Missouri Bill rejecting Federal gun control.

[LordsFire]

Missouri House passes ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’

A bill proponents said would create additional protections for the right to bear arms is headed to the upper chamber.

themissouritimes.com

https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0436I.htm

Missouri does not look to be messing around. This is a pretty epic case of throwing down the gauntlet, and I would not be remotely surprised if a dozen states quickly follow suit.

One particular County already acted pretty aggressively on this.

 

[Husky_Khan]

“House Bill 85 empowers criminals to extract a minimum $50,000 fine – with no upper limit – from local police departments merely for working with federal authorities to remove those lawbreakers from our streets. By defunding police to enrich criminals, House Republicans have failed in their duty to protect the people of this state.” - Minority Floor Leader Crystal Quade.

Defund the police?

Criminals suing police departments for civil rights violations?

Local law enforcement being prevented from enforcing federal laws?

Mmmmm so much delicious irony in these liberal tears.

 

[Abhorsen]

Any law that removes qualified immunity is a good law.

 

[Rocinante]

“House Bill 85 empowers criminals to extract a minimum $50,000 fine – with no upper limit – from local police departments merely for working with federal authorities to remove those lawbreakers from our streets. By defunding police to enrich criminals, House Republicans have failed in their duty to protect the people of this state.” - Minority Floor Leader Crystal Quade.

Defund the police?

Criminals suing police departments for civil rights violations?

Local law enforcement being prevented from enforcing federal laws?

Mmmmm so much delicious irony in these liberal tears.

They're doing what we campaigned on? Evil!

I'm not sure on all these details yet and I'm just shitposting there. So shitposting aside, I wonder how many states will follow in a ban on enforcing federal laws. This could get interesting. And I mean that in a "maybe violent" way

 

[S'task]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

These type of laws are on really shaky ground all told. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is pretty damn clear... the only thing that might give this cover is the fact that so many Gun Control laws should be help to be in violation of the 2nd amendment. But to be frank, on their face, they're likely unconstitutional.

That said, an unexplored area of this is Executive Orders. EOs are not, by definition, Laws, and the Supremacy Clause is... very silent on those. If Biden tries Gun Control by Executive Fiat, which he probably would have to do as I don't see the votes for any gun control in the Senate, this could lead to some interesting court cases.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Well to be fair so long as the weapons and ammo in question never cross state lines in theory the Feds don't have the jurisdiction that the interstate commerce clause gives them.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

If Missouri has the authority to declare that state law absolutely permits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, then California can equally declare that state law absolutely prohibits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, and can arrest anyone exercising carry rights under federal license.

This is a bad, bad can of worms to open.

 

[Planchar]

If Missouri has the authority to declare that state law absolutely permits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, then California can equally declare that state law absolutely prohibits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, and can arrest anyone exercising carry rights under federal license.

This is a bad, bad can of worms to open.

Yeah except for the fact that the 2nd amendment stands in the way of that declaration.

 

[strunkenwhite]

This looks to me like a full resurfacing of state nullification, rejecting the federal legislature that passed such laws, judiciary which upheld them, and executive which enforces them.

Nullification has never ended well, and the best path forward is for this to get laughed out of the room instead of taken seriously.

It would be different if Missouri was going the sanctuary-city route of refusing to cooperate with the feds while not defying their authority to do their own thing on their own time and dime.

 

[LordsFire]

If Missouri has the authority to declare that state law absolutely permits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, then California can equally declare that state law absolutely prohibits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, and can arrest anyone exercising carry rights under federal license.

This is a bad, bad can of worms to open.

Federal authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. This legislation specifically delineates that when Federal authority is used in violation and excess of the Constitution, it is unlawful and void.

If California tries to ban guns, that would also explicitly be in violation of the constitution, and similarly null and void.

Until such time as the Constituion is amended or repealed, which there is a legal process for, it is the highest law of the land. All other laws are subordinate to it. It is literally the foundation of our legal and governmental system.

If you want to switch to a 'whatever 51% of the population says goes' system, well, that's going to go very ugly places, most likely ultimately either civil war or anarchy, or civil war leading into anarchy.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Federal authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. This legislation specifically delineates that when Federal authority is used in violation and excess of the Constitution, it is unlawful and void.

If California tries to ban guns, that would also explicitly be in violation of the constitution, and similarly null and void.

Until such time as the Constituion is amended or repealed, which there is a legal process for, it is the highest law of the land. All other laws are subordinate to it. It is literally the foundation of our legal and governmental system.

If you want to switch to a 'whatever 51% of the population says goes' system, well, that's going to go very ugly places, most likely ultimately either civil war or anarchy, or civil war leading into anarchy.

Except that the right to own guns is only part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution proper, and by original interpretation the Bill of Rights only restricts the federal government, up until the Fourteenth Amendment which has been rather broadly over-applied. This is not merely an ivory tower hypothetical; it's the reason that several states historically had outright state religions, even though the Bill of Rights says otherwise -- the Bill of Rights only barred the *United States* as a federal whole from having a state religion.

