JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jan. 7, 2018) – A bill prefiled in the Missouri House would allow people with a medical waiver to possess firearm sound suppressors, partially nullifying some federal regulations in practice and effect.
Rep. Ron Hicks (R-Dardenne Prairie) filed House Bill 302 (HB302) on Dec. 18. Under the proposed law, persons with significant hearing loss could legally possess a firearm sound suppressor, commonly referred to as a silencer. Any person with a written certificate from a licensed medical doctor, otologist, or neurotologist attesting that the person has significant hearing loss and that a firearm silencer would be beneficial to preserve the person’s remaining hearing could legally possess a firearm sound suppressor under state law.
Currently, Missouri enforces federal regulations on firearm sound suppressors by making their possession in violation of federal law a state crime. Passage of HB302 would end all state enforcement of federal statutes on persons holding a medical certificate.
“Silencers” simply muffle the sound of a gun. They do not literally silence firearms. Nevertheless, the federal government heavily regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act. The feds charge a $200 tax on the purchase of the devices. Buying one also requires months-long waits after filing extensive paperwork with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
While the repeal of state suppressor restrictions on Missourians with medical waivers would not alter federal law, it would remove a layer of law and enforcement hindering access to these harmless devices. The widespread easing of suppressor regulation in states would undermine federal efforts to unconstitutionally regulate firearms.
In 2017, Tennessee decriminalized the manufacture and possession of firearm suppressors in the state. Passage of HB302 would take the first step in that direction in Missouri.
As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity. Or when the state decriminalizes and people start ignoring the federal prohibition without any further state “permission” to do so.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary in such a climate, and people will increasingly take on the risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”
Less restrictive state gun laws such as HB302 can have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce federal gun control, should the people defy it, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with future federal enforcement efforts.
State actions like HB302 lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourage a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.
Provisions withdrawing state and local enforcement of federal law in HB246 rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
