US judge strikes down Missouri gun law as unconstitutional

[bwframe]

US judge strikes down Missouri gun law as unconstitutional

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled the 2021 law is preempted by the federal government under the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[Dosproduction]

Just saw this. What kind of twisted logic is it that the Feds think that they supersede the states because of the constitution, but infringing on gun rights is fine.

 

[bwframe]

Missouri gun law ruled unconstitutional

A federal judge struck down a Missouri law that blocked state and local officials from enforcing federal gun laws as unconstitutional this week. Judge Brian Wimes, who was nominated by former Presi…

thehill.com

 

[HoughMade]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

 

[bwframe]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

As always, thank you for your professional input!

I think you should send them this info, with a bill for the legal advice.


.

 

[Denny347]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

 

[bwframe]

 

[DadSmith]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

Does Article VI declare that all federal laws are the supreme law of the land?
Or the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land?

Obviously not all federal law is constitutional.

 

[jamil]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

If they made a law invalidating federal authority on it why wouldn’t they invalidate the court ruling? I mean, if yer gonna go for nullification, go for it or stay home.

 

[tim87tr]

Seems to me that all Missouri had to do was state that state law enforcement is not allowed to enforce federal firearms laws, or even certain federal firearms laws.

It didn't do that. The law purports to declare certain a federal laws unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, then goes on to state that state law enforcement cannot enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional.

States have no authority to declare federal law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when they tied the ban on law enforcement of federal laws to the invalid (and illegal) declaration of unconstitutionality, they doomed the law.

The end they wanted could have been achieved had the law been written to achieve that end rather than for grandstanding. States do not have to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. If that's what you want, say that and only that.

[ETA] There is room to argue about whether the declaration of unconstitutionality is "severable", that is, whether the part that violates the Supremacy Clause can be struck down leaving the ban on enforcing federal law intact, but it seems pretty interconnected. When that is the case, it's hard to treat the parts separately.

Yes, I read the decision.

I agree with this. What they tried to do is pass a preemptive gun law to block future Federal overreach but they let Politics get in the way, as James stated.

 

[Brian's Surplus]

The 10th amendment seems pretty clear to me. I feel like the original intent of the 10th amendment would prohibit around 90% of what the federal government does.

 

[DadSmith]

The 10th amendment seems pretty clear to me. I feel like the original intent of the 10th amendment would prohibit around 90% of what the federal government does.

The 2nd Amendment prohibited the federal government from infringing on the ownership of arms.
Yet they have been doing it for a long time.

 

[Ark]

Now do trans and illegal "sanctuary" states that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities or warrants from other states.

 

[DadSmith]

Missouri Gun Law Block Remains in Effect, Supreme Court Rules.

The Supreme Court declined to revive a Missouri law barring local police from collaborating with the federal government to enforce gun laws. The court's order in Missouri v. United States (court file

www.conservativenewsdaily.net