Missouri Sued for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Status


The Biden Administration has sued the State of Missouri for affirming the 2nd Amendment and passing a law, The Second Amendment Preservation Act ( or SAPA), that stops the State, and State police officers and agencies, from complying with Federal Firearms laws.

This law is amazing as it actually fines people for allowing their State government employees to comply with federal law in violation of SAPA.

Several state agencies have now pulled officers from joint-Federal task forces and have restricted access to data – which frankly is amazing.

Of course the anti-gun left is Big Mad and this lawsuit by the Biden Justice Department is nothing more than a gross violation of the United States Constitutional – shocking I know – but I’ll use California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court to make my case.

Back in 2017 CA passed a few laws, most notably SB54, which made California a “Sanctuary State”. These laws did many things but mostly they stopped State police and agencies from working with or complying with Federal Immigration policies in most instances.

We can discuss the merits of California’s open borders policy later but the point here is that in 2018 the Trump Administration sued California and the entire left called it a stunt – or worse – and many cities up and down California sought to join or distance themselves from this lawsuit.

My own City of Fullerton waded into this mess, as did Huntington Beach and countless others.

This case made it’s way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where they ruled AGAINST the Trump DOJ – Jeff Sessions being the man leading this charge – and the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

What was the reasoning the 9th Circuit used to uphold California’s status as a Sanctuary State in regards to immigration deemed illegal by the Federal Government?

Allow me to quote the pertinent point:

“The panel rejected the United States’ argument that the provisions violate the doctrine of obstacle preemption and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that any obstruction caused by SB 54 is consistent with California’s prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering rule.”

For those unfamiliar with these arguments I’ll boil them down quickly –

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If it’s not in the Constitution – the Feds aren’t supposed to do it. This part of the Constitution is usually ignored by, well, everybody, and the Supreme Court specifically nuked most of it over the years with their Commerce Clause nonsense – but in this case it means that the Feds can’t force the States to do the bidding of the Feds.

That argument, known as the “anti-commandeering rule” was used by the left in SB54 and has also been used by the right when the Supreme Court used it to strike down the majority of the anti-gun Brady Laws back in 1997.

So we have precedent after precedent, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the Department of Justice has no legal justification for suing Missouri and yet here we are as a nation.

Either you believe that States have their own sovereignty, as California proclaimed in every single “Resistance” stunt the legislature, Attorney General or Governor could concoct to take the scent off of their own corruption – OR you don’t.
Missouri was well with her rights to tell the Feds to pound sand and here’s hoping more States follow CA’s example of asserting themselves as unique places with distinct and unique values.

Printz v. United States

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *