Here’s an update on Missouri’s infamous Second Amendment Preservation Act, which went into effect in June 2021. The Act is a not-well-veiled attempt at nullifying federal guns laws. This NPR article explains it pretty well:
In 2021, Missouri passed the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” to make federal gun restrictions illegal in the state and bar officials from enforcing any law that would “infringe” upon the right to “bear arms.” It also allows “any person” to sue state law-enforcement agencies who don’t comply with state law.
The federal government sued, contending that the state law unconstitutionally usurped federal law and made it impossible for federal authorities in the state to carry out their enforcement duties. A federal district court agreed and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
In effect, the law seriously interfered with cooperation between state and federal law enforcement where guns are involved. For example, after a police officer was killed in a shootout, state law enforcement at first refused to work with federal agencies to trace the murder weapon.
Among other things, the law attempts to nullify federal statutes that, for example, require gun dealers to keep records. It prohibits the state from hiring former federal employees who had ever been involved in enforcing federal gun laws. And it allows any citizen of the state to sue any state law enforcement employee or agency caught cooperating with the feds, for $50,000. Ian Millhiser at Vox said the law “reads like it was drafted by a member of the John Birch Society after a night of heavy drinking.”
In 2022 the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in a federal court against the law. The brief says the law “poses a clear and substantial threat to public safety” and has “seriously impaired the federal government’s ability to combat violent crime in Missouri.”
The state is still appealing to have the law reinstated in lower courts. But then the Missouri AG asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the law while the challenges were working their way through lower courts. And yesterday the Court refused to do that. Justice Thomas dissented.
Adam Liptak writes for the New York Times (no paywall):
In a brief statement on Friday, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that he agreed with the court’s ruling “under the present circumstances.” But he added that the court was powerless to block aspects of the Missouri law that resembled the one from Texas.
Judge Brian C. Wimes of the Federal District Court in Kansas City ruled in March that the Missouri law was “an impermissible nullification attempt” at odds with the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which generally prohibits states from enacting measures at odds with federal law.
I wonder if the “under the present circumstances” is leaving a door open for the court to rule differently at some future time.
In other news: James Comer’s investigations into Joe Biden’s allegedly shady financial dealings are still striking out. Biden’s brother James wrote him a check for $200,000 in 2018, which was designated a “loan replayment.” This is Comer’s new evidence of Biden’s doing something bad somehow that is all over right-wing media, sometimes under headlines screaming QUID PRO QUO. None appear to remember that Biden was a private citizen in 2018, and why wouldn’t it have been a loan replayment?
THIS JUST IN: Area Man Repays Loan to Brother. https://t.co/nTzZexRIMr
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) October 21, 2023
Also, too: House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota is being considered for the speaker position. But back in January 2021 Emmer voted to certify the 2020 election results. So “conservatives aligned with Trump, including their media darling Tucker Carlson, are lining up to crush Emmer’s bid for speaker if he decides to run,” it says here. I can’t imagine how the House is ever going to elect a speaker unless some Dems cross over and vote for a not-MAGA Republican.
Yeah, maha, I also think the Ds are waiting for the right time to pounce.
Imo, they're hoping that after a few more of their failed MAGAT "Speaker Designees," the RepubliKKKLANs might try to sneak a more "centrist" GQP House member through, hoping that the Ds are asleep at the wheel.
A member who has a history of reaching out to the Ds.
All of this is just so they can say that they did indeed try to propose a more middle-of-the-road Speaker designee! But the DEMONcRATS didn't give that person enough support:
"SEE?!? We DID put up a RINO who's more friendly with those satanic DEMONcRATS!!! But where were they to help their socialist pal?!? I'll tell you where: NOWHERE! That's where! They wouldn't even give their good tovarisch a helping hand!!!"
In trying that, the Rs will be like an old pitcher whose specialty is breaking pitches, trying to sneak a batting practice fastball for a quick strike past a good fastball hitter – in the hope of catching him napping, and also ruin any mojo they may have.
But like a wise hitter who's waiting for that "mistake pitch," the Democrats will be waiting for the kind of designee they can get along with – or even control.
But what the hell do I know?
My name. And I'm not even sure of that!!! 😉
Also two: How long before the RepubliKKKLANS in the "KKKrazee States" pass a law that says that if you're caught WITHOUT a gun, you'll be arrested?!?
Not long, I bet!
But what the hell do I know?!?
My name. And I'm not even sure of that!!!
Oh, wait!
I am sure.
I mean, I have 2 names.
My real one.
And a "name that plume" – whatever the hell THAT means!?! Crazy language, that German…
"Justice Thomas dissented."
