There’s no doubt that Missouri is one of, if not the most, pro-gun states in the nation. I mean, this is a state that took sanctuary status for the Second Amendment and enshrined it into law via the Second Amendment Preservation Act.
Unfortunately, that law was overturned by the courts, which cited the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. (Cool, now do immigration sanctuary laws, guys.)
Now, the state is once again considering how to bulk up its protections for the gun rights of Missourians, while trying not to cross the line where the law gets smacked down by the courts again.
To that end, it seems there are two bills up for consideration that try to do the same thing, more or less, but in such different ways that they’re actually competing bills.
Two groups both claim they’re protecting your gun rights in Missouri. But they’re pushing competing bills that couldn’t be more different.
A gun rights group backs one, while the other is backed by sheriffs, who call the first bill a “money grab.”
Aaron Dorr is the director of the Missouri Firearms Coalition. He’s now pushing Senate Bill 858. It says no public officer or state or local employee has the authority to enforce federal firearms laws against law-abiding citizens. If an agency employs an officer who has worked with the federal government, they can be fined $50,000.
“If the government breaks the law and violates our gun rights, there needs to be a way to hold them accountable. That’s what SEPA 1.0 had. That’s what our bill has,” he said.
…
[Douglas County Sheriff Chris] Degase’s organization, the Missouri Sheriffs Constitutional Firearm Alliance, is pushing Senate Bill 955. It would make it illegal for public officers or employees to violate gun laws and directs prosecutors to investigate violations. In contrast, though it says the state can work with federal law enforcement.
“Our bill allows us to still work with those agencies that provide resources to us to ensure that we can keep our people safe,” said Degase.
Dorr says his bill fixes the issues the courts had with SAPA as originally written.
For the record, the “fine” is really a civil penalty that one would assume is payable to anyone who was impacted by the agency’s actions.
The sheriff’s group’s bill is quite different, and I’m not entirely sure just how it really protects people’s gun rights beyond what is already in place, other than providing mandated punishment for law enforcement officers who violate people’s rights. That’s a good thing, to be sure.
But it does leave the door open for officers to still work with federal agents on some law enforcement efforts. For example, if someone is trafficking military-grade weapons through, say, Saint Louis, there are a lot of people who don’t see that as quite the same thing as ATF agents coming in and rounding up people because they goofed up their paperwork somehow.
Honestly, I’m not sure that Dorr’s bill would survive judicial challenge any better than SAPA did. I could be wrong here, because I’m not an expert on every bill being proposed everywhere in the country, but I can see the same arguments being used to strike this one down, too.
I like that bill better, mind you. I like the idea of discouraging state agencies from working with federal agents to enforce blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws, and putting at least some kind of teeth in there is a solid idea.
I also think that SB 955 has a better chance of surviving any legal challenge.
Then again, that’s not surprising since I’m not sure it would do all that much to preserve anyone’s right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
