This week, a federal judge struck down Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA). SAPA is a sanctuary law created to protect Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms from federal gun grabbers.
Ratified in 2021, SAPA prohibits state officials from enforcing federal firearms laws, and outlaws any taxes and fees imposed on guns, ammunition, or firearm accessories “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.”
Gun registration, tracking, and confiscation schemes also fall under this prohibited category, as GunsAmerica previously reported.
U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled on Tuesday that SAPA does not pass constitutional muster, citing the supremacy clause.
“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.
Government officials and agencies faced stiff penalties for violating SAPA, including fines of up to $50,000 per infraction.
Judge Wimes indicated that this had a chilling effect on interagency cooperation between federal, state, and local governments.
“State and local law enforcement officials in Missouri may lawfully participate in joint federal task forces, assist in the investigation and enforcement of federal firearm crimes, and fully share information with the Federal Government without fear of H.B. 85’s penalties,” wrote Wimes.
Supporters of the bill have defended it in the face of such scrutiny.
“Look, I don’t think anyone wanted to hamper or should be hampering law enforcement from working together with federal agencies or state agencies,” said Gov. Mike Parson in an Oct. 2021 interview with KCTV5 News.
“That’s not the goal of it. The goal of it is to take bad guys off the street and still respect the rights of the private citizen on the Second Amendment,” he added.
In the wake of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that he plans to file an appeal.
“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”
Sixty-three percent of California voters said they worry that gun violence will affect them or someone close to them according to results released from a survey by UC Berkeley and the LA Times in the wake of high-profile shootings in the state. Another 30% claimed to be “very concerned,” as well.
The survey also revealed a disproportional concern among women, city residents and people of color in the state in terms of the fear of gun violence.
Democrats ranked the highest in fear, with 78% expressing concern compared to 61% of unaffiliated independent voters and 36% of Republicans.
Tense political polarization on the 2A “is evident everywhere in this poll,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies.
Poll results. (Photo: David Lauter/LA Times)
“What was most striking to me had to do with the fears of gun violence affecting their own personal lives. I wouldn’t have expected there to be a huge partisan divide on that,” DiCamillo said. “But the perception is very different. Republicans are not expressing nearly as much concern about it as Democrats. And that really ties into their views on guns more generally.”
White, male and rural voters were less likely to report a fear of being personally affected by gun violence than black, Asian, Latino and female voters who lived in urban and suburban areas, the poll reported.
Vice president of policy and programs at Brady: United Against Gun Violence, Christian Heyne, referred to the results as “jarring.”
“I don’t think there are people in other industrialized countries throughout the world that would have a similar percentage of fear by population. And I think that’s because we stand uniquely in a position where gun violence is a reality, that our laws and access to weapons mean that no community can feel safe from gun violence,” said Heyne.
Forty-Five percent of those surveyed said stricter gun control laws would help a great deal in preventing mass shootings, and 18% said they would help some, while 34% said they would not help much making the partisan divide evident.
Eighty-Eight percent of registered Democrats said stricter laws would be somewhat or strongly effective, it dropped to 61% among non-party voters and dove to 20% for registered Republicans. Among the Republicans surveyed, 78% said stricter laws would not be very effective.
Fifty-eight percent said that creating more mental health services and expanding existing ones would help a great deal to reduce mass shootings, compared with 10% who said it would not help much. The partisan divide in this category was much smaller than on gun regulation.
The poll also revealed a widespread lack of information on whether or not the state’s so-called red-flag law is effective. Forty-one percent of voters reported believing the law was not being used enough, as opposed to just 6% who said it was being used too much. But 47% said they didn’t know enough about it to have an opinion.
Tighter rules on firearm possession was favored by 60% of voters surveyed compared to 34% who believe preserving the right to bear arms was more important when asked if it was better to impose restrictions on gun ownership or to protect 2nd Amendment rights
Eighty-six percent of Democrats said limiting gun ownership is more important than protecting gun rights. 57% of unaffiliated voters agreed as well, compared with 12% of Republicans surveyed.
The report follows a deadly stream of gun violence in the state including the back-to-back mass shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay. These fatal shootings renewed calls among Democrats for greater restrictions on who can legally possess a firearm in California and initiated several new pieces of gun-control legislation.
Firearm homicide and suicide rates per the CDC. Black males between the ages of 10 and 24 suffered the most in 2020. According to the report, they were 21 times more likely than their white counterparts to die from gun homicides. Put another way, young black males make up two percent of the U.S. population but accounted for nearly 38 percent of all gun homicides in 2020, as a Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence analysis explained.
