{"id":91367,"date":"2023-03-29T14:24:15","date_gmt":"2023-03-29T19:24:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91367"},"modified":"2023-03-29T14:24:15","modified_gmt":"2023-03-29T19:24:15","slug":"91367","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91367","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal District Judge Wimes Creates Novel Excuses to Rule 2A Protection Act Unconstitutional<\/a><\/p>\n

U.S.A.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013-(AmmoLand.com)-<\/a>\u2014 On March 6, 2023, federal\u00a0Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled<\/a>\u00a0the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act was unconstitutional, claiming the Act violates the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution, invalidates federal law, and violates the doctrine of \u201cintergovernmental immunity\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
On June 12, 2021, Governor Parson signed the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA<\/strong>). The act prohibits state and local officers from cooperating with Federal agents to enforce certain federal laws, mostly to do with firearms.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Federal court system has long held states cannot be compelled to use their resources to enforce federal laws. States are not required to explain why they do not wish to use those resources to enforce federal laws. They have the power to refuse to do so. To hold otherwise is to collapse the power-sharing between states and the federal government into a monolithic entity controlled by the federal government. This doctrine is known as the\u00a0anti-commandeering doctrine.<\/a><\/p>\n

Judge Wimes appears to be nullifying the anti-commandeering doctrine by claiming Missouri must use state resources to investigate and prosecute federal law. Refusing to do so, Judge Wimes claims, is \u201cobstructing\u201d federal law enforcement, which is somehow a violation of the supremacy clause and intergovernmental immunity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the opinion:<\/p>\n

SAPA is an unconstitutional \u201cinterposit[ion]\u201d against federal law and is designed to be just that. Id. Section 1.410(5) states the Missouri General Assembly\u2019s declaration that the Supremacy Clause \u201cdoes not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions that collect data or restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri . . . .\u201d Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 1.410(5). However, the Missouri General Assembly\u2019s assertion that the Supremacy Clause does not extend to acts of Congress does not make it so. To the contrary, 15 \u201c[t]he law of congress is paramount; it cannot be nullified by direct act of any state, nor the scope and effect of its provisions set at naught indirectly.\u201d Anderson, 135 U.S. at 490.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

SAPA does not prevent agents of the federal government from investigating, arresting, prosecuting or convicting residents of Missouri who violate federal law. It prevents agents of the state and local governments from assisting federal agents in doing so. Judge Wimes claims the anti-commandeering doctrine does not apply by quoting reasons in SAPA for the purpose of the law. But the purpose of state law has not generally been an issue in anti-commandeering doctrine.\u00a0 The Constitutionality of laws is based on what the law does, not what the law claims the purposes of the law are.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Judge Wimes claims there is a direct conflict between SAPA and federal firearms laws. From the opinion:<\/p>\n

A federal law preempts a state law if the two are in direct conflict. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 384 F.3d 547, 551 (8th Cir. 2004). A \u201cdirect conflict\u201d occurs \u201c[w]hen compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress . . . .\u201d Id. If \u201cCongress enacts a law that imposes restrictions or confers rights on private actors,\u201d and \u201ca state law confers rights or imposes restrictions that conflict with federal law,\u201d then \u201cthe federal law takes precedence and the state law is preempted.\u201d Murphy v. Nat\u2019l Coll. Athletic Ass\u2019n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1480 (2018).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This correspondent has a difficult time following this argument. Where is the direct conflict?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal officers are free to enforce federal laws. The state does not have any duty to expend resources to enforce federal laws. The state may not make it illegal for federal officers to operate. The state has no duty to assist them.<\/p>\n

Judge Wimes appears to be claiming the supremacy clause of the Constitution and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity override the doctrine of non-commandeering.<\/p>\n

Eric Burlison, who helped push through SAPA as a Missouri state senator, tweeted this:<\/p>\n

\n

We fully anticipated an Obama appointee to issue a judgement against HB 85 the Second Amendment Preservation Act. I am asking our new Attorney General @AGAndrewBailey<\/a> to take this to the Supreme Court! States cannot be forced to be the enforcement of Federal Laws. @Jered_Taylor<\/a><\/p>\n

— Eric Burlison (@EricBurlison) March 7, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n