Link to the Opinion of the Court in United States v Missouri, by United States District Judge Brian C. Wimes of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, sitting at Kansas City.
Judge Wimes granted the United States summary judgement in this case, striking down Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act for violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, as well as on preemption grounds and for violating the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
I agree with this ruling in its entirety. SAPA was a cluster ■■■■ from the beginning and even resulted in a police officer releasing a federal fugitive out of fear of violating SAPA.
If Missouri believes a Federal gun control statute is unconstitutional, the only proper redress is to challenge it in the Federal courts.
States cannot simply nullify things they don’t like. That stupidity died with the Confederacy at Appomattox Court House.
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.
First of all, opposition to this statute is NOT an endorsement of laws that violate the Second Amendment.
I oppose those statutes AND this Missouri statute.
Legislatures cannot nullify, PERIOD.
There is ONE and ONLY ONE way to seek redress for Federal (or State) statutes that infringe Second Amendment rights. And that is to challenge those statutes, individually, in Federal or State courts.
Judge Wimes was correct in his legal reasoning.
SAPA violates the Supremacy Clause.
SAPA is preempted.
SAPA violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
Not to mention that the law was so broadly overwritten that is was leading to ludicrous results, like Federal fugitives being released because cop feared SAPA penalties.
Missouri and individual citizens in Missouri are always free to vindicate their rights in Federal and State courts.
More specifically, the State and Federal Court systems, which have concurrent jurisdiction over Federal Questions, both routes ultimately terminating at the United States Supreme Court.
It is interesting to note that when the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were presented to the several States (and noting that neither endorsed the idea of INDIVIDUAL State nullification), seven other States formally rejected the resolutions and three States expressed disapproval, with the other four States taking no action.
The States that responded emphatically that only the Judicial Courts had cognizance to declare a Statute or Act of the Federal Government unconstitutional.
Later in his life, Madison emphasized that individual States have no authority to nullify Federal law.
Of course, the Federal Courts and the History of the United States have been emphatically a NO on nullification.
SAPA is just a continuation of beating the dead horse of nullification. It should have been abundantly clear that it would be dead on arrival at the Federal Courts.
You certainly have a knack for insinuating what our federal Constitution may not mean. Tell me, what does "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . " actually mean?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
The biggest violator of federal law is the federal government.
I personally don’t give two turds about anything the federal level says or does, and will cheer on any attempt by the states to put the big stinking genie back in its bottle.
Now days it’s easier to list the constitutional things the govt does than the unconstitutional ones because the list is shorter.
Seems to me there is a very, very big difference between “nullifying” a federal law which violates the provisions of our Constitution, and those who uphold the federal Constitution and ignore a federal law which is not in harmony with the terms of our federal constitution. Of course, the word “nullify” is used to avoid clarity and create confusion of what is really taking place when a State refuses to act in concert with the feds who are violating the specific provisions of our federal Constitution.
And BTW, you are absolutely correct that “The biggest violator of federal law is the federal government.”
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
States are not obligated to enforce Federal law or to make illegal something the Federal government has made illegal.
So if a State does not enforce marijuana laws, it is not nullifying Federal action, so long as it does not interfere with Federal law enforcement efforts.
Nullifying takes place within a court room, or a legislature.
But the various states and its Officers, it seems to me, have no obligation to assist the feds in any of their operations, and if a federal officer violates states laws, and constitutionally protected rights engrained in our federal constitution, such as the Second Amendment, then a state and its officers are fully justified in arresting the federal officers and putting them behind bars.
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
