Our Federal Court brief counters outrageous judicial errors to preserve your right to keep and bear arms.
We want to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case U.S. v. Missouri. We need your help to do this. Here are the details…
On June 12, 2021, Missouri enacted a fabulous law – the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA).
SAPA declares that certain federal firearm restrictions are “infringements” of the right to keep and bear arms. SAPA lists the following specific examples…
- Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories that are not also imposed on all other goods and services.
- Any registration or tracking of firearms, ammunition, etc.
- Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
- Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from law-abiding citizens.
SAPA then orders that all federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, and regulations that infringe on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms… shall NOT be enforced by the state of Missouri.
It also imposes a fine on any state agency that later hires a former federal employee who was involved in enforcing federal gun control laws.
Can you see how powerful SAPA is?
It means that you, me, and millions of others could begin to pressure federal gun prohibition efforts on a state-by-state basis, just like was done with marijuana prohibition.
It also means that the federal government would have to endure greater costs in order to enforce its prohibition schemes.
The feds could no longer impose those costs on state and local governments who disagree.
The feds would have to enforce gun prohibition laws on their own, or not at all!
A law like SAPA can restore and strengthen the checks and balances that federalism was supposed to provide. It upholds the very spirit of the U.S. system of governance. But…
The Feds struck back by suing to overturn SAPA
The feds claim that SAPA violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, among other things.
Fortunately, Missouri is standing up. Missouri’s officials have counter-argued that no provision of SAPA limits or imposes a burden on the federal government, leaving them supreme to enforce their own gun laws in Missouri should they so desire, so there’s no way this violates the supremacy clause. That argument is hollow.
Missouri also argued that the feds have no authority to commandeer state officials and resources for their own purposes. That argument is substantial.
Yet the federal district ruled that SAPA was invalid. But we have a better opportunity!
This issue will now be considered in Federal Court!
We want to file an amicus brief in this case. Our brief argues that…
- The Supremacy Clause cannot be used to impose laws that violate the Constitution, as is the case when federal laws violate the Second Amendment.
- The Supremacy Clause requires that courts must enforce federal statutes, but not that state and local police must do so.
- Local magistrates can provide a needed check against unconstitutional federal dictates. They can, must, and are allowed under the Constitution to judge which federal dictates are and are not constitutional. This power is not reserved only to judges.
- The SAPA decision, as it currently stands, prohibits state and local officials from allocating their own resources in the way that they believe best serves the needs of the taxpayers who elected them. This is equivalent to saying Congress controls local governments, thereby rendering federalism null and void in one swoop.
- SAPA does not nullify federal gun prohibition statutes. It merely asserts that the federal state must enforce such dictates on its own in the state of Missouri, without assistance from Missouri officials.
- SAPA does not interpose Missouri officials between Missouri citizens and the federal government. In other words, SAPA makes no attempt to prevent federal officials from enforcing its dictates within the state of Missouri. The effect of SAPA is very narrow and well-defined.
Our brief will…
- Site extensive examples from history and previous judicial rulings.
- Argue that the district court ruling violates the anti-commandeering principle of Printz v. United States. This principle holds that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local officials to enforce federal dictates.
- Deploy numerous arguments from the Federalist Papers to clarify what the Constitution was intended to achieve.
- Establish our case on the firm foundation of the Tenth Amendment.
We think we can win this case, paving the way for a wave of similar pieces of legislation, perhaps even in your state or the one next door. We believe our arguments will help bolster the odds of success.
But we need your support in order to complete this mission. Please contribute to fund our brief…
Set your own agenda,
Jim Babka, President
Downsize DC Foundation
P.S. If tax deductibility is crucial to you, please donate through our partner organization, Downsize DC Foundation at the Zero Aggression Project page. https://zeroaggressionproject.org/contribute/
Today’s Action: Fund our Supreme Court brief