With Gov. Abbott’s signature barely dry, the Biden administration is threatening states about passing second amendment sanctuary bills.
The Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton wrote to the state of Missouri warning that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause overrides the state's resolution to ignore federal laws. The letter added that “where federal law conflicts with state law, state law is preempted.”
Boynton added that the state cannot shield residents and businesses from federal laws and that the federal agents would continue enforcing laws regardless of the state regulations.
He warned that the resolution threatens the working relationship between the state and the federal government. The letter also notes that the state receives federal grants and technical assistance which the state risks losing.
“We are concerned that, absent clarification, HB 85 threatens to imperil the longstanding and close cooperation between the Federal Government and law enforcement agencies in Missouri that seek to jointly combat violent crime in the state.”
It is in the best interest of the federal government to maintain cooperation with states on issues such as interstate gun smuggling. Destroying this relationship over states' refusal to enforce unconstitutional laws puts all Americans beyond the 2A sanctuary states at risk.
“Without the kind of federal-state cooperation that has benefited all of us over many years, our collective law enforcement efforts will be impaired.”
He asked the Missouri state Gov. Mike Parson and State Attorney General Eric Schmitt to clarify how the law works.
Evidently, the reason for passing a second amendment sanctuary law is to undermine the federal government's ability to enforce unconstitutional laws. However, it does not void federal laws or prevent federal agents from enforcing federal laws.
Missouri passed a Second Amendment sanctuary law penalizing police departments at the rate of $50,000 per officer who violates the state law by enforcing federal gun control laws.
Texas’ Second amendment resolution could also face a similar hysterical response from the DOJ.
However, the anti-Commandeering Doctrine states that the federal government cannot force states to enforce its laws, and the Supreme Court confirmed in New York v. United States (1992).
It can, however, attach conditions to its grants as the supreme court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Consequently, we only stand to lose a few buc