{"id":2338599,"date":"2024-09-09T08:58:57","date_gmt":"2024-09-09T12:58:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-tries-to-force-states-to-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws\/"},"modified":"2024-09-09T09:07:43","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T13:07:43","slug":"court-tries-to-force-states-to-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-tries-to-force-states-to-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Tries To Force States To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fcourt-tries-to-force-states-to-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2338599&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The text \u2062discusses Kamala\u200d Harris&#8217;s strong anti-gun stance,\u200c including \u200dher \u200dsupport for\u200c gun confiscation and a ban on semi-automatic firearms. This has sparked \u200ca contentious debate regarding states&#8217; authority to challenge federal \u200dlaws \u200cdeemed unconstitutional. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-unless-congress-clears-up-the-voting-rights-act-only-the-ag-can-enforce-section-2\/\" title=\"Court: Unless Congress Clears Up The Voting Rights Act, Only The AG Can Enforce Section 2\">federal appellate court recently \u200cupheld<\/a> an injunction against Missouri&#8217;s Second Amendment Preservation Act\u2064 (SAPA), \u2063which aimed to restrict state cooperation with federal gun law enforcement. The SAPA aimed to protect residents from future federal gun control measures and allowed citizens to\u200b sue state officials violating the \u2064law. \u200cCritics argue that the law could hinder crime-fighting efforts,\u2062 but supporters contend it does not impede federal enforcement against \u2063citizens. The article emphasizes\u200d that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal laws, pointing out judicial biases against the Second Amendment in recent rulings. The piece highlights the ongoing \u200cstruggle between state sovereignty and federal \u2064authority \u2063in gun law enforcement, underscoring the importance of preserving constitutional rights.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Kamala Harris&rsquo; vehement anti-gun views, which include support for&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/crimeresearch.org\/2024\/07\/remembering-kamala-harris-supporting-a-mandatory-buyback-program-for-guns-that-she-wants-banned\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">gun confiscation<\/a>&nbsp;and a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/116th-congress\/senate-bill\/66\/cosponsors\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ban on semi-automatic firearms<\/a>, have reinvigorated a serious and needed debate about the authority states have to check unconstitutional federal laws. Frustratingly, a panel of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/celeb-backed-rodney-reed-case-victims-sister-says-reed-a-serial-rapist-and-murderer-new-testimony-not-credible\/\" title=\"Celeb-Backed Rodney Reed Case: Victim\u2019s Sister Says Reed \u2018A Serial Rapist And Murderer,\u2019 New Testimony Not Credible\u00a0\">federal appellate judges<\/a> just neutered much of that ability in a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/24\/08\/231457P.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">unanimous ruling<\/a>&nbsp;to uphold a lower court injunction against a pro-gun Missouri law &mdash; and in the process they ignored substance, precedent, and common sense. The judges got it wrong, and our federal system of checks and balances will pay the price if this decision is not overturned.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Missouri was ahead of the pack when their legislature passed the <a href=\"https:\/\/house.mo.gov\/billtracking\/bills211\/sumpdf\/HB0085T.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Second Amendment Preservation Act<\/a> (SAPA) in 2021 and declared many federal gun laws and executive actions unconstitutional. In turn, the new law wholly restricted state authorities from aiding federal officials in the enforcement of these gun laws. The legislation also applied to any future infringements by federal officials on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thereby casting a wide shield against the future gun-grabbers who could one day occupy Capitol Hill or the White House.<\/p>\n<p>The well-intentioned SAPA greatly restricted the state&rsquo;s cooperation with agencies such as the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which is actively building a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gunowners.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/GOA-ATFs-Illegal-Gun-Owner-Registry.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">national gun registry<\/a>, and it made clear state authorities may not offer resources including technology, housing, transportation, and other facilities to federal officials while engaged in the enforcement of federal gun laws. Citizens were provided a private right of action to sue state actors who violated the law, and the penalties were stiff.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The anti-gun groups and gun-grabbing politicians were quick to offer weak arguments against the law, chief among them that it would be harder for police to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetrace.org\/2021\/08\/missouri-second-amendment-sanctuary-law-gun-crime\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">fight crime<\/a>. Despite the emotionally charged allegations by opponents of SAPA, nothing in the law bars or impedes federal authorities from continuing to enforce federal law within Missouri. Rather, it merely makes crystal clear that the state will not provide any resources or assistance in the investigation or prosecution of its citizens via laws it views as clearly unconstitutional. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Many Americans have heard of this concept before, most frequently when applied by states and localities who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit upheld a controversial California state law structured quite similarly to SAPA. California&rsquo;s SB 54 prohibits state and local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials in identifying, detaining, and questioning persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit <a href=\"https:\/\/cases.justia.com\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca9\/18-16496\/18-16496-2019-04-18.pdf?ts=1555606962\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">held<\/a> that because, like SAPA, the state law &ldquo;does not regulate federal operations at all,&rdquo; it &ldquo;does not constitute obstacle preemption&rdquo; of federal law. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>States Enforcing Federal Law<\/h2>\n<p>Frustratingly, both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit saw things differently, and by enjoining Missouri&rsquo;s law, have forced the state to use resources and its employees to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/missouri-promises-to-fight-tooth-and-nail-to-defend-gun-rights-after-biden-admin-threats\/\" title=\"Missouri Promises To \u2018Fight Tooth And Nail\u2019 To Defend Gun Rights After Biden Admin Threats\">enforce federal gun laws<\/a>. That could include materially supporting the compilation of gun owner records for the ATF&rsquo;s gun registry, the enforcement of President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/internal-atf-docs-show-zero-tolerance-guidelines-shutting-down-gun-stores\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Joe Biden&rsquo;s &ldquo;zero tolerance&rdquo; policy<\/a> against Missouri gun dealers, or helping a hypothetical Kamala Harris administration in confiscating AR-15s under a future &ldquo;assault weapons&rdquo; ban.