The federal government has spoken through it judicial agency, the US Supreme court. It has said that federal law prevails with regard to marijuana use, notwithstanding that the people of the state of California, for example, approved 'medical marijuana several years ago.
OTOH, federal law with regard to firearms possession is what it is, yet CA law prevails and overrides fed law. I don't get it. Who decides when state law trumps fed law, or is it just whichever is more restrictive and if so, who made that rule and when?
This is not intended to discuss the benefits/risks of mj use, so don't even start. I'm interested in how CA (and other states) can impose firearms laws that are more restrictive than federal law. If any state tried to limit any of the other BOR amendments, for example, they wouldn't get away with it.
OTOH, federal law with regard to firearms possession is what it is, yet CA law prevails and overrides fed law. I don't get it. Who decides when state law trumps fed law, or is it just whichever is more restrictive and if so, who made that rule and when?
This is not intended to discuss the benefits/risks of mj use, so don't even start. I'm interested in how CA (and other states) can impose firearms laws that are more restrictive than federal law. If any state tried to limit any of the other BOR amendments, for example, they wouldn't get away with it.