Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments in Second Amendment Preservation lawsuit
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ)
The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides in the case of St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Jackson County v. State of Missouri, where the counties are suing the state over the Second Amendment Preservation Act.
House Bill 85, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, was signed into law in 2021. It declares some federal gun regulations unconstitutional and prohibits Missouri law enforcement from enforcing those federal regulations.
St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Jackson County challenged the state in a lawsuit claiming the Second Amendment Preservation Act is unconstitutional, disregards the separation of powers and violates the Supremacy Clause. In the court case, the challengers are asking for a preliminary injunction, which would make the Second Amendment Preservation Act unenforceable until the court makes a final ruling.
Monday afternoon's hearing included a lawyer representing the U.S. Justice Department. Jeffery Sandberg, the lawyer for the Justice Department, argued the Second Amendment Preservation Act makes it difficult to investigate crimes in Missouri.
"The federal government cares about this case because this law has posed substantial threats to public safety," Sandberg said. "Because of HB 85, it has become harder for us to investigate all manner of crime including violent crime in this state."
Robert Dierker Jr., the lawyer representing the challengers, started his argument with an attack on the new law.
"When I was re-reading the state's brief last night, it struck me that the Second Amendment Preservation Act is misnamed," Dierker said. "It should be the Separation of Powers destruction act."
However, the state's attorney, John Sauer, focused on the court procedures. Sauer poked holes in the accusations by asserting that the Missouri Supreme Court is not an "adequate remedy" of the law and the court may not have jurisdiction over the decision whether the law is constitutional.
"There's no authority that supports the motion that it's gotta be fast enough, you gotta be able to get equitable relief. It's gotta be an adequate remedy at law where you have the opportunity to actually raise this," Sauer said. That's what all the case law contemplates and that's exactly what we have in this case."
The court did not come to a decision on the day of the hearing, and it is not immediately clear when a decision will be made.
