If certain states.....


PDA






InkEd
February 4, 2013, 10:32 PM
If certain states like California and others can ignore Federal Drug laws and allow their people to smoke marijuana for just about anything, then why can't other states choose to do the same with firearms laws???

California uses the "medical" excuse to ignore the federal guidelines for narcotics. Wouldn't it be great of other states did the same the thing in order to protect our 2A rights?

In California, they will give you a medical marijuana card for pretty much anything and you're free to smoke weed that the federal government says is illegal.

If the AWB passes and it is looking that way!....
I would love to see all the states that believe in the 2A to use the Law Enforcement excuse to allow their lawful citizens to still purchase things like before the AWB.

It would be pretty easy really. The AWB will not apply to weapons for LE (most likely). Okay. How about any lawful citizen can "check a box" on their CCW (like you do for organ donor on your DL) to be a "Volunteer Reserve State Emergency Safety Agent" or something. The qualifications would be the exact same as getting your CCW ....and maybe learn CPR or something. Then the state policy can be for such people to purchase, maintain and train with their own firearms!
The duties of the position besides the aforementioned weapons regulation would be to not violate any state felony laws and to report anyone that they see doing so to a local uniformed LE agency.

In other words, you can still own and purchase your weapons because you are now a state LEO who's duties consist of calling the regular cops it you witness a felony taking place.

It would be 100% LEGAL and LEGITIMATE. Then the only thing the antis could do would be pass further laws disarming LEO specifically and... Good luck with that one.

Would it be mockery to the AWB? Yes and who cares!

If California (Feinstein's state) can snub their noses at Federal Drug laws then how is it any different for other states to do the same thing with laws they do not endorse?

If you enjoyed reading about "If certain states....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
February 4, 2013, 10:35 PM
There are several States such as; Wyoming, Texas and Alaska that are doing just that. They are trying to push through Bills that will make any federal gun regulations after January 1, 2013 null and void in the borders of their States citing the 10th amendment which says any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government and not explicitly prohibited by the States shall be reserved by the States.

InkEd
February 4, 2013, 10:49 PM
The more states that refuse Obama's dictatorship the better we will all be in the real world.

happygeek
February 4, 2013, 10:57 PM
When it comes to things like Marijuana, it's hard for the Feds to use their old argument that "well see it affects interestate commerce so we can regulate it" since there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, not legally anyway.

The whole thing with WA & CO just legalizing weed is that the Feds didn't go about The War on Drugs the right way, they didn't pass a Constitutional Amendment like with Prohibition. The thing is WA, CO, etc aren't ignoring Federal law or "snubing their nose at it". They're reading the 10th Amendment and acting accordingly.

Akita1
February 4, 2013, 11:01 PM
I have an illness that requires protection by medical firearms: it's called liberty.

rallyhound
February 4, 2013, 11:03 PM
I would think in many states the feds would have a very hard time finding a jury to convict anybody of a weapons ban that was not supported by the people of that state/area.

InkEd
February 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
My point is we need to figure out ways to bypass this unlawful expression of Tyranny at a state level.

InkEd
February 5, 2013, 10:48 AM
I think the 10th ammendment issue needs to pressed!

Sam1911
February 5, 2013, 11:11 AM
These laws -- some of which have been passed and some just proposed -- have been under heavy discussion here.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696034

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=697547

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=693429

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=692915

And there are a lot more states than just those considering it.

In reality these are more "protest laws" than something really workable. The Constitution does not grant the states the ability to nullify federal law. The states can act in stricter terms, generally, than what federal law says, but they cannot actually say a federal law doesn't apply.

Passing a law that SAYS so is great, and is good PR, and quite a message to send to DC, but the idea that a state's Guard or State Police or some other body will meet federal troops at the border and send them packing is ... well, we're a mighty long way from that happening just yet.

The better way to view this is that, if you break federal law, now it won't be your local PD who arrests you, but the BATF, FBI, etc.

tgzzzz
February 5, 2013, 11:27 AM
I wonder if the 10th also can be argued to nullify all these executive orders that have beaten a well-worn trail around the "advise and consent of Congress?"

I'm thinking of all the czars to get around the legit legislative branch. The various attacks on the 4th amendment by well-intentioned but wrong-headed folks in Congress. The vote was 98-1 for the "Patriot Act". Homeland Security is a genuine nightmare, and I mean that in the worst way. The alphabet soup of agencies, each more secretive than the last. And reporting to whom? And ordering how many guns? Paid for by whom? It took the FBI a month to get to Benghazi. Yeah, sure it did.

With the last election, the future of the "two party system" became clear. It's gone. A new coalition is needed in my view.

YMMV.

