KC Mayor tells pro-gun MO Legislature to "go fly a kite"

[Tom_Tildrum]

@MEBuckner

I don’t really think a law against carrying while drunk is a grave injustice, although I do think state preemption with respect to firearms laws is generally a good thing. But even apart from the wisdom of not having a law against carrying a firearm while intoxicated, I can kind of see why the K.C. city council might be pretty cheesed off at the Missouri Lege: If you oppose gun rights, then of course the Missouri Lege’s nullification bill is bad, but I would say even if you support gun rights, these nullification bills (in Missouri and in other states where they’ve cropped up) are just pointless grandstanding that doesn’t really do diddly-squat to actually protect any gun owner’s rights. And, while the relationship between the United States federal government and the state governments is not the same as the relationships between the state governments and their municipalities and local governments, it does smack of hypocrisy for the Missouri Lege to be playing constitutional chicken with the feds while at the same time wanting to uphold their own state constitutional supremacy over the local governments.

I think the dynamic is slightly different in the two cases. The state legislature is saying that, in its view, federal law is unconstitutional and hence invalid. Theoretically, there is at least a shred of justification in that the state law could thus be upheld in court against a challenge vis-a-vis the federal law. The city council, by contrast, is saying that the state law is bad policy, not that it exceeds the legislature’s powers. I tend to agree with the council’s judgment, but I don’t think there’s even a pretense that its action is legally valid.

On the other hand, the state’s suggestion that it would enforce its law by arresting federal officers strikes me as indefensible showboating.