Court Tries To Force States To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

Kamala Harris’ vehement anti-gun views, which include support for gun confiscation and a ban on semi-automatic firearms, have reinvigorated a serious and needed debate about the authority states have to check unconstitutional federal laws. Frustratingly, a panel of federal appellate judges just neutered much of that ability in a unanimous ruling to uphold a lower court injunction against a pro-gun Missouri law — and in the process they ignored substance, precedent, and common sense. The judges got it wrong, and our federal system of checks and balances will pay the price if this decision is not overturned. 

Missouri was ahead of the pack when their legislature passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) in 2021 and declared many federal gun laws and executive actions unconstitutional. In turn, the new law wholly restricted state authorities from aiding federal officials in the enforcement of these gun laws. The legislation also applied to any future infringements by federal officials on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thereby casting a wide shield against the future gun-grabbers who could one day occupy Capitol Hill or the White House.

The well-intentioned SAPA greatly restricted the state’s cooperation with agencies such as the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which is actively building a national gun registry, and it made clear state authorities may not offer resources including technology, housing, transportation, and other facilities to federal officials while engaged in the enforcement of federal gun laws. Citizens were provided a private right of action to sue state actors who violated the law, and the penalties were stiff.  

The anti-gun groups and gun-grabbing politicians were quick to offer weak arguments against the law, chief among them that it would be harder for police to fight crime. Despite the emotionally charged allegations by opponents of SAPA, nothing in the law bars or impedes federal authorities from continuing to enforce federal law within Missouri. Rather, it merely makes crystal clear that the state will not provide any resources or assistance in the investigation or prosecution of its citizens via laws it views as clearly unconstitutional.  

Many Americans have heard of this concept before, most frequently when applied by states and localities who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit upheld a controversial California state law structured quite similarly to SAPA. California’s SB 54 prohibits state and local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials in identifying, detaining, and questioning persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that because, like SAPA, the state law “does not regulate federal operations at all,” it “does not constitute obstacle preemption” of federal law.  

States Enforcing Federal Law

Frustratingly, both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit saw things differently, and by enjoining Missouri’s law, have forced the state to use resources and its employees to enforce federal gun laws. That could include materially supporting the compilation of gun owner records for the ATF’s gun registry, the enforcement of President Joe Biden’s “zero tolerance” policy against Missouri gun dealers, or helping a hypothetical Kamala Harris administration in confiscating AR-15s under a future “assault weapons” ban.

The precedent is clear, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to compel a state to enforce a federal law. So, what’s the difference here? Sadly, all too many federal judges stubbornly believe the Second Amendment is a second-class right. In the case of the recent ruling against SAPA, the Eighth Circuit simply invoked the Constitution’s supremacy clause, and gave the back of its judicial hand to Missouri and every other state that might question the constitutionality of a federal law — at least a federal gun law. 

Federal System

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement. 

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.  

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.  

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

John Velleco is the executive vice president of Gun Owners of America, a “no-compromise” grassroots lobbying organization with more than 2 million members nationwide.