Eyeplink45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 14
If individual states can decriminalize a federally controlled substance like marijuana, then would it be possible for states to do the same with federally restricted firearms?
Eyeplink45 said:If individual states can decriminalize a federally controlled substance like marijuana, then would it be possible for states to do the same with federally restricted firearms?
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.
This simply means that you will get arrested by the FBI, ATF, U. S. Marshall or DEA, instead of the local police or sheriff; you will be tried in federal court instead of state court; and you will go to a federal prison instead of a state prison.
Yes, the probable cause, etc., requirements still apply.aeriedad said:This simply means that you will get arrested by the FBI, ATF, U. S. Marshall or DEA, instead of the local police or sheriff; you will be tried in federal court instead of state court; and you will go to a federal prison instead of a state prison.
If there is probable cause, you will be arrested and tried. If the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you will go to prison. Even the federal government is bound by the principles of probable cause and reasonable doubt.
Only if a court has so ruled. Your opinion doesn't really control.txnative1951 said:Well, when the Feds violate their own laws (i.e. the Constitution)...
txnative1951 said:...I don't see any reason why we should follow their laws...
...an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership...
Perhaps not, but it is where the question of the constitutionality of a law is finally decided.txnative1951 said:...The Supreme Court is not infallible...
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,....
....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.....
So the bottom line is that whether or not a law is constitutional will be up to the court, not you.
Once again, we follow the rule of law here at THR. One may object to a law and urge the use of the peaceful processes built into our system.txnative1951 said:...We need to quit giving tacit acceptance to the views of the liberals by suggesting that *some* gun control laws might be "reasonable". It's time to stand up and say, "I'm not going to take it anymore". If we do not speak out against this usurping of our 2nd Amendment rights and point out that ALL of these laws are unconstitutional since they INFRINGE upon our right to bear arms, all that will happen is that we'll have even more of our rights stolen from us.
No longer true - the ObamaCare decision decided ObamaCare individual mandate exceeded the Constitutionality of the Commerce Clause, the first time Congress got that hand slapped in the cookie jar, so it CAN happen again.Unfortunately the Supreme Court has pretty much set a precedent that the federal government can control anything they want under the Commerce Clause. Because so many components, ingredients, and complete products are traded back and forth between states, it's just currently accepted in the legal community that the federal government can shoehorn the control of anything under the Commerce Clause.
Nonetheless, in the real world that is beside the point.pendennis said:While I'm well aware of Marbury v. Madison, and the abject hijacking of the U.S. Constitution, there has been no scholar since then who can find any language in the original document, nor in such illuminating documents such as "The Federalist"...
Sam1911 said:...The only value of our opinions on Constitutionality is in what they encourage us to do politically -- from voting and badgeing our representatives up to running for office ourselves to try and make changes. So those opinions have only a miniscule and secondary bearing on truth and reality.
Constituntionality is really not just an ephemeral concept (like love or honor or hope) which means something unique to every individual. It is a specific legal parameter which is decided by those appointed to do so. The Court decides whether something is Constitutional or not, and then is IS SO for whatever period of time that decision prevails. It is a fact, like (and analogous to) the question of whether a specific act is legal or not....
Which is as the Founding Fathers intended (Constitution, Article III, Section 1):pendennis said:...Judges and justices are nearly immune from anwering to anyone...
Section 1. ...The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Not quite. As Sam1911 noted (I quoted him in my post, above), our opinions matter insofar as they affect political actions we take. But our opinions on the legal question of whether or not a law is constitutional still don't matter. The legal question is the province of the federal courts as authorized by the Founding Fathers to exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution.CharlieBT said:...Opinions DO matter,...
Of course that begins to focus on a basic issue with the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. Declining to prosecute what enough people think are crimes can diminish respect for the law. On the other hand, prosecutors need to decide how to use limited resources.CharlieBT said:...if a prosecutor refuses to prosecute facts that citizens plainly see as crimes, were crimes committed at all? We could be the beneficiaries of this practical federal reality if we put strong state laws in place that miraculously cause multitudes not to see or hear trees falling in the forest...
Or borrowing from the old philosophy saw about a tree falling in the forest, if a prosecutor refuses to prosecute facts that citizens plainly see as crimes, were crimes committed at all? We could be the beneficiaries of this practical federal reality if we put strong state laws in place that miraculously cause multitudes not to see or hear trees falling in the forest. Those who see them, well their opinions won't matter, cause it is only the federal judiciary that counts per the founders's design.
Sometimes you are the windshield, and other times the bug. The Tenth Amendment is an avenue to shape the federal administration of justice -- as a modern, practical reality and regardless of what the founders thought or intended. No court papers necessary. Heresy, perhaps, but it is simply the other side of the coin Sam and you have discussed.
While I'm sure that you are interested in your excursions into theoretical jurisprudence, and others might be also, these discussion are off topic for this thread and need to be discontinued.pendennis said:...As the great philosopher and political theorist, Edmund Burke so eloquently stated - "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."...
....our opinions matter insofar as they affect political actions we take. But our opinions on the legal question of whether or not a law is constitutional still don't matter. [/QUOTE
In the long run it's not that simple. Federal and many state and local judges are political apointees, and the politicians who select them are elected by people with opinions. Other judges are elected directly. So predictably with Bush we got Alito & Roberts, with Obama Kagen & Sotomayer, and this has been how it works. So it seems wrong to dismiss opinions so easily, or to state categorically that individual opinions, when there are enough of them, still don't matter. As long as two 'learned' judges can read the same text and history and come to diametrically opposed meanings, when it's time to select the judges the opinions that elect them or that placed the selecting politicians matter very much indeed, as I fear we are soon to learn. Again.
....Yes, Montana has passed a law that allows firearms that are produced, sold, and possessed entirely within their own borders to have looser restrictions than the federal government allows. So far however, no one that I know of has actually tried testing it. And if they did, I guarantee they would be prosecuted by the federal Justice Department....
- Legislation asserting that firearms made, sold and kept only in Wyoming are exempt from all federal gun laws is set to become law after it easily cleared the Wyoming Legislature on Wednesday.
But although supporters say the bill is mainly a symbolic shove against the federal government, it remains to be seen whether the fight will carry over to the courts or even to Wyoming streets.
The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act passed the state Senate without objection on Wednesday. Gov. Dave Freudenthal has indicated that he'll sign the bill into law; two other states, Tennessee and Montana, have previously enacted similar laws.
Wyoming's Firearms Freedom Act, though, is harsher than those laws, as it states that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on a firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison