Missouri Has Declared Federal Gun Laws Invalid

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007690138/can-missouri-declare-federal-gun-laws-invalid

by Black101 • 5 years ago

36 63 5 years ago

Mainly because Missouri's AG is running for Senate, and he needs better wingnut credentials to compete in the primary with Eric Greitens and Mark McCloskey.

Turing_Machine• 5 years ago

This is a statute passed by the Missouri House and Senate, and signed by the Governor. It wasn't an action by the Attorney General.

ProjectArcturis2• 5 years ago

But the AG gets to be the public face of defending it. It raises his profile at an important time. The whole thing was orchestrated by Schmitt's establishment-Republican allies in the MO House and Senate. They're afraid Greitens or McCloskey might win the primary, which would mean a Democrat might have a chance at that seat.

iaw• 5 years ago

Someone said to me the other day that they're going to pair gun rights with marijuana decriminalization. This appears to be the same playbook states used to legalize marijuana but for deadly weapons.

Causality1• 5 years ago

Interesting. They're basically using the sanctuary city playbook. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

throwaway0a5e• 5 years ago

Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook.

Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this.

Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.

laverya3• 5 years ago

That's because other states have already done this! [0] Though there's been a big push for such legislation over the past year.

Not mentioned in the article: what happened to Kansas's [1] attempt to bypass federal gun regulations. The people involved in that test case are still in prison.

0: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states...

1: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461

beerandt5• 5 years ago

It's a bit more complicated with guns, because businesses aren't going to usually break federal law to sell individuals firearms, since there's a legal way to do it.

Weed businesses have no choice but to break the law, since they have no way to comply with it, federally.

And private firearm sales between individuals weren't ever regulated so no real change there.

rdtwo• 5 years ago

I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights

treeman79• 5 years ago

Abortion isn’t mentioned In the constitution. Guns are.

underseacables3• 5 years ago

Any lawyers, or perhaps better legislative experts, that can tell us how the constitution plays here?

underseacables3• 5 years ago

Actually as I re-read this article a second time, it is really one sided in favor of Gun control. Is there a better article that at least tries to be impartial?

HenryKissinger• 5 years ago

I'm not a lawyer or a legislative expert, but the article answers the question.

The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause essentially says federal law is supreme over state law. And the preemption doctrine means that "valid federal law will always displace a state law, even a state constitutional provision that is inconsistent with that federal law," Vladeck says.

underseacables3• 5 years ago

“essentially says” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Thank you for pointing that out but im deeply suspicious of the article and bias. So I’m hoping there is someone outside of the article, perhaps with less conflict, to also weigh in.

mnouquet4• 5 years ago

So every pot smokers in the US is a criminal and all those condemned have been rightfully so ?

beerandt5• 5 years ago

The argument is that most gun laws aren't "valid federal law."

The constitution restricts the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms. It doesn't list it as an enumerated power of Congress, and the 2A only grants the power to regulate militias (and there's an argument that even the word "regulate" back then meant more to "supply/assist/resolve/provide-for" than it meant to "control").

There are some arguments re: taxation or commerce clause, but even when those clauses are used to justify un-enumerated federal laws, they don't over-ride an explicit amendment.

Exceptions that might be valid federal law fall under some other federal authority, like imports/exports, laws regulating the military, or laws that apply only to federal property, etc.

Black101• 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure that we already know that the constitution is meaningless as shown from the Snowden leaks... so the US Gov. will fight it if they think they can win.

thrill• 5 years ago

The federal courts have consistently found that states do not have the right to override federal law. States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate. The federal government certainly can make it difficult for state governments to meet their budget needs by withholding the passing to a state almost any federal monies they desire.

randyrand• 5 years ago

Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally.

It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.

sterlind2• 5 years ago

the legal fiction is that the Controlled Substances Act relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply - Congress can only ban drugs on Federal land, and ban drugs as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs. Congress doesn't have arbitrary power over states (in theory!)

so states would argue that since pot is only legalized within their borders, and isn't (legally) sold across state lines, the CSA doesn't apply.

the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case, but they couldn't force states to actually enforce their drug laws - it'd be a battle of attrition with the DEA, and it'd piss the states off.

honestly, I think they decided it wasn't worth the fight since pot is pretty popular, so they let sleeping dogs lie.

GeekyBear• 5 years ago

It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.

Congress used the power of the purse to forbid the Federal Government spending any money to prosecute those in states that had made medical pot legal.

Congress included a provision in the 2015 spending bill prohibiting the DOJ from using any funds to prevent states that have legalized the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana from implementing these laws.

In doing so, Congress was using the “power of the purse” as a check on executive power, one of its most important constitutional prerogatives. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, this power “may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-m...

Congress has renewed that provision every year since, and made it clear to the Trump administration that they would extend the ban to include states that had passed full legalization instead of just medical marijuana, if forced to do so.

mnouquet4• 5 years ago

States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate

Both the Constitution and the 10th Amendment make it pretty clear that the Federal government has no business in these area.

