Lawmakers plot new strategy for defying gun laws

Sunday, January 12, 2014 | 3:55 p.m. CST

JEFFERSON CITY — Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like-minded states to defy certain federal laws at the same time.

Supporters believe it will be more difficult for the federal government to shrug off such statutes if more states act together.

Missouri's latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies.

The state's Republican-led legislature came one vote shy of overriding Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of such a measure last year. This year's bill adds a new twist, delaying the effective date for several years to allow time for other states to join the cause.

"We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument," said Republican Sen. Brian Nieves, who is sponsoring the legislation.

Missouri's efforts came after President Barack Obama called for expanded federal background checks and a ban on assault weapons following deadly mass shootings at a Colorado theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

Courts have consistently ruled that states cannot nullify federal laws, but that hasn't stopped states from trying or ignoring them anyway. Last year, a federal appeals court struck down a 2009 Montana law that sought to prohibit federal regulation of guns that were manufactured in the state and remained within its borders.

A similar Kansas law that makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas earned a rebuke from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Peverill Squire, a political science professor and expert on state legislatures at MU, said Missouri's nullification plans would probably meet a similar fate in court, but that states could hope to send an indirect message to Congress by pushing such proposals.

Republican leaders in Missouri and elsewhere say bringing other states along in the effort might lead to a different outcome.

"This can't be just a Missouri effort. There has to be a groundswell of support by the people — by other states as well — in order for us ultimately to be successful," said Republican Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey.

There's a pattern for states to follow when rebuffing federal laws. Although possessing and distributing marijuana remains a federal crime, about 20 states now have laws that allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government has declined to challenge new laws in Colorado and Washington allowing recreational use of marijuana.

"The idea is that if you're standing alone against a federal law, then you're not as likely to have success than if you're standing with other states," said Arkansas Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger, who sponsored an unsuccessful attempt to prevent enforcement of federal gun control laws in his state.

Under the Missouri legislation, federal law enforcement officers could face misdemeanor charges punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for attempting to enforce federal laws considered to be "infringements on the right to keep and bear arms."

The bill cites no specific federal law, but the measure refers to taxes and fees, specifically levied against firearms, as well as tracking policies that have a "chilling effect" on gun ownership.

The provisions would take effect in January 2017 — or sooner, if at least four other states pass similar measures before then.

When the legislature opened on Wednesday, Senate GOP leaders said passing a gun rights bill was a top priority for the legislative session. Like last year's bill, the new version would also reduce the age requirement for concealed carry permits from 21 to 19 and prohibit municipalities from passing ordinances to limit openly carrying a firearm.

Many Missouri Democrats are likely to oppose the measure again this year as an unconstitutional waste of the legislature's time.

"The state will never trump federal laws," said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat. "It is again another right wing Republican attempt to go Second Amendment crazy."

Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Williams January 13, 2014 | 7:58 a.m.

"The state will never trump federal laws," said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat."

Wanna bet? The article even mentions one: State nullification of federal drug laws.

".... states cannot nullify federal laws..."

Yes, they can. The Supremacy Clause of our Constitution includes this part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof..."****

That means a State cannot overrule the federal gov't by ignoring the Constitution...or a federal law consistent with the meaning of the Constitution.

Which is what we have here. A State is well-within its rights to challenge a federal law it believes is contrary to the Constitution or is unconstitutional because the law is not written pursuant to the Constitution.

This is why we have a determine such things.

In practice, tho, nullification success can be determined simply by a federal executive branch that simply refuses to challenge a state's nullification efforts. This is what we are seeing with our federal DOJ refusing to challenge state marijuana-legalization laws. This failure to act on the part of the DOJ is wrong.

Similarly, it is wrong for states to adopt a strategy that if enough states try to nullify, then the feds will back off. No, this is an improper approach unless such efforts lead to (1) a Constitutional amendment, (2) a SCOTUS ruling that says the original law is constitutional or not, or (3) a withdrawal of the law by the federal legislative branch because the law is recognized as unconstitutional.

It's all about the process, folks.

Everything else is an end-around that causes chaos and a legal system that cannot be trusted by its citizenry.

****"which shall be made in pursuance thereof". Lol, this is the part of the Supremacy Clause that our own David Rosman's fingers can't type without gagging. I may have just mixed a metaphor.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.