Home invasion? Robbery?
You mean to tell me you want the federal government to go around enforcing state laws? I'm surprised to see you guys want that, but I guess you never really know about some folks.
I on the other hand, am against the feds enforcing state laws, except in the very specific and very rare case of a state crime being committed on property of exclusive federal jurisdiction, but within the boundaries of a particular state, and then being prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act. I for one will continue to support the concept of separate sovereigns, aka state's rights, rather than expect the federal government to interfere with the sovereign states as you two are advocating.
As has been discussed many times before, if the feds and the locals are investigating crimes, the locals will charge offenses under state and local law, and the feds will charge offenses under federal law. I don't know why this seems unusual to anyone.
However I can think of many offenses in Title 18 and Title 21 of the USC code that COULD be part of the charges. However, I am not SAC McMahon, or USA Suddaby, and therefore I would only be speculating on what specific sections of the US Code are part of the indictment. Again, call the ATF NY Field Division, or the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of NY, to inquire about the details.
Now cropcirclewalker, with regard to this question:
You may not like it, but keep in mind those parts of Title 18 and Title 26 that deal with firearms have been passed by the legislature, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, were signed into law and are enforced by the Executive, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, and have been contested and ruled on by the judiciary, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution.
Now, I know there will be cries of, "those laws are unconstitutional," "the sniveling congress critters are wrong," "the president is weak and wrong," and "the courts have twisted the Constitution and their decisions are wrong." The problem with all of those cries is our Constitution created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a direct democracy. Therefore by design the individual citizens do not have a direct say in those matters. Rather the people we elect as our representatives, and those appointed by the people we elect, all as specified in the Constitution, have a direct say in what is or is not Constitutional. We elected those congressman, and presidents, who in turn appointed and confirmed the judges.
If you don't like the people representing you, be sure to vote. If changing who is making the decisions, by voting, isn't good enough for you, and you want changes in the system itself, I refer you to Article V, of the Constitution.
Now if you profess to know, and support, the Constitution, then all this should be clear to you already.
You mean to tell me you want the federal government to go around enforcing state laws? I'm surprised to see you guys want that, but I guess you never really know about some folks.
I on the other hand, am against the feds enforcing state laws, except in the very specific and very rare case of a state crime being committed on property of exclusive federal jurisdiction, but within the boundaries of a particular state, and then being prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act. I for one will continue to support the concept of separate sovereigns, aka state's rights, rather than expect the federal government to interfere with the sovereign states as you two are advocating.
As has been discussed many times before, if the feds and the locals are investigating crimes, the locals will charge offenses under state and local law, and the feds will charge offenses under federal law. I don't know why this seems unusual to anyone.
However I can think of many offenses in Title 18 and Title 21 of the USC code that COULD be part of the charges. However, I am not SAC McMahon, or USA Suddaby, and therefore I would only be speculating on what specific sections of the US Code are part of the indictment. Again, call the ATF NY Field Division, or the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of NY, to inquire about the details.
Now cropcirclewalker, with regard to this question:
There is nothing in the portions of Title 18 or Title 26, which deal with firearms, that are un-Constitutional. Hold the battle cries until you read the rest please.Weapons Violations? 2nd Amendment? Please reconcile.
You may not like it, but keep in mind those parts of Title 18 and Title 26 that deal with firearms have been passed by the legislature, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, were signed into law and are enforced by the Executive, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, and have been contested and ruled on by the judiciary, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution.
Now, I know there will be cries of, "those laws are unconstitutional," "the sniveling congress critters are wrong," "the president is weak and wrong," and "the courts have twisted the Constitution and their decisions are wrong." The problem with all of those cries is our Constitution created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a direct democracy. Therefore by design the individual citizens do not have a direct say in those matters. Rather the people we elect as our representatives, and those appointed by the people we elect, all as specified in the Constitution, have a direct say in what is or is not Constitutional. We elected those congressman, and presidents, who in turn appointed and confirmed the judges.
If you don't like the people representing you, be sure to vote. If changing who is making the decisions, by voting, isn't good enough for you, and you want changes in the system itself, I refer you to Article V, of the Constitution.
Now if you profess to know, and support, the Constitution, then all this should be clear to you already.