This and the Commerce Clause "loophole" can hardly be used to mingle in private state business as long as the firearms don't cross state line.

fragileone• 5 years ago

On the other hand state courts have consistently found federal law doesn't have the right to infringe on the Constitution.

true_religion• 5 years ago

Yes and the states don’t have to help enforce federal law. If the federal government is forced to stick to laws that it can naturally enforce due to interstate or international commerce, and laws they will mobilize the national guard for (like desegregation) then we will live in a better world.

sterlind2• 5 years ago

it will be very interesting to see if Missouri's $50,000 fine on officers who continue to enforce Federal laws would stick. the article quotes one of the state reps as saying "this just means we don't have to lift a finger to enforce those laws" - I think this is more akin to chopping lifted fingers off with a meat cleaver. it's enshrining "snitches get stitches."

imagine if states pulled this tactic during integration..

cbradford• 5 years ago

We have had sanctuary states and cities for years that have said they will defy federal law on immigration. The president has been set.

nathanaldensr• 5 years ago

Interesting typo--president. I think you meant precedent.

quantified• 5 years ago

Unlike cannabis and immigration status, there’s a real constitutional amendment involved. I’m interested in the arguments that somehow treat the three of these differently. (Pro-cannabis-choice, anti-immigration-hypocrisy here.)

amanaplanacanal2• 5 years ago

I don’t believe there is anything that requires states to cooperate with federal law enforcement. On the other hand, they can’t interfere with federal law enforcement either. So the feds can certainly try to go after any immigration, drug, or gun law violations if they choose to, regardless of what state law says. It just comes down to how they want to use their resources.

drewcoo• 5 years ago

That precedent is called the 10th Amendment. And it didn't have anything to do with sanctuary whatevers.

open-paren• 5 years ago

The Utah legislature has been attempting to do the same thing recently. After eliminating the requirement for concealed carry licenses, they've propose an amendment[1] to the state's constitution that "declares Utah a Second Amendment Sanctuary State". The only reason it hasn't happened is because the governor won't let the legislature include it in the special legislative sessions they've been having

[1] Full bill text: https://le.utah.gov/~2021X1/bills/static/SR0902.html

mnouquet4• 5 years ago

And Texas just became a Constitutional Carry state - https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional... !

barbacoa• 5 years ago

Any Missourians who want to celebrate,

https://ctrlpew.com/yankee-boogle-3d-printable-ar15-full-aut...

Just be warned 3d printing that little squiggly looking bracket is a federal felony according to the ATF.

Even downloading the 3d model is legal gray area.

ToFab123• 5 years ago

I looked up what it is and it is a tool from hell, IMHO. It converts an AR-15 rifle into a machine gun. It can fire a crazy amount of bullets in a short time. No wonder that thing is illegal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/

AuryGlenz2• 5 years ago

We should be so lucky that people looking to harm others would be using fully automatic weapons. Unless they train with it significantly chances are they’ll end up doing less damage.

The one exception I can think of would be something like that Vegas shooting, where it’s a mob of people and the shooter is in what’s effectively a bunker.

sverhagen2• 5 years ago

On my particular media diet I am given the impression that there is an overwhelming consensus around "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks, which aren't even things that seem to be making it into federal law at any urgency. So, is this legislation coming from the fringes, stoking flames where there isn't a fire, or is there just a completely different perspective on these matters in Missouri that someone here could enlighten me on?

busymom04• 5 years ago

"common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks

There already is background checks in place. Anti-gunners and media who have never gone through it keep spouting that lie.

Waiting periods do the exact opposite - why would anyone want those who need a gun for self defence to wait a month to be able to buy it? Waiting periods also are getting exploited by certain anti-gun states to prevent gun purchases. If you are lets say a woman retiring home from school late at night and need one for self defence because you saw someone following you, you want to wait a month to be able to buy it?

sverhagen2• 5 years ago

Earnest follow-up question: are they really targeting a month? I thought I'd previously heard three days or so. How would you feel if it were three days? Some person retiring home late may run into a scare that makes them want to have a gun for the other night, I suppose, but isn't that offset by wanting to keep people with mental health issues from buying guns instantly? (As in: any rash decisions involving guns seem scary?)

pseudo02• 5 years ago

The broader political context is that Biden campaigned on adding AR-15s to the NFA, a law designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the plebs [0], nominated an ATF director who wants to ban AR-15s entirely [1], and has pushed controversial red-flag laws that allow for the seizure of firearms without the accused having any right to challenge the order prior to the property seizure being executed [2]. AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, for lawful purposes such as hunting and target shooting. Rifles of all types are used in only around 2% of all homicides [3], so this would have a very minimal impact on Biden's stated goal of reducing gun violence, but would significantly affect legal gun owners. It's entirely unsurprising that this has prompted a backlash by red states, which are gearing up for a political and legal fight over firearms for the next few years.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/16/biden-gun-...

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/26/davi...

[2] https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06/biden-doj-proposes-...

