New Republic - The Supreme Court will reconvene from its summer recess next month for what is often described as “the long conference.” The justices typically decide what they will do with pending petitions for review at their weekly conferences when in session. For their first session back in a few months, that process takes a little longer than usual.
Of the thousands of petitions that the justices will consider, perhaps none is as extreme as Missouri v. United States. The state is trying to defend a law that uses the threat of private lawsuits to dissuade state officials, including local police officers, from allowing the enforcement of federal gun laws.
The case centers on the Second Amendment Preservation Act, or SAPA. Missouri lawmakers first passed it in 2021 in response to what its proponents described as federal overreach. Representative Jered Taylor, who introduced the bill, compared the measure to other areas of the law where states can decline to help the federal government carry out its policy goals.
“The feds use us,” Taylor told a public radio station in St. Louis in 2021. “They rely on us to enforce their laws. Look at medical marijuana in the state of Missouri. This is exactly what we do with that. It’s exactly what sanctuary cities use.” The law said that almost any federal restrictions on gun ownership or possession “shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms” within Missouri’s borders.
Those restrictions include any “registration or tracking” of “firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,” as well any registration or tracking of their “law-abiding” owners. They also include “any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed” upon guns, accessories, or ammunition, aside from generally applicable sales taxes. Finally, they cover any law or regulation that orders the “confiscation” of any guns, accessories, or ammunition.
No comments:
Post a Comment