Missouri Gun Law Block Remains in Effect, Supreme Court Rules.
The Supreme Court Rejects Missouri Law Restricting Collaboration with Federal Government on Gun Laws
The Supreme Court has made a significant decision regarding a controversial Missouri law that prohibits local police from working with the federal government to enforce gun laws. This ruling, issued on October 20th, is not the final word on the matter, as the case is still pending in lower courts and may return to the Supreme Court in the future.
Related Stories
- Second Amendment Advocates Must Show More Lives Are Saved by Guns, Says Firearms Expert – Published on 9/27/2023
- Massachusetts’s New Crackdown Bill Imposes ‘Unprecedented Gun Control’ – Published on 10/19/2023
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s ruling without providing an explanation. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito concurred with the order but emphasized that private citizens can still enforce Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, which declares certain gun regulations unconstitutional.
The Missouri law, also known as HB 85, was signed by Republican Governor Mike Parson in 2021. It imposes fines and prohibits local law enforcement from enforcing federal firearms laws that the state deems unconstitutional. This includes laws related to firearm registration, gun sales, and restrictions on gun ownership.
In February 2022, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Missouri to prevent the enforcement of the Second Amendment Preservation Act. The case reached U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes, who deemed the law unconstitutional due to its conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Missouri appealed the judge’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, but the request for a stay was denied on September 29th. The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reject Missouri’s emergency application.
In response, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar criticized the Missouri law as an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal statutes. She argued that the Supreme Court should not grant emergency relief to allow Missouri to resume implementing this “nullificationist scheme.”
Missouri, in its emergency application to the Supreme Court, argued that the federal government lacks legal standing to challenge the law. According to the state, the law can only be enforced against Missouri agencies and political subdivisions, not the federal government itself.
Justice Gorsuch, in a statement filed with Justice Thomas’s dissent, agreed with Missouri’s argument regarding private enforcement of the law. He emphasized that the district court’s injunction should not extend to private parties not involved in the case.
This ruling comes a year after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey downplayed the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that it was merely a procedural matter. He expressed confidence in defending Missourians’ Second Amendment rights at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment.
What are the arguments made by proponents and opponents of the Missouri law
The Supreme Court’s rejection of this law is based on the principle of federal supremacy. According to the Court, states cannot interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce federal laws. This is in line with long-standing legal precedent.
The case began when the United States government sued Missouri over the law, arguing that it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The clause states that federal law is the supreme law of the land and cannot be superseded by state laws. The government also argued that the law hindered its ability to effectively regulate firearms and prevent gun violence.
Proponents of the Missouri law argue that it is necessary to protect gun rights and prevent the federal government from overstepping its authority. They believe that states should have the power to nullify federal laws that they believe are unconstitutional.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the law undermines public safety and allows individuals to bypass important regulations. They believe that the regulation of firearms should be a federal matter in order to ensure consistency and prevent loopholes.
The Supreme Court’s decision is significant because it lays the groundwork for future cases addressing the balance of power between the federal government and states on issues related to gun control. It reaffirms the principle that federal laws take precedence over state laws.
However, it is important to note that this decision is not the final ruling on the matter. The case will continue to be litigated in lower courts, and it may eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling rejects the specific Missouri law in question, it does not preclude the possibility of other states enacting similar laws in the future. The Court’s decision highlights the complex and ongoing debate surrounding gun control and the division of power between the federal government and states.
In the coming months and years, it will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds and whether other states will attempt to challenge federal gun laws. Regardless of the outcome, the debate over the regulation of firearms in the United States is likely to persist.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
