Missouri law banning enforcement of new federal gun laws thrown out by Obama-appointed district judge

48
1030

A U.S. District judge in Missouri has ruled that a 2021 state law that bans police from enforcing new federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void.

The ruling by Judge Brian Wimes could have a far-reaching effect in Alaska, which also has a law that prohibits the enforcement of new federal gun laws, as well as other Republican-led states that have passed similar laws.

In 2013, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell signed House Bill 69 into law. The law declares guns and ammunition possessed by Alaskans are exempt from all new federal gun laws. It also subjects federal agents to felony charges if they try to enforce future bans on guns or ammunition, or if they try to force the federal registration of firearms on Alaskans. That law has not been tested in court.

Wimes, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA), violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

“SAPA’s practical effects are counterintuitive to its stated purpose,” Wimes wrote. “While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the Federal Government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens within the limits of the Constitution.”

“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.

Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement said he will appeal the ruling.

“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”

Times’ ruling is similar to one from an Oregon appeals court last month, an indication that the judicial branch is taking a hard line against the sovereignty laws of states.

The Tuesday court opinion, in its entirety:

48 COMMENTS

      • The Supreme Court already ruled on this in DC v Heller.

        “Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”

      • The ‘militia’ is every adult able to bear arms, in a time of crisis. Read your history.

        • Well, we’re not in a time of military crisis now, so so much for your current gun rights.

          • Militia is still there, whether the crisis is or not. Maybe you should just stay on your island if you are scared of armed citizens.

      • If liberals like you want a militia to stop you from coming after our guns, I guess we will have to start forming them then. Reap what you sow.

        • I never said that I didn’t have guns, or that I was against the Second Amendment.

          What I am against is: 1) gun worship and gun culture, 2) the lack of basic control and safety measures for them such as we have for automobiles, 3) unlicensed concealed carry where far too many people are carrying that shouldn’t be, 4) the glorification of guns, 5) the gun industry marketing them in a manner that instills a sense of Rambo-like machismo in people, especially men, 6) the NRA and their despicable politicization of gun rights that fly in the face of common sense, evidence, and reason, 7) the use of guns as political and religious symbols intended to offend, inflame, and intimidate, 8) people who carry, hankering for someone to Make Their Day, 9) excessively-paranoid people who have been convinced that a gun is the key to their security, and 10) the sum total of all of the above that results in massacres such as Sandy Hook, MSD, Virginia Tech, Vegas, and scores of other horrific shootings.

          I own guns. I shoot guns. Control them. Regulate me.

          • Yup.
            ‘I can have them but no one else.’

            Good philosophy dog. It’s just not an American philosophy.

      • Oh Fokner still trying to cherry pick the Constitution to meet your argument. Why don’t you read the part that says ” shall not be infringed”.

  1. Not only does the 2nd amendment establish and protect the rights of gun owners, it is intended to stop government from initiating violence toward armed citizens. The Founders did not want a “King George” armaments collection type event happening in the United States. This is just another incident where the courts are legislating from the bench.

  2. Sounds like a case could be made that this same legal theory vitiates all state and local sanctuary for illegals laws.

    • Blah blah blah. Enough with all of this. Just come and take them (try) and we’ll end this debate once and for all.

    • And we could get rid of all the pothead shops polluting Anchorage as a bonus. After all, its still a controlled substance.

      I’m all for states having more power- but typically leftists only support states rights when it benefits their pet causes.

      Pothead-in-chief Obama gave a wink and a nod when liberal western states started defying the feds on marijuana 10 years ago. Obama is 100% OK with the concept of ‘sanctuary cities’, and they screamed bloody murder then sued when Trump threatened to cut off a portion of their law enforcement funding after they refused to enforce the law.

      On the other hand, Obama’s DOJ cracked down hard on any state that tried to enforce their open borders and detain illegal people (Arizona) or ignore federal gun laws (Idaho), even to the point of prosecuting local sheriffs. Ever since Row v Wade was thrown out, individual states have been making their own decisions about the legality of abortion. Our own fake Alaskan, Sen. Murkowski, can’t wait to re-impose federal control over the conservative states.

      I’m willing to grant blue states their marijuana and sanctuary cities if they were willing to reciprocate on guns in red states – but we have seen ample evidence that they are not. So why give them an inch?

  3. Blah blah blah. Enough with all of this. Just come and take them (try) and we’ll end this debate once and for all.

    • How it ends is with you looking like Swiss cheese, your home in ruins, and the imperial federal government taking everything your family owns.

      That’s the most positive outcome.

      If you’re “lucky” you trigger a civil uprising which ends the same way for a lot more people. Maybe a full blown civil war.

      The difference between our revolution vs whatever you think will happen in your head is night and day. The colonials were motivated, had been preparing, and a clearly defined goal.

