This is interesting:
Like it’s predecessor, SB613, Bill SB367 and it’s companion, House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans. Originally authored in 2014, a former version of the bill was also passed, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.
The bill prohibits Missouri agencies from cooperating in the enforcement of those laws. It's exactly what states like California are doing regarding immigration enforcement, which is a little shadenfreudalistic. It goes further, though, into territory that seems perhaps a legal bridge too far:
All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
Now I am not a lawyer, so don't know how this would play out regarding, say, NFA tax stamps for automatic weapons built and sold within the state. Interesting times, as the provinces increasingly are rejecting the authority of the Capital.
7 comments:
NFA in state would probably work out about as well as the Kansas guy who did the same with a silencer after they passed their law and got Effed in the A by the feds. AKA not well.
Then-Gov. Palin signed a nearly identical law in her final months in office in 2009, here in Alaska. IIRC, Montana did the same at about the same time. BATFEIEIO sent letters to the effect that they didn't care what the States did; federal law would still apply - and would be enforced as strictly as possible.
I'm encouraged by the message. We'll see if it works out in real life.
I imagine if enough states did this, BAT-FML would get spread pretty thin.
This law, along with sanctuary laws on Marijuana and Immigration, are setting the stage for a showdown between the states and the Feds. Thus far, the Feds are avoiding the entire issue by not pushing any of these laws to SCOTUS, partly IMO because neither side is certain of victory. It will eventually have to be addressed.
The Liberals are in a no win situation- If SCOTUS upholds state nullification (or if you prefer, sanctuary) laws, then passing a new AWB will be meaningless. If SCOTUS strikes it down, then illegals and legalized marijuana are gone.
Nullification of gun laws and marijuana laws (at least those that I am aware of) is soft nullification whereby states refuse to cooperate. Probably legal under the non-commandeering doctrine articulated in Prinz.
On the other hand, some of the stuff that CA has done re immigration appears to be hard nullification-actually interfering with Federal enforcement. Specifically the enactment of criminal penalties for employers who co-operate with ICE. This is another thing entirely and crosses the line into insurrection.
On his death bed, Jackson said that his great regret in life was not hanging Calhoun for this. Trump needs to act to avoid having this regret.
My understanding is that this is different than what Kansas did with firearms and is more along the lines of sanctuary cities for immigration; they aren't nullifying the law but are saying that they refuse to help enforce the laws.
Don't forget that the Feds don't have all that many officers for the size of the country and that in any of their operations, most of the manpower is local officers.
Don't forget that the reason that the Bundy stand-off ended when it did was that the Clark County Sheriff stopped supporting the operation and the various Federal agencies didn't have enough manpower left to keep it going.
But will it hold up in a federal court?
Yes. The bill’s main provision calling on the entire state to cease enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 stipulates that the feds simply cannot require a state to help them violate your Constitutional rights, and allows states the power to refuse to enforce such federal laws it deems unconstitutional.
Post a Comment