By Sterling Sewell
Columbia Missourian
Efforts to reenact a law preventing the enforcement of federal gun laws in Missouri found opponents from throughout the state Monday at a Missouri Senate Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety hearing.
In 2021, the legislature passed the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” which prevented Missouri law officers from enforcing federal gun laws that were considered to be “infringements” on Second Amendment rights.
In 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the act unconstitutional because it violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws take precedent over state laws.
The court’s decision said that while Missouri could withhold aid to federal enforcement, the language in the original act would negate federal laws directly.
Rep. Bill Hardwick, a Dixon Republican, proposed bringing the act back with House Bill 1175.
“This is a proposal I have to kind of address what the Eighth Circuit had held and then reenact the substantive provision at the heart of the Second Amendment Preservation Act,” Hardwick said.
Hardwick believes the language of his bill would not be considered unconstitutional. HB 1175 would restrict state agencies from enforcing or aiding in the enforcement of federal gun laws that differ from Missouri’s laws.
Hardwick’s bill would also allow Missourians the ability to sue law enforcement agencies for up to $50,000 per occurrence should they work to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal gun laws.
“What (Missouri law enforcement) can’t do is be conscripts to the federal government,” Hardwick said, describing the bill.
The original law, as well as Hardwick’s reenactment, have drawn criticism from law enforcement agencies around the state. Police officers from Columbia, Nixa, Versailes, Rolla and Branson were in attendance at Monday’s hearing.
Some concerns presented by law enforcement include potentially frivolous lawsuits brought on by the bill and the potential loss of access to federal resources, like databases.
Aaron Dorr, a gun rights activist for the Missouri Firearms Coalition, attempted to dispel some of these concerns during his testimony. Dorr said the legislation would not affect agencies’ ability to access federal resources or to work with the federal government unless the primary subject of the work was in federal firearm enforcement.
Police Testimony
While many police who gave testimony agree with the sentiment of the bill, they voiced concern for the unintended consequences they believe could come from the bill.
Columbia Assistant Police Chief Lance Bolinger noted that even if the law does not technically impede agencies, attorneys for law enforcement agencies are likely to take a restrictive approach when dealing with a new Second Amendment law to avoid potential lawsuits.
“Regardless of what the intentions are when we pass these laws, it is how the attorneys for the police department interpret them, that’s what really matters,” Bolinger said, describing the effect of the original law. “Because what (the original law) did for us is it pretty much shut down all of our federal assistance.”
Bolinger said he is concerned that state agencies may stop using federal resources out of fear of litigation if a new Second Amendment act is approved.
When the original law was put into place, one of the things the Columbia Police Department lost was a machine that helps to identify shell casings, Bolinger said. This was because the machine was provided by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“This weekend in Columbia we had over 100 different shell casings that were dropped on our city,” Bolinger said regarding a shooting at Cosmo Park Saturday. “Trying to put those pieces together and figure out what gun fired what shell casing is going to be impossible without that kind of technology.”
Bolinger also noted that federal prison time for gun violations is often longer than state prison time, which means it’s sometimes advantageous to prosecute suspected criminals for federal charges instead of state.
Sean Fagen, the chief of police in Rolla, said he is an “avid supporter of the Second Amendment,” but voiced concerns about frivolous lawsuits that might arise because of the bill.
Fagen said these lawsuits could potentially stem from cooperation with federal law enforcement relating to narcotics.
“Usually when you have narcotics you have firearms involved,” Fagen said.
Fagen said he fears that if a narcotics case with state and federal cooperation was taken up by federal courts and gun charges were added, Missouri offices could be open to lawsuits.
An unlikely opponent to the bill was Ron Calzone, director of Missouri First, an organization that aims to protect Missouri’s legislative sovereignty from federal overreach. Calzone said he was a champion of the original law, but takes issue with the new proposal because it’s too broad and may interfere with an ongoing push to reinstitute the original law.
Calzone said the bill could potentially go beyond what he sees as federal “infringements” to the Second Amendment, instead applying to all federal laws pertaining to guns.
“The 2021 version of SAPA only forbade state involvement in federal laws we considered to harm the right to keep and bear arms,” Calzone said. “But (this bill) applies to all federal laws quote ‘regarding firearms.’”
Calzone said if the federal government passed a law increasing gun rights, Missouri police would be restricted from helping to enforce those laws under the proposed law.
Joan Haven, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, said she believes this legislation would make it harder for law enforcement to stop gun violence.
According to the most recent CDC data compiled in 2022, Missouri ranks fifth among the states in firearm mortality per capita.
No comments:
Post a Comment