The Missouri law targeted federal rules related to the sale, taxation, and possession of firearms, including regulations prohibiting certain ownership or ordering the confiscation of firearms and ammunition from “law-abiding citizens.” The statute also threatened fines of up to $50,000 for state or local officials who knowingly enforced federal gun laws deemed unconstitutional by the state legislature. However, the law did not clearly define “law-abiding,” creating confusion among local authorities.
The Biden administration argued that Missouri’s law interfered with federal enforcement efforts, causing some state and local agencies to halt cooperation with federal authorities in firearms investigations. Judge Wimes ruled that the law obstructed the federal government’s ability to enforce national gun regulations, a decision affirmed by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Missouri contended it had the right to restrict its officers from enforcing federal law, but both federal courts rejected that argument.
Even after Trump took office, the Justice Department signaled that parts of the law remained unconstitutional, though some provisions raised complex legal questions. The administration indicated that Missouri could seek to narrow the scope of Wimes’s ruling.
The Supreme Court has increasingly expanded gun rights in recent decades. In 2008, it recognized an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense. In 2022, it ruled that the Constitution protects the right to carry a handgun in public, establishing a stricter standard requiring modern gun regulations to align with historically recognized limitations to comply with the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Missouri’s case underscores that state laws cannot override federal firearms regulations and reinforces the constitutional principle that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state legislation.
