A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled the 2021 law is preempted by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.
“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.
Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement said he will appeal the ruling.
“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”
The Missouri law had subjected law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws to a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.
Federal laws without similar Missouri laws include statutes covering weapons registration and tracking, and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders.
Conflict over Missouri’s law wrecked a crime-fighting partnership with U.S. attorneys that Missouri’s former Republican attorney general, now-Sen. Eric Schmitt, touted for years. Under Schmitt’s Safer Streets Initiative, attorneys from his office were deputized as assistant U.S. attorneys to help prosecute violent crimes.
The Justice Department, which last year sued to overturn the Missouri law, said the Missouri state crime lab, operated by the Highway Patrol, refused to process evidence that would help federal firearms prosecutions after the law took effect.
The city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and Jackson County also filed a separate lawsuit over the gun law, which is pending.
They said in a joint statement that they were “encouraged” by the ruling and complained about the passage of “dangerous bills that make it more difficult to prevent gun violence in our communities.”
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, meanwhile, described the decision in a tweet as a “monumental defense of the safety of our families, our police, and our neighborhoods” The city is planning to file a brief in support of the pending lawsuit, detailing its opposition to the law.
Concerns about the law led the Missouri Information and Analysis Center, also under the Highway Patrol, to stop cooperating with federal agencies investigating federal firearms offenses. And the Highway Patrol, along with many other agencies, suspended joint efforts to enforce federal firearms laws.
Wimes said police can now work with federal partners without worrying about breaking the voided law.
“State and local law enforcement officials in Missouri may lawfully participate in joint federal task forces, assist in the investigation and enforcement of federal firearm crimes, and fully share information with the Federal Government without fear of H.B. 85’s penalties,” the judge wrote.
Several Missouri prosecutors had testified against the bill, saying it jeopardized investigations and prosecutions against serious offenders while exposing state and local officers to civil liability.
“Given today’s ruling, Missouri’s prosecutors and our state and local law enforcement partners look forward to again utilizing federal assistance when appropriate to apprehend and punish violent offenders who endanger the citizens of our state,” the statement said. “Police and prosecutors will return to their work without fear of losing their jobs or being held liable personally to criminal offenders simply because they are doing vital work to keep our communities safe.”
Republican lawmakers who helped pass the bill said they were motivated by the potential for new gun restrictions under Democratic President Joe Biden, who signed the most sweeping gun violence bill in decades last year.
The federal legislation toughened background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keeps firearms from more domestic violence offenders and helps states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes is an incompetent affirmative-action appointment and a Democrat political hack. There is not even a shadow of doubt that the challenged law is constitutional, and the supremacy clause is irrelevant.
It is a long-standing constitutional principle, as firmly established as any known to the law, that states may refuse to enforce federal law, and may forbid their officers to cooperate with federal officers to enforce them. This is a fundamental right of the states, guaranteed under the tenth amendment, and no federal officer, including a judge, has any right to interfere with it.
That is the entire basis on which we have “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states”, where officers may not report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, and may not cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. According to this Wimes hack, that would be illegal.
Wimes wrote: “At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations”. He ignores the fact that it is unconstitutional for state officials to be so deputized in the first place without the state’s consent. And when so deputized, even with the state’s consent, they are still bound first of all by state law, and may not do anything in service of the federal government that is contrary to state law. Again, this is a principle that is fundamental to the constitution and has been upheld ever since the republic was founded.
Of course this Wimes is not only an affirmative action lawyer but an 0bama appointment.
Since federal and state gun laws tend to be similar, this isn’t a big deal. The important issue affected by this legal principle are state laws prohibiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Some clever lawyer has arranged to have a federal case, from a “red” state, on the principle of whether states are obligated to enforce federal laws (or whether such enforcement is left to the federal police, e.g. FBI, United States Marshals, etc.).
Akuperma, this is a huge deal and the judge must be disciplined for this. State laws are often much less restrictive than federal laws. And the feds don’t have enough resources to enforce all of their own laws.
No “clever lawyer” was involved here. That states are NOT required to enforce federal laws is already well established. As is that they may forbid their officers from cooperating with federal officers who are doing so. This has been undisputed law for over 200 years; there are few doctrines that rest on stronger foundations than this one.