PDA

View Full Version : If states ignore federal POT laws, can they ignore federal gun laws?


Loopwell
12-26-2012, 2:04 PM
I don't recall another thread like this recently, but if states are ignoring federal drug laws, do you think some would be able to ignore federal firearms laws? DEA and ATF are separate entities, but I feel they have the same level of power to enforce. California has long ignored the marijuana laws, and only last year the the feds starting shutting down smoke shops. Then again, two more states this year completely legalized marijuana. I know California will try and outdo and federal firearms regulations, but other states may want to not ban anything.

Thanks

voiceofreason
12-26-2012, 2:11 PM
Interesting contention. I'd like to know more.

Thank you for sharing.

strangerdude
12-26-2012, 2:12 PM
Firearms and marijuana are incomparable. Oh and FYI, CA has not ignored federal laws on marijuana. There have been many dispensaries robbed and shut down by local police department. Also many licensed growers have been arrested by local law enforcement.

rplusplus
12-26-2012, 2:15 PM
IANAL... I think that just because Obama has said he doesn't want the Fed's to make the WA and CO Pot laws a priority...

I think we will continue to see Federal Agents doing raids in those and the rest of the 48 states.

Until a law is stricken... it is still a law.

unusedusername
12-26-2012, 2:32 PM
See Montana's stance on the NFA...

rplusplus
12-26-2012, 2:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Uncertainty_after_Miller_and _after_passage_of_Montana_House_Bill_246

Very Interesting.

njineermike
12-26-2012, 2:35 PM
See Montana's stance on the NFA...

Didn't Tennessee do the same thing?

wjc
12-26-2012, 2:52 PM
The states don't "ignore" the Federal Law. They "nullify" them according to the 10th Amendment.

Many states are doing that right now with Obamacare.

NytWolf
12-26-2012, 2:53 PM
I don't recall another thread like this recently, but if states are ignoring federal drug laws, do you think some would be able to ignore federal firearms laws? DEA and ATF are separate entities, but I feel they have the same level of power to enforce. California has long ignored the marijuana laws, and only last year the the feds starting shutting down smoke shops. Then again, two more states this year completely legalized marijuana. I know California will try and outdo and federal firearms regulations, but other states may want to not ban anything.

Thanks

What makes you think CA is going to ignore federal firearms laws when the 2A doesn't exist in CA's own state Constitution and CA's firearms laws are stricter than the federal laws to begin with?

Loopwell
12-26-2012, 3:03 PM
NytWolf- what i meant in my last sentence is california could be even stricter.

dustoff31
12-26-2012, 6:36 PM
Didn't Tennessee do the same thing?

There were 5 or 6 states that passed a firearms freedom act. To the best of my knowledge, thus far, no one has actually given the feds the finger and implemented it.

A fellow in MT did file suit in federal court over it. He lost. It may be on appeal, I'm not sure.

SilverTauron
12-26-2012, 6:43 PM
The risk on these sorts of conflicts falls to to the citizen.A state may elect to defy Federal Authority , but the flip side is that the state won't pay for a persons legal defense in Federal Court if they get busted.

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 8:51 PM
yes

nicki
12-26-2012, 10:44 PM
The sad thing is the Feds will use "assett forefeiture" to enforce their laws.

The "Civil route" is their way to step on your rights, they don't have to put you in jail if they make you destitute.

Here is how it works, they watch you go into your car with you "contraband gun", pull you over, ask you to step out of your car, seize both your guns and your car and tell you to have a nice day.;)

Or if your guns are in your home, they just come in, find the gun, claim you are involved in a criminal enterprise and your home is part of the enterprise and seize your home.

No trial, no jail, you are just broke.

This is what the government has been doing for years on the War on Drugs, expect the same when they gear up their War on Guns.

Nicki

lilro
12-26-2012, 10:59 PM
I suppose it could happen, but FFL holders are more likely to follow federal law than a dude with a weed shop. One FFL gets raided, the whole thing gets shut down.

pistol3
12-26-2012, 11:07 PM
Yes. See the Principles of 98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_'98). Tom Woods' book Nullification (http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356591673&sr=8-1&keywords=nullification) covers this issue in detail. The basic idea is that the sovereign states that formed the Union (and the Federal compact) get the last say on what is and is not Constitutional.

