Federal Court Strikes Down Missouri’s Second Amendment Protection Act on Supremacy Clause Grounds
From today’s U.S. v. Missouri, decided by Judge Brian Wimes (W.D. Mo.):
The Supremacy Clause provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … 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.” “By this declaration, the states are prohibited from passing any acts which shall be repugnant to a law of the United States.” “The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national government.” Further, “[t]he law of congress is paramount; it cannot be nullified by direct act of any state, nor the scope and effect of its provisions set at naught indirectly.” As such, a state legislature’s attempt to “interpos[e]” itself against federal law “is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” …
Section 1.420 [which is part of the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act] provides that certain federal firearms regulations are “infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, within the borders of this state, including, but not limited to,” in summary, (1) taxes or fees on firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (2) registration of firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (3) registration or tracking of ownership of firearms, accessories, or ammunition; (4) bans on possession/ownership/transfer of firearms, accessories, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and (5) confiscation of firearms, accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
A federal law preempts a state law if the two are in direct conflict. A “direct conflict” occurs “[w]hen compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress ….” If “Congress enacts a law that imposes restrictions or confers rights on private actors,” and “a state law confers rights or imposes restrictions that conflict with federal law,” then “the federal law takes precedence and the state law is preempted.”
Under the uncontroverted facts, the NFA [National Firearms Act] sets forth taxation requirements on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms. Section 1.420(1) states “[a]ny tax, levy, feel or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition … that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens,” is an “infringement on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by A
Article from Reason.com
