St. Louis, Missouri – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is facing criticism for his inaccurate statements regarding a recent court case. Bailey took to social media to express his support for the defense of Missouri’s “Second Amendment Preservation Act” in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, his own solicitor general contradicted him during the oral arguments, stating that the case was actually about states’ rights, not the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment Preservation Act, passed by Republicans in 2021, seeks to nullify federal gun laws in Missouri and punishes state law enforcement officials who cooperate with federal authorities on enforcing those laws. In response to a case brought by the federal government, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Wimes ruled that the law was unconstitutional, as states cannot unilaterally declare federal laws unconstitutional.
During the oral arguments, Missouri Solicitor General Joshua Divine even went as far as to say that the provision in the law declaring federal gun laws unconstitutional is “toothless.” This contradicts Bailey’s previous statements and highlights the flaws in the legislation.
The bill, which has been in discussion since 2013, gained renewed attention under the Biden administration. However, legal experts and the federal judge have consistently rejected the idea that a state can simply declare federal law unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents such actions.
Bailey’s defense of the law, which some have described as more of a statement of secession than a defense of gun rights, has been called into question. The contradictory statements from his own solicitor general further underscore the confusion surrounding the law.
The decision before the judges is a straightforward one: either Missouri follows the U.S. Constitution or creates its own rules and regulations. The outcome of this case could have implications for states’ rights and federal gun laws across the country.
It is worth noting that Missouri’s attempts to undermine federal gun laws have been met with criticism and concerns about public safety. The law restricts the ability of state authorities to work with federal law enforcement, potentially making Missouri a less safe place. The words in the law matter, as they have real-world consequences for the implementation of gun regulations and the fight against violent crime.
In conclusion, the court case challenging Missouri’s “Second Amendment Preservation Act” brings to light the tension between state and federal authority. The oral arguments revealed the contradictions within the law and the differing opinions within Missouri’s own legal team. The decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for gun rights, states’ rights, and public safety.