Supreme Court won't allow Missouri gun statute at odds with federal law

[sl8]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/20/supreme-court-missouri-gun-law/

Supreme Court won’t allow Missouri gun statute at odds with federal law

The statute was designed to prevent local and state police officers from enforcing certain federal firearms restrictions

By Ann E. Marimow
October 20, 2023 at 3:54 p.m. EDT

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to clear the way for a Missouri law designed to prevent local and state police officers from enforcing certain federal firearms restrictions.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he would have sided with the state.

Missouri’s Republican-led legislature passed the far-reaching law in 2021, declaring certain U.S. gun regulations invalid and giving individual citizens the right to sue local and state governments that enforce the measures, which the lawmakers said infringe on their constituents’ Second Amendment rights.

The Biden administration sued the state to block the Missouri law, saying it is unconstitutional and undermines public safety.

[...]

===========

Statement (pdf) :
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a296_21o3.pdf

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023) 1

Statement of GORSUCH, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23A296
MISSOURI, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 20, 2023]

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH
and by him referred to the Court is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS would grant the application for stay.

Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE
ALITO joins, respecting the denial of the application for stay.

With the understanding that the district court “prohibited” only “implementation and enforcement” of H. B. 85 by the State of “Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees” and “any others in active concert with such individuals,” App. to Emergency Application 29a, I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances. An injunction purporting to bind private parties not before the district court or the “challenged” provisions “themselves,” however, would be inconsistent with the
“equitable powers of federal courts.” Whole Woman’s
Health v. Jackson, 595 U. S. 30, 44 (2021).

[T_A]

1. Good Grief

Only Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he would have sided with the state.

What a fascist.

[AndyS]

2. Does not look good for 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries . . .

[thatdemguy]

3. I dont know how I feel about this.

The same rules can be used for immigrant sanctuary cities. If states cant make a law preventing fed gun law from being enforced, it can be easily applied to immigrants and not prevent states from enforcing immigration laws.

[yagotme]

4. This was my thought, also. Goose, gander? nt