Just to be explicit, I'm not saying California *should* do this, I'm saying that going heavy on states rights is a *very* dangerous can of worms.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution proper. Granted they're amendments but if amendments weren't part of the constitution, Trump would be Vice President right now and that does not appear to be the case unless his makeup skills are far better than I've been led to believe.

I'll agree the 14th is overly-broadly applied at times but not in this specific case. The line in question:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

That's not really that debatable or unclear. I mean I suppose you could argue that rights aren't privileges or immunities and therefore states can abrogate rights as long as they don't abrogate privileges but that's a heck of a hot take.

 

[Abhorsen]

Except that the right to own guns is only part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution proper, and by original interpretation the Bill of Rights only restricts the federal government, up until the Fourteenth Amendment which has been rather broadly over-applied.

There's a lot wrong with this statement.

First, the idea that there's a legal disctinction between amendments and the Constitution proper, other than amendments allowing to modify prior parts of the constitution.

Second, that the Fourteenth Amendment was over applied. It wasn't, the 'privileges and immunities' clause makes what it is trying to do pretty clear, up until the early supreme court didn't like that (but Thomas is trying to bring it back. Come on, Thomas!). So then later courts backdoored it in with a tortured 'incorporation idea', and with the 2nd and the rest of the 8th amendment, it's mostly gone. But the original ruling not incorporating the Bill of Rights was classic racism basically flouting the intent of the amendment.

 

[Floridaman]

This looks to me like a full resurfacing of state nullification, rejecting the federal legislature that passed such laws, judiciary which upheld them, and executive which enforces them.

Nullification has never ended well, and the best path forward is for this to get laughed out of the room instead of taken seriously.

It would be different if Missouri was going the sanctuary-city route of refusing to cooperate with the feds while not defying their authority to do their own thing on their own time and dime.

Nullification has been back for a long time. Sanctuary cities/states refuse to enforce certain federal laws, and a number went beyond that and impeded the enforcement so of course the idea is spreading. I would argue it is a good thing, power is way to centralized, let people run their own lives without interference from some place they have never been to, and likely will never go to.

 

[Rocinante]

Nullification has been back for a long time. Sanctuary cities/states refuse to enforce certain federal laws, and a number went beyond that and impeded the enforcement so of course the idea is spreading. I would argue it is a good thing, power is way to centralized, let people run their own lives without interference from some place they have never been to, and likely will never go to.

Let's also look at all the states marijuana has been legalized.

That's still a schedule 1 controlled substance. It's not legal, but states are doing it anyways.

It should be legal, but that's a story for another thread.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Nullification has been back for a long time. Sanctuary cities/states refuse to enforce certain federal laws, and a number went beyond that and impeded the enforcement so of course the idea is spreading. I would argue it is a good thing, power is way to centralized, let people run their own lives without interference from some place they have never been to, and likely will never go to.

I did not realize there was active impeding of enforcement rather than passive non-cooperation.

In any case, I disagree with Missouri going full-on "you have no power here!" where, in fact, they do. My impression was that local/state toleration of marijuana relied on some kind of absurd jurisdictional tapdance where they got a wink and nod from the feds. But I admit I didn't follow the issue very closely.

 

[Doomsought]

Sanctuary cities/states refuse to enforce certain federal laws, and a number went beyond that and impeded the enforcement so of course the idea is spreading.

Actually, this is completely different from sanctuary cities. What it does is provide additional means to enforce the federal constitution on a state level, and explicitly denies immunity to federal agents.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

To be fair Missouri very much has the right to tell the Feds it has no authority to enforce gun laws in Missouri so long as none of the weapons and ammo in question aren't crossing interstate lines.

 

[Scottty]

If Missouri has the authority to declare that state law absolutely permits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, then California can equally declare that state law absolutely prohibits private ownership of guns regardless of federal laws to the contrary, and can arrest anyone exercising carry rights under federal license.

This is a bad, bad can of worms to open.

That can is already open, and lying there empty. The worms are all on the loose in the desert and happily making spice.

Sanctuary cities have been mentioned by others - and if the Dems in California's big cities start making declarations like that, all the rural counties will give them the one finger salute.
"Only law enforcement people may carry, you say? Then in my capacity as sheriff I hereby deputize the entire male population of this town!"

Conversely - when the courts make pro-2A rulings, the police force in blue strongholds often just ignore that, and go right on treating Carrying While Black as a shoot-on-sight offence.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Other places may differ, but Oregon has been a "sanctuary state" since 1987 by a nearly unanimous vote of the state legislature, and it had nothing to do with being pro illegal immigration. Rather, the state decided that we were sick and tired of the federal immigration authorities offloading the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants onto the state by placing "detain until transfer" requests on anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant who was arrested, but intentionally leaving them in state custody for months on end.

There is no "active impeding" of federal immigration officers, they are simply not entitled to free assistance from state and local law enforcement.