Fed v State law


PDA






jmorris
January 3, 2013, 04:52 PM
Kind of tired of all of the doomsday threads so here is something a bit different.

In what way would the Feds reaction to State laws that break federal law differ if they didn't want them.

A few lib States have made drugs "legal" but that is in direct contradiction with Federal law. They have done nothing.

What if a State made a law to allow full auto, would you think they would have the same stance?

If you enjoyed reading about "Fed v State law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Slipknot_Slim
January 3, 2013, 04:56 PM
Kind of tired of all of the doomsday threads so here is something a bit different.

In what way would the Feds reaction to State laws that break federal law differ if they didn't want them.

A few lib States have made drugs "legal" but that is in direct contradiction with Federal law. They have done nothing.

What if a State made a law to allow full auto, would you think they would have the same stance?
The federal government hasn't stepped into the drug fray much because that's not a fight that Obama wants.

But watch how the federal government stepped in when some states bucked his immigration plans. Look for another fight if states try to get around his new gun laws.

armedandsafe
January 3, 2013, 04:58 PM
You would be taking part of their revenue stream. They would pounce on that like a cat on a mouse.

Pops

M-Cameron
January 3, 2013, 05:41 PM
im willing to bet that if the Govt passes some truly radical gun legislation, chances are good some of the extremely gun friendly states (AZ, AK, VT, Ect) would likely try their hardest to not abide by them...

What if a State made a law to allow full auto, would you think they would have the same stance?
someone correct me if im wrong, but wasnt there something going on not too long ago with Alaska wanting to make new Full auto firearms available again?

45_auto
January 3, 2013, 05:41 PM
Already been done by several states, I believe Montana was the first?

The first person to test it will get to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers while in jail for the next 10-15 years as the appeals process works it's way up to the Supreme Court.

Are you volunteering? :)

Edit: Apparently the Montana law doesn't apply to Class 3 (full auto), but would apply to short barreled rifles, suppressors, etc. I think you should build a SBR with a suppressor without tax stamps in Montana then wave it in the ATF's face and see what happens!

Montana Firearms Freedom Act:

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.

It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1 inch which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors.

JustinJ
January 3, 2013, 05:55 PM
The federal government hasn't stepped into the drug fray much because that's not a fight that Obama wants.

First off, the legalization of marijuana for recreational use is brand new so nobody knows what will happen. Second, under Obama medical marijuana dispensaries have actually been persecuted at a higher rate than under Bush. Third, in drug related crimes the feds generally target suppliers and distributors, not end users. This is not the case with gun laws. The Feds will most likely continue to charge and prosecute civilians under federal law, regardless of state laws, as they always have. Just because a state does not classify something as illegal it does not mean the federal law no longer applies.

pendennis
January 3, 2013, 06:01 PM
Montana will have a difficult time in making their case. Besides the ATF (Treasury) claiming jurisdiction over firearms manufacturing, there is also the fact that the Feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. By a Montana company engaging in manufacturing, the maker is affecting interstate commerce, even though the product would not be sold across state lines. There would also be claims that the steel, wood, or other components, came from other states, giving the Feds jurisdiction.

It's always difficult to fight an entity which can legally print money.

tomrkba
January 3, 2013, 06:18 PM
This is because the Commerce Clause (CC) is being abused at the Federal level. The Founders never intended for the CC to be used in this manner. They never thought that a government agency could control how surgery is performed because tools were sold across state lines.

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2013, 08:58 PM
This subject was already being discussed here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=692915).

If you enjoyed reading about "Fed v State law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!