Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ revival bid rejected by Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Missouri Law Restricting Enforcement of Federal Gun Laws
The Supreme Court has issued an order that puts a Missouri law on hold, preventing police from enforcing federal gun laws in the state. This decision comes after a district judge ruled the law unconstitutional in response to a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration. However, the judge allowed the law to remain in effect while the state appeals the decision. A federal appeals court later blocked enforcement of the law.
The law in question, known as the ”Second Amendment Preservation Act,” imposes a fine of $50,000 on officers who knowingly enforce federal gun laws that conflict with the state’s own restrictions. These federal laws include registration and tracking requirements, as well as the possession of firearms by certain domestic violence offenders.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the Supreme Court to side with Missouri in the order issued on Friday. This temporary defeat for Missouri means that the law will not be enforced while the litigation continues in lower courts. However, there is a possibility that the case could eventually return to the Supreme Court for a full argument on its merits.
Implications for Second Amendment Cases
Justice Thomas, who authored the 2022 high court decision that overturned New York’s concealed carry permit regime, has set a precedent for examining Second Amendment cases. This precedent requires the government to demonstrate that a restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms laws. Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have expressed opposition to Thomas’s majority opinion, and lower courts are still grappling with how to interpret this new precedent.
In November, the Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the constitutionality of barring individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. This case will shed further light on the rights of domestic violence offenders to own firearms.
The Washington Examiner has reached out to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office for comment on the Supreme Court’s order.
How does the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) seek to nullify federal gun laws?
Ct judge in Missouri ruled the law unconstitutional, and the state’s attorney general appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The order issued by the Supreme Court is a temporary measure while the case proceeds through the legal system.
The Missouri law in question, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), was passed by the state legislature in June. It seeks to nullify federal laws that the state deems to infringe on the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms. Under SAPA, local police departments and their officers can face civil penalties if they enforce federal gun laws.
The law is seen by supporters as a way to protect the constitutional rights of Missourians and to push back against what they perceive as federal overreach. However, critics argue that SAPA violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict.
The district judge who struck down the law, Brian Wimes, found that SAPA conflicts with the Supremacy Clause and unlawfully burdens federal officials in carrying out their duties. He argued that the state cannot nullify federal laws and that only the courts have the authority to declare them unconstitutional.
Missouri’s attorney general, Eric Schmitt, filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the district court’s ruling. Schmitt argued that the lower court’s decision would create confusion among law enforcement officers and undermine the state’s ability to protect the Second Amendment rights of its residents.
In a brief order, the Supreme Court granted Schmitt’s request to temporarily block the enforcement of SAPA. The Court’s order does not reveal the reasoning behind its decision, and it is not a final ruling on the constitutionality of the law. The case will now proceed to the full appeals process, where the Court will eventually make a final determination.
This development highlights the ongoing debate between states’ rights and federal authority. It is not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws they deem unconstitutional or infringing on their sovereignty. Similar disputes have arisen in the past over issues such as immigration and environmental regulations.
This case, however, specifically focuses on the Second Amendment and the rights of individuals to own firearms. Gun control has been a highly contentious issue in the United States, with strong opinions on both sides. The outcome of this legal battle could have broader implications for gun laws and federal-state relations in the country.
While the Supreme Court’s temporary order has halted enforcement of SAPA, it is clear that this case will continue to be closely watched as it progresses through the legal system. The Court’s final ruling will provide clarity on the constitutionality of Missouri’s attempt to nullify federal gun laws and will shape the national conversation on Second Amendment rights.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Auto Amazon Links: Could not resolve the given unit type, . Please be sure to update the auto-insert definition if you have deleted the unit.