On February 26, 2025, Tennessee Firearms Association and Tennessee Firearms Foundation joined Gun Owners of America and 13 other organizations to submit an amicus brief in support of the State of Missouri’s application for permission to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
In 2021, Missouri enacted its “Second Amendment Preservation Act” which declares certain federal restrictions on firearms to be infringements on the rights of Missouri’s citizens which rights are otherwise protected by the Second Amendment. See, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 1.410 – 1.485. The statute defined as unlawful infringements
I. (1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services and that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.420
(2) Any registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
(3) Any registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;
(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The Missouri statute ordered that “[a]ll federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, and regulations [which] infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment … shall not be enforced by this state.” Id. at 1.430 (emphasis added). Additionally, the statute provides that: “No entity or person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 1.450. Finally, the statute imposes a $50,000 civil fine on any “political subdivision or law enforcement agency” that afterward hires any federal employee who attempted to enforce an “infringement.” Id. at 1.470. [Note: Despite this law being adopted in Missouri in 2021, Tennessee has not adopted similar changes to its laws.]
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has held the Missouri law to be in violation of the federal supremacy clause.
The parties to the amicus brief point out, however, that the 8th Circuit supremacy clause analysis is flawed and inappropriate since the Missouri law is in line with the prohibitions contained in the 2nd Amendment itself:
For a short opinion, the Eighth Circuit’s errors were manifold. Purporting to begin with the text of the Supremacy Clause, the Eighth Circuit omitted its most salient portions, viewing all federal laws and regulations to be valid and therefore “supreme.” But the Supremacy Clause elevates only those federal laws “which shall be made in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and federal judges are not the only officials bound by oath to the Constitution. Indeed, this Court has previously recognized the role of legislatures in assessing the constitutionality of enactments, and the Supremacy Clause’s text binds only state judges. Thus, not only did the courts below impermissibly second-guess Missouri’s legislature and executive, but also they flouted this Court’s precedents and misapplied the Supremacy Clause.
Amicus Brief, pp. 4-5.
Rather than actually “invalidate” federal law as the Eighth Circuit claimed, Missouri’s statute simply declares that state officials will not aid in federal enforcement efforts. While that choice is entirely permissible in our federalist structure, Missouri’s statute actually complements federal law. Indeed, the category of firearms restrictions constituting “infringements” Missouri declines to enforce all have solid grounding in prior decisions of this Court. Just as it did with the Supremacy Clause’s text, the Eighth Circuit failed to engage with this Court’s cases relevant to the laws Missouri viewed as infringing on firearms rights.
A closer examination of the opinions below reveals that the district and circuit courts’ only true objection to Missouri’s SAPA was not that Missouri lacked the authority to decline to aid federal enforcement of certain firearms laws, but rather that the courts did not like Missouri asserting that position so strongly. Thus, the district court flouted — and in fact reversed — the canon of constitutional avoidance, to seek out and declare a Supremacy Clause conflict where there was none. And on appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed with precious little explanation, relegating its entire merits analysis to a few short paragraphs of circular reasoning and novel legal theory. Any one of these errors would warrant this Court’s review. Taken together, they make Missouri’s Petition all the more compelling.
Litigation efforts like this as necessary when elected government officials in the State of Tennessee, particularly those elected to the office of governor, the Tennessee Legislature and even Congress do not stand firm in defense of the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” mandate.
You can help fund this type of litigation by making supplemental member donations to TFA or by making charitable contributions to the Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Inc., (a 501c3 charity) that supports public interest litigation.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.