Just Empty Gestures

[GEM]

Starting to wander folks. Unless it is firearms related, we are not interested.

 

[Thomasss]

What about Printz vs. The United States, Supreme Court ruling 1997:
Petitioners Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. And the petitioners won

 

[Frank Ettin]

What about Printz vs. The United States, Supreme Court ruling 1997....

Printz is basically irrelevant. The anti-commandeering doctrine, that was the subject of Printz, flows from the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment. See --

1. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) --
   
   
   • at 161:

     ...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). ...

     
     
   • at 162:

     ...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)....

   
   
2. Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997):

   ...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. ....

So under the anti-commandeering doctrine, a State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S.), but the anti-commandeering doctrine doesn't support a State attempting to nullify, or actively interfere with the enforcement of, federal law; and federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help. For an example of these principles applied to state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

...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...

The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):

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.

• There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
  
  
  • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)
    
    
  • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
    
    
  • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
    
    
  • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
    
    
  • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)
    
    
  • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
    
    
  • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)
    
    
  • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
    
    
  • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
    
    
  • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
  
  
• The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).

 

[daverich4]

While a city/county/state may have such a law, nothing stops an officer or any other citizen from calling ICE.

However, even if local LE wants to hold someone for ICE, they are legally required to release them after 48 hours.

https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-ar...fter,beyond the 48 hours, or has a complaint?

 

[DocRock]

A rather good explanation from a Conservative source:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...hip-of-suppressors-stay-away-from-it-n2591550

Some have tried to purchase a silencer and then found themselves ensnared in a years-long legal fight that ended with devastating convictions. Gutowski added that the legal basis for these state laws conflicting with federal law has been shredded at every level of the judiciary, so unless you want to go to jail for an extended period of time, Texans—don't try it (via The Reload):

 

[jdc1244]

I have been seeing everywhere about Missouri and their new 2A law and the new suppressor law in Texas. IMO, these "laws" are just empty gestures by politicians. The Constitution plainly states that federal law takes precedence over state law. Seems like a waste of time and effort.

Correct.

Article VI of the Constitution, and as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), codifies the supremacy of Federal laws; state and local jurisdictions are subordinate to Federal laws – including Federal firearm laws.

The notion of Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ states is political theater and meaningless nonsense; Constitutional law has long acknowledged that state and local authorities cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws; state and local authorities are already at liberty to not enforce Federal firearm laws.