Second amendment activists in California believe the sweeping SCOTUS ruling against restrictive gun laws will stop these efforts. Currently, courts all over California are trying to figure out how to apply the Bruen decision to current and future laws.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, wasn’t too surprised by the numbers in the poll that highlighted the partisan divide over firearms.
“But the reality is it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks about imposing more gun control or anything. We have the 2nd Amendment. It is clearly defined,” Paredes said.
Paredes further explained that the window for regulation is closing on their efforts.
“There’s no more hardcore gun control stuff that [Democrats] can do, because they’re already doing it all. And they are sad because they know that a lot of those laws are going to go away very, very soon.”
The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 7,512 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Feb. 14 to 20. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
Dozens of hospital and healthcare executives converged on New York City for a conference to discuss their role as “leaders” in reducing criminal misuse of firearms.
Criminal misuse of firearms isn’t a public health issue nor should it be addressed as such. It’s a criminal issue caused by individuals breaking the law. These health professionals should have instead listened closer to the keynote kickoff speaker, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Steven Dettelbach’s remarks.
Misfire from the Start
“Gun violence is a public health crisis. The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the decision makers of our nation’s health systems and hospitals to change the narrative on gun safety and pursue solutions that will make a meaningful difference,” Northwell Health President and CEO Michael Dowling, the forum’s moderator, told attendees.
Dowling isn’t a doctor, nor is he a prosecutor. His background is that of a career bureaucrat, former professor of social policy and an “influential voice” who is “taking a stand on societal issues such as gun violence.” He gained attention a few years ago with a public “call to action” urging healthcare providers to support gun control. Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership rejected Dowling’s argument, saying, “Firearms are not a public health issue.” The DRGO website instead stated responsible gun ownership has been shown to benefit the public health by preventing violent crime.
With Dowling leading the forum, it was obvious where the conversations would lead.
Wrong Diagnosis. Wrong Prescription
ATF Director Steven Dettelbach provided opening remarks. He thanked the group for their work and agreed with Dowling that “now is the time to fight,” but the director’s remarks had a notable focus that was missed in most all other discussions – the crime factor. Director Dettelbach highlighted a new report by ATF.
“The updated volume analyzes specifically America’s crime gun data,” Director Dettelbach said. “It provides more information on America’s crime guns – those are the guns used in and associated with crime.”
Director Dettelbach touched on one aspect of the report. “Over the five-year period the report covers, from 2017 to 2021, there were more than 1 million guns stolen from private individuals…,” he said. “Law-abiding gun owners don’t want their firearms stolen and they certainly don’t want them stolen and used in violent crime. Nobody breaks into a car and steals a gun to go hunting.”
Regardless, a physician or medical doctor is not needed to determine that stealing a firearm is a crime.
Grandstanding Governor
No “gun violence prevention forum” in New York would be complete without New York Gov. Kathy Hochul bragging about her own crusade to push through even more restrictive gun control. She praised the forum with little mention of the crime problem in her state’s largest cities and the criminals who continue to wreak havoc on New Yorkers. That includes a shooting on the subway a few weeks ago.
“Hopefully this important discussion will lead to changes back in your states,” the governor said.
She explained her efforts to pass more gun control following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down New York’s century-old restrictive and subjective concealed carry law in its Bruen decision.
During oral arguments of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito highlighted his public safety concerns with the existing law and explicitly asked, “How many illegal guns were seized by the New York Police Department last year? All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed?”
Post-Bruen, the public health situation in New York is better. Despite hyperbolic warnings over the Bruen decision by Gov. Hochul and gun control allies, early data shows an improving situation. In a report from City & State New York, the findings were ignored by Gov. Hochul. “A little more than half a year later, the spate of crime implied by those foreboding prognoses has not yet occurred,” the report stated. “And indeed, not only has New York avoided the wave of gun violence envisioned by some, but to the contrary, shootings are actually down.”
‘Scientists’ Not Following the Science
Late last year, a report from The Reload revealed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) purposefully omitted important data after being lobbied by gun control groups. It confirms suspicions Americans have towards a government-funded health agency instituting policy that’s not rooted in science, that would also restrict Constitutional rights.
When “gun violence” is proclaimed to be a public health issue, which Americans have a history of opposing, it is rightly assumed that the federal government would use taxpayer funding to push an agenda based on gun control propaganda – which isillegal – rather than holding criminals accountable for their crimes.
Dowling’s forum participants came with their minds already made up for more gun control. Criminals should be the focus of policies to reduce intentional criminal gun misuse. Pushing gun control under the guise of “public health” is malpractice.