      Go ahead and try a last man on Earth stand. You’ll end up like Randy Weaver.

      • Really MA? Once again you roll over for what you perceive as the powers that be. The ‘Colonials’ took on the best military in the world, at the time and they won, remember? Kinda how we got here. And yes, they were motivated. Motivated by excessive taxes, lack of representation at the state/federal level, laws targeting our population, etc. Sound familiar? If an uprising were to start, it would be bloody, but that’s why it’s called war. Do you not think we’re ‘motivated’? Just because you’ve already surrendered before the fight does not mean the rest of us have. And as to being outgunned, in many ways I’m better equipped now than I was as an infantryman. I do not want a war or any type of armed conflict, but, unfortunately there are times in human history where there just is no choice but to fight or drop to your knees. I know what you’ll do if that time comes but I’ll choose to fight.

  4. All it takes is States to not provide man power. The States providing resources to the feds, is voluntary. If enough States choose not to participate or provide resources, nothing DC can do about it.

  5. This nonsense just makes me angry. Stupid lefty “judge” ignoring the Constitution to boot-lick the dems/commies and enable the destruction of America. Wordy, illogical, unConstitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary. Shame. Yes, this one is going to SCOTUS.

  6. Try passing a State law that says you don’t need to pay Federal taxes and see what happens…

    Good luck.

  7. Article VI, Clause 2:

    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.

    Game. Set. Match. Suck it up.

    • The judges already do not follow the law. They lie and cheat just like your lefty friends.
      Game set and match

    • Ignore the illegal order of the judge to uphold the illegal laws of the Federal Government. Suck it up

    • Then why has every time someone attempted this dodge it falls on its face?

      Game. Set. Match.

    • Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

      This line means they are not bound by unconstitutional laws. So you just blew your own argument.

    • All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

      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.

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      That is Article 6, you forgot the first and third paragraphs. No clauses.

  8. Let Missouri law enforcement officials just ignore this radical leftist ruling, and follow the justified, and just, state law. SCREW THE FEDS, and the tyranny of Washingon DC! The US feral government has essentially no legitimacy any longer, is simply a lawless, rogue and totalitarian criminal enterprise, and it is far past time for the states and local governments to deal with it as such, meaning, ignore and defy its unconstitutional and tyrannical mandates, dictates and decrees.
    .
    The pushback has to come from somewhere, and it is long overdue.

  9. I’m assuming those states that refuse to participate in immigration law enforcement are also going to be thrown out

    • Maybe all of the states who disagree with the feds should not comply with them. Then maybe will all get thrown out or at the very least will get sanctioned. This is a New World and they want a New World order. Well, the New World order may look different than expected.

  10. The states are NOT subject to the Federal Government. The federal government was created to allow for COOPERATION between the states in areas of self defense and commerce. We were never meant to be subservient to the DC cesspool. The US Constitution is being ignored or subverted in attempts to make us subjects instead of citizens. And the judiciary has become the most egregious violator of the freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution.

  11. “SAPA’s practical effects are counterintuitive to its stated purpose,” Wimes wrote. “While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the Federal Government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens within the limits of the Constitution.”
    .
    There are in fact two justice systems in this country, and this proves it. He ignored this very premise in a previous case concerning mail in ballots. And, he stayed an execution despite the fact the condemned had exhausted all avenues of appeal. He also provided summary judgement against a school system whistleblower. His entire resume is a series of leftists actions that violate the above assertion.
    .
    Ignoring the law when he thinks it is OK to do it, but enforcing the strictest interpretation when it suits his needs.

  12. How about we start with all elected officials abandoning their armed guards. Let the security details go help the homeless and fill out paperwork for the illegals. No monies will be spent on private security either. If we can live peacefully without firearms, lead the way!

  13. This is bound for the supreme court, no doubt. In the meantime just declare the state a sanctuary state for firearms.

  14. In a limited sense, it is a correct decision by a judge, any judge, to respect precedent and the Supremacy clause.

    However…by no means does that mean that any non-Federal LEO is bound by anything to enforce ANY federal law whether it relates to firearms, drugs, fish/fur, etc.

    So essentially, pull state commissioned LEOs off Federal task forces and let those amateurs trip over their own feet. The federal officers and the state officers all understand how few local contacts Feds have and how diminished Federal LEO local knowledge would be.

    Also, no state is under any obligation to house Federally charged prisoners in state correctional facilities. It happens alot more than you may expect.

    So yeah, Feds enforce what they want within the latest definition of the Constitution, if they can. They can also transport and house their own prisoners and use their own communications system…if they get into trouble they can call 911 like anyone else.

    Basically, hang ’em out to dry.

Comments are closed.