The federal government alleges Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act has endangered public safety by prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies.
If you have noticed, Attorney General Garland filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri. In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI at paragraph eight the federal government made the following statement:
8. By purporting to nullify federal law, H.B. 85 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2 (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”); see United States v. Reynolds, 235 U.S. 133, 149 (1914) (“If such state statutes . . . have the effect . . . to nullify statutes passed in pursuance [to the Federal Constitution], they must fail.”)
The implication of the government’s claim in paragraph 8, in regards to Article VI, Clause 2, is that States must comply with the federal Constitution AND federal laws, being that they are the supreme law of the land; and State law must be subordinate to the federal Constitution and federal law. Well, that is kind of true, but not completely true.
Article VI, Clause 2 actually says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
In other words, Article VI, Clause 2 says that federal statutory law cannot be in conflict with the federal Constitution. So, based on Article VI, Clause 2 any federal law that infringed on the right to bear arms would be unconstitutional.
Then the Government cites United States v. Reynolds saying “If such state statutes . . . have the effect . . . to nullify statutes passed in pursuance [to the Federal Constitution], they must fail.”
The implication of the government’s claim in paragraph 8, in regards Reynolds, is State law cannot violate federal statutory law. Implying that federal statutes are constitutional.
Reynolds actually says:
“If such state statutes, upon their face or in the manner of their administration, have the effect to deny rights secured by the federal Constitution, or to nullify statutes passed in pursuance thereto, they must fail.”
In other words, the Reynolds court says what Article VI, Clause 2 says; not what the federal government says it says.
Notwithstanding Supreme Court opinions, the feds can place a tax on guns and ammo, but they cannot regulate a right.