Missouri v US - 2A Sanctuaries

[Euler]

Soon to be petitioned to the US Supreme Court (shadow docket)

Missouri previously passed a state law prohibiting government employees (state, county, municipal, whatever), including law enforcement officers, from enforcing or assisting federal agents to enforce any federal gun control laws. Furthermore, Missouri government employees were required to assist Missouri residents to oppose such federal enforcement. Basically Missouri declared all federal gun control to be invalid in Missouri, violating federal supremacy.

The US challenged the law in federal district court. The US won.

Missouri appealed to the 8th Circuit Court. The US won.

On November 8, Missouri asked for an extension to the deadline to file a petition for certiorari.

On November 14, Kavanaugh granted an extension from November 24 to January 23.

[Ultimately, I doubt the Supreme Court will take it.]

Edited November 17, 2024 at 06:38 AM by Euler

[richp]

The problem here is that if you approve of sanctuary for this, then you provide collateral justification for sanctuary for illegals.

[Ranger]

Yep...  One of those catch-22 situations where you need to think long and hard about the best outcome long term.

[Jeffrey]

On 11/17/2024 at 8:11 AM, richp said:

The problem here is that if you approve of sanctuary for this, then you provide collateral justification for sanctuary for illegals.

How so if you have a strong 2a to begin with?  I can't find the amendment that says you can enter the country illegally.

[BobPistol]

On 11/17/2024 at 7:11 AM, richp said:

The problem here is that if you approve of sanctuary for this, then you provide collateral justification for sanctuary for illegals.

 

Nope.

 

We have a human right to keep and bear arms.

There is no human right to aid and abet other people breaking the law.

If we can have Sanctuary for illegals, we can have Sanctuary for criminals as well - murder someone in Illinois, take Sanctuary in New York without extradition.   In other words, no extradition treaties between the states - which is blatantly unconstitutional. 

[richp]

I hear what you are saying, but we're talking apples and oranges, folks.

 

Its not what constitutional principle might or might not be involved. If you concede that enforcement of one law is discretionary, regardless of the reason, you provide an argument for discretionary enforcement in other areas.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of restoring the full range of constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. But in developing a strategy, you have to recognize that there could be collateral impact in the legal arena, which might not be agreeable when thinking about other aspects of governance.

[Euler]

On January 23, Missouri filed its petition.

On January 27, the Court assigned a docket.

[Euler]

On January 30, the US asked for an extension to respond to the petition.

[illinois_buckeye]

Think of the other side.  You have state politicians saying they won’t allow their people to help ICE.  If they rule against Missouri here, then go after the state politicians trying to block deportations and use this case as precedent that federal law trumps state and local law.

[JTHunter]

On 2/4/2025 at 9:28 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Think of the other side.  You have state politicians saying they won’t allow their people to help ICE.  If they rule against Missouri here, then go after the state politicians trying to block deportations and use this case as precedent that federal law trumps state and local law.

😁

[Euler]

On January 31, 2025 at 09:23 PM CST, Euler said:→

On January 30, the US asked for an extension to respond to the petition.

On February 3, the Court granted an extension to March 28.