DoJ On Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 9 months ago
NPR.
The Department of Justice has asked a federal judge to block a Missouri law that allows private citizens to sue law enforcement agencies and officers for $50,000 if they can show their state gun rights were infringed upon. Gov. Mike Parson signed the Second Amendment Preservation Act last year, and since then, counties, cities and dozens of Missouri police chiefs have challenged it.
The law, known as H.B. 85, invalidates in Missouri five specific federal gun law categories, such as ones prohibiting the gun ownership by some felons, confiscation orders, and registration laws.
The complaint filed in federal court in Jefferson City, Mo., on Wednesday says “the overall purpose and effect of H.B. 85 are thus to nullify federal firearm laws and to affirmatively interfere with their enforcement.”
“This act impedes criminal law enforcement operations in Missouri,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “The United States will work to ensure that our state and local law enforcement partners are not penalized for doing their jobs to keep our communities safe.”
I’m telling you, the FedGov hates this law. Missouri has the strongest such law on the books, and the FedGov is fearful of it spreading.
But the determination to carry through with this (including preventing any LEO who is found to aid FedGov gun control efforts from ever working again in Missouri) is what will win the day versus the determination of a federal judge.
When they can’t win any other way, they go judge shopping.
On February 20, 2022 at 3:06 am, Ratus said:
Apparently the US DOJ hasn’t heard of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
New York v. United States (1992) and in Printz v. United States (1997) directly referenced firearms by saying that Congress couldn’t force local Sheriffs to conduct Brady Bill background checks.
On February 20, 2022 at 6:10 am, Ohio Guy said:
Let the judge shopping continue,as it has for years. Soon, very soon, theres gonna be a new game in town. And it aint really shopping. I suppose , though one could exchange the s for a c in THAT word. After a hard day weedin’ out the baddies, us old guys can play a game of civil war scrabble. It’s comin’. You all know it is.
On February 20, 2022 at 8:22 am, Matt said:
It is still all predicated on the idea that because they’ve gotten some freak in a black dress to “proclaim” something or other that people will respect it and obey. Just ignore them. That is what MO needs to do. Well, that and tell old jug ear’s lapdog (Garland) that, “ we don’t recognize your authority and we will deal with any attempts to infringe on our rights. Now go away.”
On February 20, 2022 at 9:13 am, Nosmo said:
I’m waiting for someone on the Missouri end of this to point to the 10th Amendment and the New York v. United States (1992) and in Printz v. United States (1997) cases that Ratus mentioned.
I strongly hope that Missouri’s actions become the norm and not just in the area of LEO actions and guns. The federal government has usurped a lot of what rightly belongs in the purview of states and that abuse needs to be clawed back by the states.
Which, in wondering about, brings me back to a question I’ve had for a long time: In the area of Constitutional provisions a great deal is expressed as limitations on what government may do; excellent in form, but lacking in enforcement. I think the founders believed the Citizens would constitute the enforcement arm of the country in that untoward government action would not be tolerated and correction applied fiscally and at the ballot box (which, lately, has proven to be somewhat less reliable than anticipated). The way things are going it looks like we may be testing that enforcement thesis and probably sooner than many expect.
On February 21, 2022 at 7:51 am, Fred said:
“the overall purpose and effect of H.B. 85 are thus to nullify federal firearm laws and to affirmatively interfere with their enforcement.”
They say this as though it were a bad thing.