Discussion in 'Legal' started by The Last Outlaw, Jun 20, 2021.
Yet, these empty gestures are not without peril. The suppressor law in TX is most dangerous because some numpties will believe it to be true. And then they will be astounded when arrested and tried in a federal court.
Just as the empty gestures of the Left will have no impact on the illegal use of firearms but, as with the pistol braces ruling by ATF, will turn tens of thousands of law abiding citizens overnight into felons for the sole purpose of allowing Biden to pander to Bloomberg.
Fed law is only going to “take precedence” if the feds choose to pick up your case.
Are the feds really going to file a misdemeanor weapons charge based on one line (“suspect said he did not have a carry permit for the pistol”) in a police report? If it’s slam dunk AND the guidelines call for major time, then maybe they will. But if it’s a gun charge — a slam dunk with guidelines that start at Zero months — then why would they bother?
it’s nice to know there is nothing on the state books for the DA to jack you up on
) to the fedgov.
But yea, as LAW it is pointless and DocRock and others who look askance at these laws are totally correct.
Sure, that kind of case won't amount to anything, just like they let marijuana slide on the state level. I'm betting that they will be going after unregulated suppressors and Missouri residents flouting federal firearm laws. This is gonna get some law abiding folks in some trouble I predict.
Speaking of "picking and choosing" - Supreme Court, anyone? Mildly infuriating that they could put so much gun control out to pasture with the mildest of pro-2A rulings, yet will take on none of them.
At least some states are trying to send a message, effective or not...
I imagine the Feds are chomping at the bit to make an ‘example’ out of some poor stooge who thinks he can own a suppressor without a stamp. Or even worse, crosses a state line with it.
And we also have the 10th Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It will be interesting how these new laws play out. Especially considering how the marijuana laws are. There really is no difference. It is all in how the feds pick and choice what they want to enforce.
Too late for that--this has already happened in Kansas.
Several of these cases have already been brought--they tend to be fireflies, burning bright for a moment (in "our" community) then burn out to darkness.
There's some use to these things.
Basically the State is saying, the Federal rules are enough, this State will not impose more. This eliminates the hinky bits of per-state legislation, like MI and WA have for suppressors, just to name two.
And, while presently, immediately, they are of little use to any one given firearm owner, these laws do inform District and Circuit Courts.
Legally, this is probably more in the province of how the States interact with the Federal Government, and less about individual Citizens. Which will be frustrating to the individual.
We are told it's by way of the Commerce Clause, and in the specific interest of the safety of the Public at large.
Which leads off into all sorts of arguments, few of which are productive, excepting narrow one argued by constitutional scholars.
Which is left behind in a quest to find a way to strike a uniform set of regulations across the several and varied States.
None of which is much fodder for THR.
To add to this. Make them from local materials. Have Abbot's administration and state representatives who signed up, then go to the range and use them. Civil Rights folks stood up like that - come on Greg.
That would be awesome actually.
entirely an empty gesture . . . with the Texas justice system not prosecuting for a suppressor violation, it's marginally less likely a case will come to the attention of the Feds for prosecution in a Federal court.
It still seems to me that violating Federal law while trusting (hoping?) that State officials will keep the Feds in the dark about it is not a good strategy for staying out of prison.
Nope, not at all empty gestures, and not a waste of time. You are correct that US Constitution and US law do take precedence over state laws. However, that does not mean that state and local LEOs must at all times actively enforce those laws. They are free to sit back and let the Feds (FBI, DHS, SS, Park Rangers, ATF, PIC, etc.) take care of Federal law enforcement.
If you doubt this, look at how marijuana cases are being handled. Quite a few states now have state laws allowing either medical use or even recreational use of pot (this include the District of Columbia!). Yet all of that weed sale and use remains illegal under Federal law. Yet no one complains that the local and state LEOs spend no time enforcing the Federal laws on marijuana.
Show us where a single one of these state firearm freedom laws has changed federal law. Until they do........classic empty gesture.
Again, show where state and local LEO's activly enforce ANY federal law. They don't and never have. Sure, they can call ATF, FBI, DEA.....but state and local cops have never enforced federal law. Not their jurisdiction.
And so what? It's not their job.
Right. So it's not really an, "empty gesture" then for the state to make a law codifying that it's not their job.
It's an empty gesture because it was never their job. Ever. Not now, not ten years ago, not ever.
The federal courts keep reminding state and local PD it isn't their job to arrest or detain illegal immigrants. Again, because it is not their job, nor jurisdiction to do so.
If it wasn't for the empty gesture of 19 or so free states over the ~15 slave states, who knows how much longer the the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation would of taken.
While currently tangibly worthless in fed court, the empty gestures have a way of building momentum to pressure the feds.
Separate names with a comma.