AP.

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Federal appellate judges overturned a Missouri law Monday that banned police from enforcing some federal gun laws.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the Missouri law violated a section of the U.S. Constitution known as the supremacy clause, which asserts 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’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement that his office was reviewing the decision. “I will always fight for Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” he said.

We’ve discussed this before and we knew this would happen. For preemption laws, the state must be ready to use force, or the threat of force.

More than that, the simplest solution to this is to ensure that all local, county and state LEOs who would have a predilection to enforce federal gun control laws are fired or drummed out of office.

US News & World Report:

A bill that would overturn most local gun ordinances that are more stringent than Nebraska state law cleared a key hurdle Wednesday despite protests from some Omaha and Lincoln area senators who raised public safety concerns.

Lawmakers gave initial approval to a gun-rights pre-emption bill 32-12, after supporters overcame a filibuster by opponents who want to preserve existing local rules.

Supporters said the bill would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local gun ordinances, particularly in Omaha and Lincoln. Critics in the Legislature argued the bill would allow gun-rights groups to sue cities which refuse to repeal their rules even if aren’t directly harmed.

Cities, counties, towns and municipalities who infringe on God-given and constitutionally recognized rights should be exposed to liability and they should be sued.

As we’ve seen in our own discussions on this topic, no one can ever show that a local government attempts to loosen gun laws.  The only thing they ever do is attempt to infringe to an even greater degree than the state on gun rights.  Therefore, it makes good sense for states to do this in order to stop the collectivists and controllers who want to dictate every little detail of life within their borders.

So here is a note to these little dictators.  Your borders aren’t sovereign.  You aren’t allowed to control guns or anything else the state doesn’t allow you to control.  Why don’t you stop worrying about this and figure out how to meet your obligations on all of those unfunded liabilities you have because of those ridiculous city worker pensions you agreed to.

Nebraska should proceed apace to make this the law of the state.

Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.