1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can a state execute its own gun law even if this law is conflicting

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by efeng9622, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. efeng9622

    efeng9622 Well-Known Member

    with FD new gun law?

    I just think about in case Federal senate and congress have passed the new gun law sometimes late. What will be happened in a state's current gun law? Is it automatically overlaid by Federal new law or is still available and can be executed until state’s create another new law ? Thanks!
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  2. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Separate laws enforced by separate jurisdictions.

    Local jurisdictions (State, County, City, etc.) are generally not authorized to enforce local laws and the feds cannot enforce local regulations.
  3. efeng9622

    efeng9622 Well-Known Member

    But my question is if the feds cannot enforce local regulations and each state even a city can just execute own gun law, Why do we still need a feds gun law? What is the relationship between feds and local gun law ?
  4. 9MMare

    9MMare Well-Known Member

    In WA St, and some others at least, we have a state constitution that prevents cities and other municipalities from placing other restrictions on guns. When challenged in this state so far, they have lost.

    Supposedly The Constitution protects us down here in the states as well, but some states are very restrictive already and getting more so. So the interpretations of the 2A can be pretty loose :-(
  5. danez71

    danez71 Well-Known Member

    A real life example is the pot laws.

    Some states have made it legal in certain circumstances... one even has ok'd for recreational use.

    Because its still against Federal law, the Fed can still come in and arrest/prosecute using Fed laws (not state/local laws).
  6. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    We do not need the federal laws. The fact is that the Feds want to control everything, it's really that simple. They have bastardized the intent of Commerce Clause to allow them to control everything not just interstate commerce as intended.

    As I stated above no relationship, at all.

    In some/many states, the state has total preemption of firearm regulations, meaning that no local laws can regulate firearms. Other states allow it, in those states (which is really stupid in my opinion) you can have the city police enforcing a city ordinance, the county sheriff enforcing a county ordinance (and maybe also the city ordinance), and state level LEO (State Police or whatever they are called) enforce state level laws (and maybe the county and city ordinances) and then have the feds enforcing the federal laws (but not any of the state, county, or city laws)

    It's all about control. Most governmental bodies want as much control of us as they can possibly get. Control = Power. :scrutiny:
  7. Archangel14

    Archangel14 Well-Known Member

    I'll answer your question, as no one else has yet. As a bit of background, I think most people would consider me a constitutional law expert. I make my living applying the constitution in our courts.

    Here's your answer: state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the federal constitution or law must bend to the federal constitution or law. The authority is found in the "Supremacy Clause" of Article VI (that's 6), Clause 2 of the Constitution. Thus, if it becomes federal law that no one may possess a Ruger manufactured hand gun (assuming the constitutionality of that law), then any state law that allows the sale of a Ruger firearm would be superseded and declared unlawful. It gets a lot more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Now, a state may pass a law that expands upon the federal mandate. So in our Ruger example, a state may pass a law banning the possession of a Ruger firearm AND a S&W firearm, even though Fed law says nothing about S&W's. There would be no encroachment by the state upon fed law in that case.
  8. gym

    gym member

    So when a Govenor or Sherriff says they chose not to enforce such laws, they are just turning their head and looking the other way. But if an incident occures due to the unresponsive or non enforcement of the Federal law, we then have civil disobedience, "yes"?
    And that would or could send the Govt. into the state to enforce such a law, resulting in a very serious situation. More than likelly heads would roll.
    I believe if my logic is not faulty this would be the beginning of a huge split in the populace. Also other cities and states choosing sides and who they decided to folllow, of course, this is the stuff that movies are made of.
    But it vey well could become a problem if not addressed. I think the more important question is if the Executive branch has the right to invoke a law that goes against the Constitution with no vote discussion from the Judicial branch and no agreement from the Legislative branch, it would violate our system of checks and balances would it not? Especially since we are not on a wartime footing, where such things are pushed through as emergency measures.
    Could an executive order be ignored if it had no grounds other than the President just deciding he wanted to do it?
    Or would it be blocked immediatlly by a court order, I have no clue what procedre is, on this kind of thing, they use executive action and executive order, almost interchangablly and I know they aren't. An executive action, can be anything he did,or said, true? Where an EO sounds more like a pending law.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013

Share This Page