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton.”
Madison and Jefferson stated otherwise.
“Under Missouri law, federal laws deemed infringements were ‘invalid’ in Missouri and ‘shall not be recognized by this state’ and ‘shall be specifically rejected by this state.’
Oh, so like sanctuary city laws that flaunt federal immigration laws and other ‘Rat Party stuff like that?
Federal statutes cannot violate the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment’s history suggests it protected the right of the people to possess those small arms commonly used by soldiers: in today’s terms that would include a fully automatic AR style rifle and a pistol. The Constitution requires states to have a republican form of government. We know from the Declaration that a republican government respects unalienable right. We know from the Bill of Rights that one such unalienable right is the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, no American government can justly ban military-style arms from being owned by law abiding citizens.
The 8th Circuit’s opinion is overly pedantic. A simple rewrite that (i) prohibits any state officer from enforcing any federal law that has anything to do with restricting ownership of firearms and also (ii) prohibits state offices from interfering in any way with any valid exercise of federal power, is as unassailable as state laws that decriminalize marijuana or sanctuary city laws that prohibit local officials from rendering assistance to ICE but that leave those officials vulnerable for thwarting federal operations (like the judge in Massachusetts who knew that ICE was waiting at the courthouse door and so whisked a defendant out the back).
The supremacy clause applies only when the ;law is pursuant to the US Constitution. Given the 2nd amendment, no gun control statute on the federal level is pursuant and the court is not merely wrong, but dead wrong.