A significant legal victory was secured by the Biden administration on Monday when a federal appeals court ruled against Missouri’s 2021 law, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, declaring it unconstitutional. The law, adopted by the Republican-led state, sought to nullify certain federal gun regulations within Missouri, challenging the federal government’s authority over firearm laws.
Missouri’s Law and Its Implications
Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act was enacted in 2021 under the signature of Republican Governor Mike Parson. The law declared that several federal regulations related to the sale, taxation, and possession of firearms were invalid within the state. It aimed to protect the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, as enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the law also imposed significant penalties on state and local officials who attempted to enforce these federal gun laws. These officials faced fines of up to $50,000 if they knowingly enforced federal laws that the state legislature deemed to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
The Biden administration, through the U.S. Department of Justice, sued Missouri in 2022 to block the enforcement of this law. The administration argued that the law unconstitutionally obstructed the federal government’s ability to enforce its gun regulations. They highlighted that the law caused many state and local law enforcement agencies in Missouri to withdraw their voluntary assistance in enforcing federal gun laws and providing crucial investigative support.
Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning
The case was brought before the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reviewed the law. The panel, which included two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one by a Democratic president, unanimously ruled against Missouri. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Colloton, writing for the panel, emphasized that while a state may choose not to assist federal law enforcement, it cannot do so by attempting to invalidate federal law. Colloton pointed out that Missouri’s law overstepped its bounds by purporting to render federal firearm regulations ineffective within its borders.
This ruling aligns with previous decisions by both the 8th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, which had declined to revive the law during ongoing litigation. The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that federal law supersedes state law when the two are in conflict, particularly in matters related to constitutional rights and federal regulations.
Reactions and Next Steps
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, expressed his disappointment with the ruling but did not indicate whether the state would seek further legal action. In a statement, Bailey asserted his commitment to defending Missourians’ Second Amendment rights, signaling potential future challenges to federal gun laws. The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile, declined to comment on the court’s decision.
The ruling marks a significant setback for efforts by some states to resist federal gun regulations and underscores the ongoing national debate over the balance between state and federal authority in governing firearm laws. As the legal and political battles over gun rights continue, this decision stands as a critical affirmation of the federal government’s role in enforcing nationwide firearm regulations.