PDA

View Full Version : State Vs. Federal compliance. Like Marijuana laws for guns


Kingofthehill
01-01-2013, 5:42 PM
I heard this today somewhere and it got me thinking. Although here in CA its kind of hard but say a state like Arizona or Texas for example...

Suppose a ban like the one in 94' gets put into effect. Whats to stop a place like TX or AZ to tell the federal gov to pound sand like they do here in CA with Marijuana and the whole battle that its Federally illegal but at the state level it has been accepted?

I see even this state do that where they "kind of" put their foot down saying they aren't going to listen to the federal gov and do it the way they want at a state level so what would stop states with more freedom from doing the same thing with firearms?

I don't know, i heard it and it got me thinking and it was a very interesting thought though. Any ideas in this?

Joe

Intimid8tor
01-01-2013, 5:49 PM
That is one of the big problems with the feds getting more income tax than the states. They threaten to with hold funding for highways, etc. Some states already have laws on the books that make it legal for firearms to be manufactured completely in state and that they are not subject to NFA laws. That being said, the feds can still come in and prosecute just like they do on occasion in California and will in Colorado.

If they don't then that raises the question of discrimination since they are choosing to enforce some laws and let others go.

SparkYZ
01-01-2013, 6:02 PM
The Fed doesn't have a hard on for pot like it would for guns. Especially this administration

dustoff31
01-01-2013, 6:08 PM
The Fed doesn't have a hard on for pot like it would for guns. Especially this administration

This. In fact, they probably prefer that the populace is stoned most of the time.

The populace having guns? They prefer not.

berto
01-01-2013, 6:15 PM
The Feds could charge the folks in violation, just like they can with weed, in fed court. How does federal prison sound?

speedrrracer
01-01-2013, 6:18 PM
I heard this today somewhere and it got me thinking. Although here in CA its kind of hard but say a state like Arizona or Texas for example...

Suppose a ban like the one in 94' gets put into effect. Whats to stop a place like TX or AZ to tell the federal gov to pound sand like they do here in CA with Marijuana and the whole battle that its Federally illegal but at the state level it has been accepted?

I see even this state do that where they "kind of" put their foot down saying they aren't going to listen to the federal gov and do it the way they want at a state level so what would stop states with more freedom from doing the same thing with firearms?

I don't know, i heard it and it got me thinking and it was a very interesting thought though. Any ideas in this?

Joe


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

garand1945
01-01-2013, 8:57 PM
Don't speculate. Don't give the banners possible scenarios to write into their laws. Write your representatives instead, join the NRA, and get your friends in the fight.

If a ban is passed, and TX or another state decide to do this, we'll have front row seats to what will happen. Put your effort into making sure the ban never passes in any form.

nicki
01-01-2013, 8:59 PM
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome now supports legalization of marijuana, Gov. Brown is bringing up issue of state's rights on the very issue.

This is going to get interesting.

I guess this is why Obama put Joe Bidden in charge of the gun legislation.

Bottom line, lots of press, lots of news, but no cigar.

Nicki

CDFingers
01-02-2013, 4:43 AM
I think the issue indeed is state's rights, as posted above.

But the comparison between pot and guns is a poor one: we do not have an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and smoke pot. We do have an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.

So, the issue of state's rights to me hinges on the meanings of the ninth and tenth amendments, which supposedly clarify what states and what the Fed may or may not do.

The fly in the ointment for the .gov comes from McDonald, which "incorporates" the Bill of Rights against the states. Thomas wrote in that decision that Americans enjoy the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege of American citizenship.

So, if McDonald holds that all Americans enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, states should not be allowed to make laws that are more stringent than those at the Federal level.

In our fast paced society, the McDonald decision is now "quite old." I cannot understand why states like California with stringent gun laws have not seen huge lawsuits against the Federal .gov as regards gun laws. WTF?

CDFingers

speedrrracer
01-02-2013, 9:33 AM
So, if McDonald holds that all Americans enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, states should not be allowed to make laws that are more stringent than those at the Federal level.

While I wish there were no state gun laws of any kind, I don't understand how this statement follows logically. Doesn't Heller say that firearms restrictions of various types are OK? "...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

So to my ignorant reading, a state can pass such laws and they're GTG. That's potentially more restrictive than the Federal level.

In our fast paced society, the McDonald decision is now "quite old." I cannot understand why states like California with stringent gun laws have not seen huge lawsuits against the Federal .gov as regards gun laws. WTF?


Explain this to me -- are you saying the state should sue the Federal gov? :confused:

Calgunner739
01-02-2013, 9:48 AM
This. In fact, they probably prefer that the populace is stoned most of the time.

The populace having guns? They prefer not.

No. They want the populace buzzed not stoned; subdued and moving along like sheep, kind of like the slaves in ancient Egypt that were constantly fed beer to keep them mellow.

Marijuana makes the user question things, like the status quo. A populace that is armed and is waking up to the reality of the status quo? :38:

Haven't you followed how the ATF sent letters to gun dealers telling them to not sell to potheads, and are going after gun owners that have medical marijuana cards?

victor1echo
01-02-2013, 1:06 PM
It is not a states right issue because it's covered in the Constitution. Pot is not.