2A Sanctuaries & Constitutionality

Bill460 said:

...You can't send in the DEA to bust the, "Medical Marijuana" shops, or ICE to bust the Sanctuary Cities for illegals. Unless to send in the ATF to bust the Governors, Mayors, and City Counsel members of these Second Amendment Sanctuary cities and states as well. You're either going have Federal law stand over everything else, or you don't. You can't pick and choose which one's. This isn't a fruit stand at a farmers market.

Click to expand...

1. Federal law always stands over everything else. The Constitution provides (Article VI, Clause 2, usually referred to as the "Supremacy Clause"):

   ...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....

   Click to expand...

   
   
2. Some States have enacted laws effectively making the use of marijuana, for medical purposes and, in some cases, for recreational purposes, legal (but in some cases to some extent regulated).
   
   • In those States there are no state laws against the possession and use of marijuana for local or state law enforcement to enforce (as long as the possessor/user complies with state regulations, e. g., is old enough, doesn't drive under the influence, has any necessary documentation, etc.).
     
     
   • But the use and possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Because of the Supremacy Clause, federal law enforcement is free to enforce federal marijuana laws in any State, notwithstanding conflicting, more lenient state laws.However, as a matter of general principle in the law that law enforcement/prosecutors have broad discretion to decide how to allocate and use their resources.This is usually called "prosecutorial discretion."
     
     • It appears that, at present, federal prosectors have a general policy not to vigorously prosecute casual marijuana use or possession in States which have legalize marijuana use, as long as state law is complied with.
       
       
     • But that is merely policy. It doesn't change the law. And it's also a matter of discretion. It can change at any time. And, there's no indication that the current federal disinclination to enforce federal marijuana laws in State which have legalized it will extend to the enforcement of federal law prohibiting possession of a firearm or ammunition by a marijuana user.
   
   
3. On the other hand, some counties or cities have adopted immigration sanctuary policies.
   
   • The details of such programs can vary. Some might be supported by local legislation, and some might merely be less formal policy matters. They essentially an exercise in prosecutorial discretion and involve local decisions not to use resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
     
     • In general, the federal government may not, under the principles of federalism, to implement or assist with federal regulatory programs (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)). However, under some circumstances the federal government may "encourage" States to do so by tying certain financial benefits to such implementation/assistance.
       
       
     • Such local sanctuary policies don't change the law. Because of the Supremacy Clause, federal law enforcement is free to enforce federal immigration laws in any State, notwithstanding conflicting, local sanctuary policies.
   
   
4. Similarly, Second Amendment Sanctuary policies are a sort of exercise in prosecutorial discretion. But if, for example, a local sheriff decides he isn't going to expend resources using his department to enforce gun control laws he doesn't like, that decision doesn't change the laws.
   
   • So state law is still the law, and it would be enforceable by other police agencies in the State.
     
     
   • Federal law also remains the law and may be enforced by federal law enforcement.
   
   
5. With regard to the question of the constitutionality of a law (be it an immigration law or a gun control law or any other kind of law) the Founding Fathers in the Constitution assign the authority to decide questions regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

   Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
   
   Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...

   Click to expand...

   
   Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and understood what judicial power was. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
   
   
6. The Supreme Court has also ruled (see Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827) and U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)) that a statute is presumed constitutional and is valid and enforceable unless/until it is found unconstitutional by a proper court.