[3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

beerandt5• 5 years ago

Red flag laws should scare the hell out of everyone, regardless of your thoughts on gun rights.

Especially since Obamacare mandated electronic medical records.

WalterBright• 5 years ago

My issue with the gun control debate really has nothing to do with guns. It's more about the right to bear arms being in the Bill of Rights. If that can be dismissed without a Constitutional Amendment, then there'll be a full scale attack on the rest of the BoR.

For example, free speech can be next on the chopping block. Oh, how convenient it would be for people to just suppress opposing views.

StavrosK4• 5 years ago

Can someone explain to me why guns are such a big thing in some places of the US? What's the appeal? Is it just "shooting guns is fun"? I don't see much benefit otherwise.

busymom04• 5 years ago

It's for defence against threats - both domestic and abroad. Domestic threat includes a tyrannical state.

Certain people try to make the claim that "The right of the people" was only referring to the government/law enforcement. This is wrong.

2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

The “right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment and refers to individual freedoms.

1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The right of the people" being the crucial part. If people really want to claim that the founders were talking about only the state/militia having arms and not the individual people, then with that logic would mean that only the state/militia has the right to free speech, peaceably assemble or to be secure in their houses free from unreasonable searches without warrants - which obviously makes no sense. Therefore the founders were talking about the individual people.

StavrosK4• 5 years ago

Do people seriously claim this, though? Like, people legitimately keep guns in their homes because they might have to fight against the US Army some day? I thought this was a joke, something people say with a smile and a wink while they mean "we just think they're fun".

exolymph• 5 years ago

Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky., and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.
The lesson this teaches and which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great a risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life.

— Ida B. Wells. Source: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&p...

StavrosK4• 5 years ago

I'm not very knowledgeable because I've only been in the US a few times, but, as far as I know, the people who like to own guns and the people who are more likely to want to lynch black people are the same group, no?

AuryGlenz2• 5 years ago

Well, they are pretty fun to shoot. It’s an activity you can do alone or with friends that’s challenging, just like archery or bowling.

In rural areas they’re almost ubiquitous because they’re used for hunting, animal control (I’ve personally killed a probably-rabid skunk, rabbits that kept getting in the garden, etc.), and self defense.

If a man or two break in to my house I might, and I stress might, have a chance against them unarmed. My wife would not. Our neighbors are far enough away where nobody would hear her scream, and even if she managed to call 911 they would probably take 5-10 minutes to get here.

I had an old classmate and his company do the tiling in our living room a few years ago. A year or two after that he got deep in to meth and ended up breaking in to a girl’s house, tied her up, and raped her all night while threatening to kill her baby. I was happy I keep a pistol in the nightstand after hearing about that, and I make sure my wife trains with it a couple of times a year.

There’s also the whole “keeping the government in check,” and “the second amendment protects the first,” lines of thinking, but I think that’s why some people are adamant about the second amendment itself - not guns.

Brian_K_White2• 5 years ago

I think most people actually don't care that much, and it's actually all driven by politicians because it's so easy to invoke emotions over it. It's effortless for any politition on either side to paint the whole topic as an emergency, easy way to stoke fear and reaction and get you some votes.

Similar dynamic for the media. The topic is like hot and cold running clicks and views on tap. They sensationalize everything they can, and this practically sensationalizes itself.

The numbers of actual deaths and injuries do not justify this much attention, but the things the numbers do suggest are the biggest problems are just not easy to sell or even explain, and more often than not they conflict with corporate greed and somewhere along the way to any honest assessment of problems and remedies.

Then there is also the effect of reaction.

I am a Bernie/Warren/AOC-loving leftie, and don't own a gun, and whenever I hear yet another attempt by the left to step all over peoples agency, it makes ME want to go out and buy a gun just out of reaction to protect a right that I consider as fundamental as any other. The different rights protect each other. The more the right tries to infringe on say the right to vote, the more important it is to try to get everyone to excercise that right. Same thing when the left tries to infringe on the right to be armed.

So you get a lot of people seemingly acting crazy like this is the most important thing in the world, when really I think it's more like, they just will not tolerate being stepped on on that.

There are all kinds of things that I don't go around talking about all day every day, but if one day you tried to say I couldn't do something that's none of anyone else's business, that thing would suddenly become the most important thing in the world.

dmz73• 5 years ago

Would it be possible for federal government to outlaw bullets? There is nothing in constitution on the right to posses bullets so that would pretty much serve the same purpose as banning guns without going against the constitution. Alternatively, there could be a large levy on purchase and annual ownership tax for ammunition which would effectively do the same.

Brian_K_White2• 5 years ago

The constitution doesn't say either bullets or guns, it says arms.

Setting up a system that lets the rich continue to do the thing you claim no one should be able to do, is not a very well considered plan.

beerandt5• 5 years ago

The government has purchased ammunition in amounts that corners the market.

Of course that just incentivized shooters to hoard ammo and learn how to reload.

Missouri Has Declared Federal Gun Laws Invalid

Related Stories