You misspelled InJustice. And may he and Ginny pay the ultimate price for what they do.
[Obviously I mean that they end up in eternal torture according to their beliefs, not anything sooner. Heh heh.]
Yeah, the USSC may be at a bridge too far when it comes to striking down any and all federal gun legislation. Some of the conservative justices (not Thomas) may be aware that there's potentially a limit to how unpopular they can become and survive as a majority. (The majority DOES support sane restrictions on guns.) The issue of expanding the court remains – the only reason Democrats in Congress are cautious is because citizens generally disapprove of making the USSC a political body. When/if a strong majority of voters see that the court is not only partisan but that the conservative majority is "on the take" with big money, that reluctance to change the court may evaporate. So I'm wondering if the USSC, aware of the perception of corruption, may moderate some decisions to take down the heat. They may not be that smart.
A fine point in the civil trial in NY may become a big point. Forbes ratted out the retired CFO over a lie he told in testimony, a relatively unimportant point about the valuation of Trump's apartment in Trump Tower. Forbes says they are in posession of communication from Weiselberg that proves the opposite of what he said on the stand, evidence the prosecution should have a copy of but don't.
Here I speculate. Trump had to turn over information to the NY prosecutor when the investigation reached the point that NY was in possession of enough evidence from banks and Trump's previous accounting firm (I'm going from memory here.) Trump's company was required to turn over all communications relevant to the investigation. Trump may have instructed his people to give up ONLY the information related to evidence that the DA already had in their hands. That is: the stuff from the bank(s) who had to cough up all the paperwork related to the loan(s) and the stuff from Mazars (I may have spelled that wrong.) Filtering out internal and damning evidence is perjury. The CFO perjured himself if he was coached in exactly what he had to admit and what he knew was still concealed.
IF… if Forbes is telling the truth and IF a significant trove of information was withheld from the DA, the civil trial may become criminal – related to perjury. Weiselberg served three months after signing a cooperation deal. That deal would be off, and back to Reikers, he will go. Trump may be in full panic mode – the decision to destroy the stuff Trump decided to withhold will be hard to execute without being discovered. Willis has been several steps ahead of Trump all the way through this.
I remember a guy I met in prison – he was convicted for a pyramid scheme involving gold, as I recall. He was bitter about his lawyers and what they had told him about his chances in the trial and the odds of going to prison. Unlike my public defender and the other lawyer I had, these other lawyers blew smoke up his a$$ and ran up a huge tab for their benefit. Trump seems to have lied to his lawyers whenever it suited Trump. He seems to be ignoring orders from the bench and taunting the judge in NY and DC. Something Trump's lawyers are almost certainly advising Trump to knock off. Trump does not have a deep bench of quality lawyers. I suspect (in some cases I know) that lawyers are demanding cash upfront as a condition. Nobody's gonna get a million behind with Trump. So are these guys fed up with Trump and stringing him along, billing him for an hour any time they spend a minute on his case? Are they telling Trump they are killing it in court when they know Trump is screwed? When Trump appeals on the basis he had piss-poor representation, the lawyers are freed of the constraints of keeping secrets. Are they saving exact quotes from conversations with Trump regarding strategies of deceit that Trump proposed? Yes, I think any lawyer who will represent Trump will clean Trump like a fish as far as money is concerned and prepare to throw Trump under the bus after losing in court while keeping the loot.
" state law enforcement at first refused to work with federal agencies to trace the murder weapon"
Wow that is the definition of "gun nutjob". Why police, who's lives are put in danger by rampant gun possession would promote it is beyond me? I had a couple 'nutjobs" living close to me, the worst one moved away and took his guns and maga flags with, then for some reason the other idiot stopped shooting in his yard so we have had peace and quiet here for months. The only thing I can figure is that he stopped the backyard shooting soon after that family of five was killed in Texas after complaining about gunfire? Ever since that happened he stopped shooting which before that was a weekly occurrence? He lives with his elderly mom, maybe she had enough?
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/police-5-people-killed-in-shooting-at-home-north-of-houston/3246939/
So Joe Biden is exposed as being his "brother's keeper"? Must be amusing to tRump – not just the fact of loaning money to a sibling, but doing so apparently without charging exorbitant interest.
When I was in law school I seem to remember them talking about that "supremacy clause" thing – they made rather a big deal out of it. My ConLaw notes are still somewhere around here ….
Rather a big deal, I would agree. I would even go so far as to say a state legislature enacting laws blatantly at odds with Federal law is tantamount to seceding from the Union – not explicitly as in 1860-61, just sort of like the kids say these days "quiet quitting" the Union, at least in all things gun-related (guessing they still want their Social Security to remain as is).