State passes law ordering its officers not to enforce fed gun laws; biden regime asks court to strike down that law

The Founders of this nation created a document once called "the supreme law of the land."  That document specifically grants Americans the right to keep and bear firearms.

Democrat politicians have long sought to ban civilian gun ownership.  They know they can't repeal the Second Amendment, so to get what they want they have to find a way to somehow make it not apply. 

Before seven months ago rational adults familiar with the Constitution and the law would have thought this absurd, but in recent months the biden*harris regime has found it can violate the Contitution at will, without penalty.  Thus the possibility of the regime trying to nullify the 2A is no longer unthinkable.

To show the regime that they opposed gun confiscation, the Missouri legislature passed a law prohibiting state and local officials from enforcing federal firearms laws.

Yesterday the regime's laughably-misnamed "Justice Department" asked a Missouri court to strike down that  law.  Astonishingly, the regime claims the state's law violates the Constitution.

Here's the statement of interest filed by the regime's attorneys claiming the Missouri law--known as HB85--is unconstitutional, and asking the court to prevent it from being enforced.

The regime whines that the law hinders law enforcement efforts to promote public safety in the state and undermines law enforcement activities, as it interrupts federal, state and local partnerships.

Wait, just two years ago the Trump administration made this exact argument when it sought to withhold certain federal funds from so-called "sanctuary states" that had passed laws or simply ordered their officials not to cooperate with ICE in transferring illegal aliens who'd evaded deportation orders and were now in state custody to ICE.

Did "sanctuary state" laws undermine federal agents trying to enforce valid U.S. law?  Damn right they did.  Did those laws put American lives at risk?  Damn right they did.  Nevertheless, federal judges ruled that federal immigration law did NOT take precedence.

With that precedent in mind, how do you think fed judges (think Emmet Sullivan) will rule in this case, eh?

You already know:  They'll rule that THIS case is TOTALLY different, and in this case federal law is supreme--as it should have been in the case of "sanctuary states."  This means that when the Democrat-controlled congress passes a law confiscating all civilian-owned guns "for the safety of innocent, defenseless children and the public in general," the courts will already have decided the issue in the Democrats' favor.

Wait...do I hear many of you saying this isn't possible?  That the government doesn't have the authority to do that?  Really?  In that case, explain how the Dems believe they have the "authority" to force you and your family to be injected with an experimental "vaccine"in order to fly commercial.

The government has whatever "authority" they can get away with.  You only have "rights" that they generously see fit to grant.

If the federal courts support the regime on this, the case may not even go to the Supreme Court, because Dems in Missouri may pressure the state not to appeal.  But even if it does go to the SC, how do you think the SC will rule?

What's next on their list?  Abolishing the electoral college, allowing the presidency to be decided by the winner of the nationwide popular vote.  They're already moving in that direction.