A federal appeals court has overturned Missouri’s “Second Amendment Protection Act,” a measure that was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Mike Parson back in 2021.

The law, introduced and passed in response to several anticipated bills that would be overreach on Second Amendment freedoms during the early days of the Biden administration, forbade police from enforcing federal gun laws that don’t have an equivalent state law. Law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws faced a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

At the time, Gov. Parson said the unique law “draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.”

On Monday, however, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year’s district court ruling and found that the Missouri law violated the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which states that federal law takes precedence over state laws.

“A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself,” 8th Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote in the ruling. “Missouri does not seriously contest these bedrock principles of our constitutional structure.”

Instead, according to the ruling, the state of Missouri used two different tactics in arguing the case. First, it argued that the federal government could not sue to enforce the supremacy clause because it lacks a cause of action. Second, attorneys for the state argued that the act is constitutional because the state may constitutionally withdraw the authority of state officers to enforce federal law.

“While there is no implied right of action under the Supremacy Clause, there is an equitable tradition of suits to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state actors,” the ruling stated. “That Missouri may lawfully withhold its assistance from federal law enforcement, however, does not mean that the State may do so by purporting to invalidate federal law.”

The ruling concluded: “The court thus cannot give effect to any provision of the Act without enforcing Missouri’s attempt to invalidate federal law. Accordingly, the district court’s order enjoining state officials from implementing and enforcing the Act was proper. The judgement of the district court is affirmed.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a stalwart Second Amendment supporter, said in a statement that he is reviewing the decision.

“I will always fight for Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” Bailey added.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

37 COMMENTS

  1. And yet, sanctuary cities and states can prohibit LEOs from enforcing immigration law, or assisting ICE in doing so?
    What’s wrong with this picture?

    • The revolution requires inconsistent and unequal application of law.
      Your 5 year sentence is their no-cash bail.
      Your increased tax burden is their $80/day food allowance.
      Your self-defense is murder.
      Your opinion is hate-speech.
      Your home is their home if they want to take it and you’ll just have to find another one.

      Despite their claims of oppression leftists have been running this country for decades and this nonsensical division is necessary for them to burn this entire structure they deem as evil (even though it’s theirs) down to the ground and not replace it with anything but neo-feudalism and a never ending oppressor/oppressed conflict to distract the useless eaters from ever turning on the king.

      We’re living in last days of civilization and the first days of the new stone age and because we all want to be helpful, nice, kind and liked we’ll let it happen.

    • i believe the distinction is one of policy versus law. law was struck down. law enforcement still has discretion.

  3. Not sure I understand court’s arguments here. Are they saying the state government cannot tell LEOs to stand down in assisting the feds? I would think the state gov. has clear and unambiguous authority to tell state LEOs to just stand down, but wouldn’t it depend on state law what authority the state has over the locals? I’m not seeing how that’s a federal issue.

    Are they saying state governments are obligated to assist feds in enforcing federal law? That doesn’t seem defensible. I could see an argument for state officials not being allowed to actively oppose the feds. Is the threat of penalties against local LEOs who assist the feds then seen as active opposition? Seems like barring them from helping isn’t the same as compelling them to oppose though.

    • “Are they saying the state government cannot tell LEOs to stand down in assisting the feds?”

      No.

      They are saying the sate can’t invalidate federal law by creating laws.

      A state can refuse to enforce any part of federal law, can refuse to assist enforcement of federal law, can refuse to devote resources or manpower to enforcement of federal law. They just can’t try to invalidate federal law or enforcement of federal law in the state by the federal government.

      yes, the state can tell law enforcement in the state to stand down and not assist or enforce federal law or assist the federal government in enforcement of federal law.

      • “yes, the state can tell law enforcement in the state to stand down and not assist or enforce federal law or assist the federal government in enforcement of federal law.”

        Unless the feds deputize state/local LEOs?

          • any non-federal employed citizen can refuse to assist federal law enforcement, or refuse to be deputized by federal law enforcement, or any other federal agency or person even the POTUS.

        • no, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t.

          even Madison said a state can’t invalidate federal law (basically preemptively like Missouri did with their act), which is why the wording was carefully chosen for the Virginia resolution and the concept of ‘interposing’ used, to make it ‘after the fact’ and not ‘preemptive’.