<\/p>\n<p>The precedent is clear, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to compel a state to enforce a federal law. So, what&rsquo;s the difference here?&nbsp;Sadly, all too many federal judges stubbornly believe the Second Amendment is a second-class right. In the case of the recent ruling against SAPA, the Eighth Circuit simply invoked the Constitution&rsquo;s supremacy clause, and gave the back of its judicial hand to Missouri and every other state that might question the constitutionality of a federal law &mdash; at least a federal gun law.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Federal System<\/h2>\n<p>The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns &mdash; federal and state &mdash; is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Missouri&rsquo;s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the &ldquo;<a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/501\/452\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">promise of liberty<\/a>&rdquo; and fight to preserve the critical &ldquo;<a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/501\/452\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">tension between federal and state power<\/a>.&rdquo; It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively <a href=\"https:\/\/ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/24\/08\/231457P.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">supported SAPA<\/a> and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      John Velleco is the executive vice president of Gun Owners of America, a &ldquo;no-compromise&rdquo; grassroots lobbying organization with more than 2 million members nationwide.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kamala Harris&#8217; strong opposition to guns, which encompasses support for gun confiscation and a ban on semi-automatic weapons, has sparked an important discussion regarding the power of states to challenge unconstitutional federal laws. Unfortunately, a group of federal appellate judges recently undermined this ability with a unanimous decision that upheld a lower court&#8217;s injunction against Missouri&#8217;s pro-gun law, disregarding substance, precedent, and common sense. This ruling is misguided and could have serious implications for our system of checks and balances if it remains in place.<\/p>\n<p>In 2021, Missouri took the lead by passing the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which declared many federal gun laws and executive actions unconstitutional. The law prohibited state authorities from assisting federal officials in enforcing these laws and extended its protections against any future infringements on citizens&#8217; rights to bear arms.<\/p>\n<p>SAPA significantly limited state cooperation with agencies like the FBI and ATF\u2014both involved in creating a national gun registry\u2014and explicitly stated that state resources could not be used to support federal enforcement of what they deemed unconstitutional laws. It also allowed citizens to sue state actors who violated this law with severe penalties.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of SAPA quickly presented weak arguments against it, claiming it would hinder police efforts to combat crime. However, nothing in SAPA prevents federal authorities from enforcing their laws within Missouri; it simply clarifies that the state will not assist in investigating or prosecuting its residents under those laws.<\/p>\n<p>Many Americans are familiar with similar concepts when states refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For instance, in 2019 the Ninth Circuit upheld California\u2019s SB 54 law that barred local law enforcement from aiding immigration officials\u2014a ruling based on similar reasoning as SAPA.<\/p>\n<p>Regrettably, both the District Court and Eighth Circuit interpreted things differently by blocking Missouri\u2019s law; thus compelling the state to allocate resources towards enforcing federal gun regulations\u2014potentially aiding efforts like compiling records for ATF\u2019s registry or supporting future confiscation policies under administrations like Harris&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>The precedent is clear: no authority exists for the federal government to force states into enforcing its laws. Yet many judges seem reluctant to treat Second Amendment rights equally compared to others. In their recent ruling against SAPA, the Eighth Circuit invoked constitutional supremacy while dismissing concerns from Missouri or any other questioning states regarding federally imposed gun regulations.<\/p>\n<p>The framers understood that certain rights would always be at risk; hence they established a Constitution designed with checks between branches as well as between levels of government\u2014creating safeguards against potential overreach.<\/p>\n<p>While discussions about separation of powers often focus on national governance structures alone, it&#8217;s crucial not to overlook how states can protect their citizens when faced with violations by Washington D.C.\u2014which is exactly what Missouri aimed for through SAPA.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation was an assertive response amid ongoing debates about national gun control measures while anticipating potential threats posed by future administrations such as Harris&#8217;. Leaders like former Attorney General Eric Schmitt made clear their commitment toward safeguarding liberty while maintaining essential tensions between different governmental powers\u2014a necessary bulwark against tyranny recognized previously by Supreme Court rulings.<\/p>\n<p>Organizations such as Gun Owners of America have strongly backed SAPA urging continued resistance towards this unfavorable judicial decision through appeals at higher courts including potentially seeking review from U.S Supreme Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1969,"featured_media":2338600,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/5955436482_7b34cb23d6_o-scaled-e1724881532276.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[4733,33907,32869,40445,5803],"class_list":["post-2338599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-court","tag-gun-laws","tag-legal-battle","tag-states-rights","tag-unconstitutional"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/5955436482_7b34cb23d6_o-scaled-e1724881532276.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2338599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1969"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2338599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2338599\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2338600"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2338599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2338599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2338599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}