Law forbids state resources from being used to enforce some federal firearms laws
By Scott Lauck
BridgeTower Media Newswires
ST. LOUIS, MO — Although there’s a good chance that Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act eventually will wind up before the state Supreme Court, it’s not yet clear if that time is now.
The court heard arguments on Feb. 7 in a challenge by the city of St. Louis, as well as St. Louis and Jackson counties, to a sweeping gun-rights bill that Missouri lawmakers passed in 2021. The law forbids state resources and state personnel from being used to enforce federal firearms laws and regulations that aren’t “substantially similar” to existing Missouri laws.
The act, often referred to as SAPA, imposes a $50,000 civil fine on political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies whose agents enforce such federal regulations or give “material aid and support” to other entities that do.
Robert H. Dierker of the St. Louis City Counselor’s Office said the law’s provisions are “unintelligible,” leaving law enforcement unable to determine what, if any, federal laws they can enforce without potentially incurring hefty fines.
The plaintiffs argue that SAPA violates provisions of the Missouri Constitution, including the required separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. They also say it violates the U.S. Constitution’s mandate that federal law stand supreme over state laws.
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office, however, argued that St. Louis has other avenues to make those arguments, as it faces at least three cases in which criminal defendants have invoked SAPA’s provisions and are suing officers who allegedly enforced the forbidden federal laws against them. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the plaintiffs can raise their constitutional claims as defenses to those suits.
“What they’re really saying is, we want clarity now,” Sauer said. “They’re saying the adequate remedy of law isn’t fast enough.”
Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green agreed with the state’s argument. After a hearing last year, he granted the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Dierker urged the Supreme Court to address the merits directly, saying defending from multiple lawsuits runs the risk of inconsistent rulings.
“I’m not an apostle of judicial activism, as I think most of you know,” said Dierker, a former St. Louis circuit judge who once wrote a book called “The Tyranny of Tolerance” that criticized the liberal judiciary. “But I think there is no choice in this regard but to face the central problem with this statute, which is the overreaching by the general assembly.”
Several judges, however, seemed skeptical of addressing the case at such an early stage.
“Isn’t the remedy that we send it back to the trial court to deal with all these merit-based issues that have yet to be raised at the trial court?” Judge W. Brent Powell asked. However, Powell also suggested that if the other suits offered an adequate remedy of law, the court might need to explore the merits of the case to determine if Green’s ruling could be upheld on alternate grounds.
The Supreme Court also heard from Jeffrey E. Sandberg, an appellate attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, which is supporting the plaintiffs’ position. Sandberg told the Supreme Court that some law enforcement officers have let federal fugitives go or backed out of cases involving potential weapons charges.
“There are people who want to cooperate with us, but they are mindful that they’re making judgments on the spot about what might potentially put their agency’s budget at stake,” he said.
Some members of the court pushed back, saying those were essentially arguments against the legislature’s policy.
“What does that have to do with the Supremacy Clause?” Powell asked.
Judge Zel M. Fischer asked if law enforcement officials who question the law constitutionality could simply not follow it.
“Don’t law enforcement officials make constitutional judgments every day? Whether or not a search is unreasonable or not, whether or not a statute is violated?” he asked.
The Department of Justice was one of several entities to weigh in on the high-profile case. In an amicus brief, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence argued that the law bars effective enforcement of federal laws that prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing guns. Missouri doesn’t have such a provision.
Arguing in the law’s favor were the Missouri Firearms Coalition, Gun Owners of America and the National Foundation for Gun Rights, whose separate briefs argued that SAPA doesn’t prevent federal agencies from enforcing their own laws and that many federal gun laws, such as the ban on possession by felons, remain in effect.
The case is City of St. Louis et al. v. State of Missouri, SC99290.