The current system as it is taught today, is that the Federal government asks itself whether something is Constitutional or not. Since the Federal government gets the last say on the extent of its powers, those powers basically grow unbounded.

I would also note that the states have, for the most part, surrendered their sovereignty to the Federal government. Much of this is due to the Federal income tax whereby money is taken from the citizens of each state, and then a portion of that money is allocated back to each state by the Feds. A governor who wants to have a real Constitutional crisis level nullification showdown with the Feds has to be willing to give up all those Federal funds (not to mention standing up to Federal law enforcement agencies). We have seen these types of efforts fail before. One recent example is when Texas threatened to not let the TSA grope children. The Feds threatened (http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-threat-to-cancel-flights-in-texas-kills-anti-tsa-grope-down-bill.html) to blockade all flights into Texas and that was the end of that. If a state like Texas can't even stand up against a Federal agency groping our genitals, what hope do we have for a state to stand up and fight a gun ban?

Scarecrow Repair
12-27-2012, 8:11 AM
The states don't "ignore" the Federal Law. They "nullify" them according to the 10th Amendment.

Many states are doing that right now with Obamacare.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with the 10th amendment, nullification, or any other pipe dream.

Obamacare says states had until a certain date, I think Dec 15th 2012, to set up a state exchange where poor people could sign up for insurance if they couldn't find it in the private market. In those states which did not sign up to create an exchange, the feds could (would?) set one up.

About half the states did not sign up. That's all that happened. It was done per Obamacare, not the 10th amendment.

QQQ
12-27-2012, 8:17 AM
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with the 10th amendment, nullification, or any other pipe dream.

Obamacare says states had until a certain date, I think Dec 15th 2012, to set up a state exchange where poor people could sign up for insurance if they couldn't find it in the private market. In those states which did not sign up to create an exchange, the feds could (would?) set one up.

About half the states did not sign up. That's all that happened. It was done per Obamacare, not the 10th amendment.

You clearly missed the point.
Obamacare placed a mandate on the states to expand Medicaid or else face reductions in federal funding. The Supreme Court struck down that requirement.

Ninety
12-27-2012, 8:24 AM
there was a thread on here recently talking about this in Alaska.. think it happened on one of those TV shows where an ex felon had a firearm. Legal to own by the states laws.. LEO did not care.

frankm
12-27-2012, 10:27 AM
Pot is a black market. If they get too draconian on guns, they'll create a black market there too.

fiddletown
12-27-2012, 12:45 PM
Federal law is still federal law. So instead of being arrested by local cops, you will be arrested by the FBI. Instead of being tried in state court, you will be tried in federal court. And instead of going to state prison, you will go to federal prison.

Scarecrow Repair
12-27-2012, 2:08 PM
You clearly missed the point.
Obamacare placed a mandate on the states to expand Medicaid or else face reductions in federal funding. The Supreme Court struck down that requirement.

What does any of that have to do with the 10th amendment and state nullification of federal laws?

HUTCH 7.62
12-27-2012, 2:20 PM
Federal law is still federal law. So instead of being arrested by local cops, you will be arrested by the FBI. Instead of being tried in state court, you will be tried in federal court. And instead of going to state prison, you will go to federal prison.

THIS

berto
12-27-2012, 2:36 PM
You're still open to felony roulette at the fed level. Is that a game you really want to play?

pistol3
12-27-2012, 2:54 PM
Federal law is still federal law. So instead of being arrested by local cops, you will be arrested by the FBI. Instead of being tried in state court, you will be tried in federal court. And instead of going to state prison, you will go to federal prison.

This is why full on nullification requires the state to interpose itself between the Federal government and its citizens. When Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, a local sheriff was willing to arrest (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/10/the-untold-history-of-nullification/) US Marshals attempting to enforce the law. If, and that is a big if, your local sheriff or police had the balls to do the same thing after a gun ban, then you might have a chance. It would require a serious commitment at all levels of the state government.