Posted on Mar 8, 2023
Missouri banned police from enforcing federal gun laws. A judge ruled that's unconstitutional
1.41K
40
9
11
11
0
A federal judge in Kansas City ruled that the Second Amendment Preservation Act in Missouri did not pass constitutional muster. The law allowed citizens to sue Missouri police if they believed their rights to guns were violated by the enforcement of federal regulations.
A federal judge struck down a controversial law Tuesday that would penalize Missouri police for enforcing federal gun laws.
U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) unconstitutional and said it violated the standard that federal law trumps state law.
The Missouri statute is an “unconstitutional (violation of) federal law and is designed to be just that,” Wimes wrote.
A federal judge struck down a controversial law Tuesday that would penalize Missouri police for enforcing federal gun laws.
U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) unconstitutional and said it violated the standard that federal law trumps state law.
The Missouri statute is an “unconstitutional (violation of) federal law and is designed to be just that,” Wimes wrote.
Missouri banned police from enforcing federal gun laws. A judge ruled that's unconstitutional
Posted from kcur.org
Firearms and Guns
Law
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
6
6
0
Chip, I'm going to toss the hand grenade. I do believe that federal law trumps state law, as it should. You can't have a patchwork of laws because one state doesn't agree with that the federal law is. So too is it for gun control laws. Just because one state wants to be a "2nd Amendment Sanctuary State", that doesn't mean you can ignore federal law. If federal law saying you can't own a machine gun unless you have a special license, then states can't say that you can own one without the license.
(BTW, the law didn't ENABLE people to sue law enforcement for the violation of their 2nd Amendment rights - you can do that anyways and if credible, there isn't any Qualified Immunity ... this made it EASIER to sue them for violations)
So, how is this different from federal laws regarding drugs and immigration (and a couple of other categories)? If the reasoning that the federal judge said it was unconstitutional is "it violated the standard that federal law trumps state law" why isn't it applied across the board?
Oregon started the "we won't do what the federal drug laws say" back in the 70s by making marijuana use legal and recently passed a law that decriminalizes all non-commercial possession of drugs that are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Seems very much an Apples to Apples comparison. So, why is it ok in one situation but not in another? Should a person's political ideology affect how we make and enforce the laws in this country?
(BTW, the law didn't ENABLE people to sue law enforcement for the violation of their 2nd Amendment rights - you can do that anyways and if credible, there isn't any Qualified Immunity ... this made it EASIER to sue them for violations)
So, how is this different from federal laws regarding drugs and immigration (and a couple of other categories)? If the reasoning that the federal judge said it was unconstitutional is "it violated the standard that federal law trumps state law" why isn't it applied across the board?
Oregon started the "we won't do what the federal drug laws say" back in the 70s by making marijuana use legal and recently passed a law that decriminalizes all non-commercial possession of drugs that are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Seems very much an Apples to Apples comparison. So, why is it ok in one situation but not in another? Should a person's political ideology affect how we make and enforce the laws in this country?
(6)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Of course one problem with this ruling is that the state law did NOT invalidate any federal laws. It simply said that state resources would not be used to enforce federal laws.
Contrary to the opinion of one judge, that position has been repeatedly upheld in federal courts (mostly by liberal judges agreeing that states can ignore federal immigration laws). In fact, several federal courts have ruled that states CANNOT enforce federal laws.
I have to wonder if liberal Judge Wimes would rule that states are required to enforce federal immigration laws and marijuana laws.
Contrary to the opinion of one judge, that position has been repeatedly upheld in federal courts (mostly by liberal judges agreeing that states can ignore federal immigration laws). In fact, several federal courts have ruled that states CANNOT enforce federal laws.
I have to wonder if liberal Judge Wimes would rule that states are required to enforce federal immigration laws and marijuana laws.
(4)
(0)
5
5
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google