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

Fed v State law

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by jmorris, Jan 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jmorris

    jmorris Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. Slipknot_Slim

    Slipknot_Slim Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Well-Known Member

    You would be taking part of their revenue stream. They would pounce on that like a cat on a mouse.

  4. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    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...

    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?
  5. 45_auto

    45_auto Well-Known Member

    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:

  6. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. tomrkba

    tomrkba Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    This subject was already being discussed here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page