Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I heard that it passed the Senate(I think?) a few weeks ago. Any word on its progress since?
Passed both chambers and is on the Gov's desk for signature.I heard that it passed the Senate(I think?) a few weeks ago. Any word on its progress since?
You'd still face Federal charges for the can, right? I though the courts had struck down "firearms freedom" laws in the past?
Well, the ruling in Gonzales v Raich pretty much put paid to the notion that the states could ignore Federal law regarding things like maryjawanna, and yet more and more states have decriminalized it since the ruling with no apparent response from the Feds. Confusing times.You'd still face Federal charges for the can, right? I though the courts had struck down "firearms freedom" laws in the past?
Pretty much so. I can't see using the state law as any sort of affirmative defense, unless some bright group of lawyers think that they can re-argue the Commerce Clause notion contained in the Gonzales v Raich decision to a different end.As far as protection against prosecution, worthless - unless it is part of the case finally made to Scotus.
Don't be silly. Take five minutes on Google and see how these firearm freedom/Second Amendment sanctuary laws have actually played out in the Federal courts.Maybe we really are a second amendment sanctuary state!
Where you been the last twenty three decades?I'm no attorney but I'm gonna bet the Feds jump all over this about State Law vs Federal law or the fact that all materials were manufactured locally in Texas. I sure would not want to be that first test case.
Forget the federal government. There's something called anti commondeering[sic] and it's been upheld in the supreme Court....
...Congress may not simply "commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288, 101 S.Ct. 2352 2366, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981). ...
...While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress' instructions. See Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 565, 31 S.Ct. 688, 689, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911)....
...the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law. ....
...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
Since you neither cited a source nor supported that claim with verifiable, credible evidence, there's no reason to believe that's true. In any event that still doesn't mean that a non-minority is home free. A similar Kansas law didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA....saw a study that from 2001 to 2016 says that 91% of people sent to jail by the ATF for "gun crimes" were minorities from the inner city. That's ....
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; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Where you been the last twenty three decades?
The test cases occurred years ago.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says federal law trumps state law.
and ATF reminded FFL's of this when Montana passed the first state firearm freedom law in 2009:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
Where you been the last twenty three decades?
The test cases occurred years ago.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says federal law trumps state law.
Well, the ruling in Gonzales v Raich pretty much put paid to the notion that the states could ignore Federal law regarding things like maryjawanna, and yet more and more states have decriminalized it since the ruling with no apparent response from the Feds.
A similar Kansas law didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.
Silly rabbit, test cases are for the little people.Let Abbot buy one and go to the range and use it.
IMO, this sets up otherwise innocent but gullible people to being prosecuted by .gov/fed
The states declaring themselves 2A sanctuaries are not exempting themselves from federal law, they're saying they won't enforce new regulations, executive orders etc. The antis don't have the votes in Congress, especially the Senate, to pass actual new laws.In any case, no state law exempts a state from Federal law - that's well known. Thus it is PR unless actual production and sales take place to generate a test case.