Phatty
February 5, 2013, 11:33 AM
People living in states that have legalized marijuana can largely avoid federal prosecution for violating federal drug laws because the federal government does not have the manpower or resources to go after every person casually using marijuana.

It's not quite the same as far as guns are concerned. If Congress passes an AWB and Wyoming refused to enforce it, the feds can go straight to the licensed dealers and prosecute any of them that are selling AWB's in Wyoming. Also, simple possession of a banned gun would be a federal felony with harsh federal punishment, so people would be less likely to roll the dice (in contrast to recreational marijuana use where it would be a misdemeanor).

Phatty
February 5, 2013, 11:40 AM
I think the 10th ammendment issue needs to pressed!

The 10th amendment is pretty much meaningless right now. Here is the text of the 10A:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Supreme Court has broadened the powers "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" so much (particularly the Commerce Clause) that the federal government can do almost anything. If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to pass a federal AWB, then the 10th Amendment makes no difference because only powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the States.

Solo
February 5, 2013, 01:11 PM
Nullification has not been particularly successful in US history. What will most likely happen is that pro-gun states do not enforce any Federal gun laws, which means that the burden would fall on federal agencies who do not have the manpower to do it themselves.

tgzzzz
February 5, 2013, 08:53 PM
The 10th amendment is pretty much meaningless right now.

Nope. Your reading makes it meaningless but... all 10 are equal.

Frank Ettin
February 5, 2013, 09:26 PM
The 10th amendment is pretty much meaningless right now.

Nope. Your reading makes it meaningless but... all 10 are equal.Care to cite for us the last time it was favorably applied by a federal court?

gunsandreligion
February 5, 2013, 09:32 PM
Considering 1 in 5 members of the military are from texas, their law against future firearm restrictions would be hard for the federal government to go against.

mrvco
February 5, 2013, 09:38 PM
I think the 10th ammendment issue needs to pressed!

I don't partake, but I voted for State-A64 here in Colorado because the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana (medical or otherwise) at the state level is I believe an important step toward getting some momentum behind retarding the ongoing, unabated encroachment by the Federales into areas not expressly delegated to them in the Constitution (in direct contradiction of A10). With "Gun Control", the Federales continue to follow the same script as with the War on Drugs and just about anything else they put their hands on... "Whatever isn't working, we need more of it, no matter how exorbitant the financial or societal cost".

kcgunesq
February 5, 2013, 09:42 PM
When it comes to things like Marijuana, it's hard for the Feds to use their old argument that "well see it affects interestate commerce so we can regulate it" since there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, not legally anyway.

The whole thing with WA & CO just legalizing weed is that the Feds didn't go about The War on Drugs the right way, they didn't pass a Constitutional Amendment like with Prohibition. The thing is WA, CO, etc aren't ignoring Federal law or "snubing their nose at it". They're reading the 10th Amendment and acting accordingly.
I wish it were so. Unfortunately, we have a line of FDR era supreme court cases that say even if you are growing wheat/milk/etc for your sole, private use all within your own state, you still are governed by federal law because every ounce of milk/wheat/etc you grow for yourself reduces the amount that needs to move in federal commerce. That is, if I remember my first year con-law classes.

Now, that said, I agree with you and I believe it is possible, though unlikely, that the supreme court could distinguish say Filburn from machine guns, marijuana etc on exactly the ground you propose. But I doubt many inferior courts would be that brave or creative.

Solo raises an interesting point and line of discussion. Say a state passes a law that simply says that no state dollars shall be spent in furtherance or aid of enforcing any law that meets certain criteria and that any department, agency or officer who violates it shall cause the agency or department to have subsequent funding reduced some amount. Where an outright statement of nullification is likely unconstitutional under the supremacy clause, I'm not sure a refusal to fund cooperation raises the same problem. Our very own federal government routinely refuses to fund legal activities it opposes, instead of changing the law. Think firearm right restorations.

So if a state simply says, "hey feds, its all yours", we potentially end up in a very interesting place. Think black market and organized crime.

tgzzzz
February 5, 2013, 09:43 PM
Frank, I've been out of school a long while but I think the real issue is the next time.

I'm hoping someone younger and smarter than me steps up. If not, one of us has to.

Edit: Let's not forget how the Interstate Commerce clause has been misapplied in so many situations. We need a couple of folks to step up and carry the fight.

splithoof
February 5, 2013, 10:17 PM
California as a state may not be aggressive about going after the casual use of the medical happy plant, but the feds can and do arrest people involved in the trade that in some ways is sanctioned by the state. How does this relate to firearm law? The point is that California can pick and choose what to deal with, and likely would be a very strong proponent of any additional federal gun legislation. With the socialists now having a super majority of both houses, and a governor from the same batch, it doesn't look good over hear.

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