      • Thanks, I guess I need to actually read the law and the opinion. As long as the law doesn’t mandate that state or local officials interfere with enforcement of federal law by federal LEOs, I am not sure how that is invalidating federal law? I didn’t think the law made it illegal for federal LEOs to operate in the state, seemed like it only applied to state LEOs (again, how state LE resources are used in that state would seem to me to not be a federal issue).

      • So, .40 cal,

        What, EXACTLY, does the law in question do OTHER THAN requiring state resources/LEOs to “stand down”?? HOW, exactly, is the law violative of the Constitution? Just askin’, for a friend.

        • basically, it wasn’t so much what it did but more how it was written to be enacted to do it.

          the way it was written was to enact it in such a manner as to attempt to invalidate federal law rather than just not assist federal law. enforcement.

            • Thanks, perfect. They made a political statement in the legislation instead of purely focusing on outcome. I get how that gave the federal courts a hook here, and they should re-write it. I’m sure the feds will still challenge a revised law, but at least they could craft something that would likely stand up before the SCOTUS if it got that far, I can see how what they have now wouldn’t.

  4. This is a misuse and Sheri’s use of the Supremacy Clause incongruent with the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is why Missouri can Nullify the Fed Cout’s decision as unconstitutional. Area Rights.

  5. Missouri can simply deny any resources to assist any gun grabbers jack boots… just ask ICE about the sanctuary laws, in states… If sanctuary laws are legal then so is Missouri’s second amendment sanctuary law..

    • Trigger plugs have absolutely nothing to do with this. The jerkoff aimed a gun at another human being and pulled the trigger.

      He violated all four rules in one spectacular display of brazen stupidity.

      • Wrong horsebreath…If anyone especially an instructor is going to be doing any what-if with a firearm then they verify all angles are safe which is contrary to the incompetent pencildicks on this forum who barked at triggers plugs. A simple verify safe plug in this case would have saved a life. Obviously a knucklehead like you and so many others on this forum do not know when to stfu and listen up.

        • Seems stupid to use a real weapon for purposes of this kind of exercise in the first place, approaching Alec Baldwin level of window-licking.

    • Dear Debbie Dimwit,

      You have LONG proven that you are stupid, incapable of either analysis or staying on topic, and obsessed with one NARROW aspect of weapons control (which is, historically, you absolute MORON about CONTROL, not always (or even mostly) about race), so . . . why do you feel an compulsion to prove your stupidity and flog that expired equine in public???? WE “GET IT” THAT YOU THINK GUN CONTROL IS ‘RACIST’. You are wrong, and I’ve explained to you why, several times . . . but you do you. That you can’t see “the bigger picture” is very much on brand for you, but . . . do you HONESTLY think that your consistent, half-witted screeching is going to convince those of us who have actually THOUGHT about the issue??? That’s ADORBS!!!! Just give it a frickin’ rest, Debbie Dimwit. We’ll make up our OWN minds about what Kommie-la and Tampon Tim’s gun control push is all about, thanks.

      • …. resident dumfuks, incompetent pencildiks, knuckleheads, horsebreath – geez, the resident beyotch is expanding her vocabulary again ??

  8. Those judges need to reread the clause. The clause specifies laws made “in pursuance thereof” referring earlier to the Constitution. Federal laws are ONLY supreme if they are CONSTITUTIONAL, federal gun laws are not as they violate 2A.
    It’s disturbing that federal judges misinterpret the Supremacy Clause as a free ticket to do whatever it wants. In a working system they would be impeached for upholding abuse of power and failing to enforce and protect the Constitution.
    Missouri’s leaders should just imitate Andrew Jackson and ignore the ruling. Somebody here is enforcing and protecting the Constitution, and it’s not the clowns on the 8th Circuit.

  9. Does the ‘Supremacy Clause’ apply to executive orders? IMO there is a chasm between congressional bills that are signed into law vs an exec. order. Wonder if the Mo. law was written poorly.

  12. And this from the same folks that don’t seem to care if states thumb their noses at drug laws with impunity.
    If there weren’t double standards, they would have no standard at all.

Comments are closed.