Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2012, 10:05 AM
Bansh88's Avatar
Bansh88 Bansh88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,662
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default State vs Fed law enforement in CA

Hope this doesnt doesnt sound too confusing or stupid.

I heard about someone getting cited for medical marijuana out in Glamis, CA (BLM land). The story was that it's under federal jurisdiction so CA laws didn't overwrite the federal laws on marijuana.
Would this apply to firerams as well, theoretically?
Say a BLM ranger stops you. You have 30 round magazines or no bullet button. Will he enforce federal laws or CA? Can he pick and choose?
This is all "what if" stuff. Does anyone know how this works?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-17-2012, 10:16 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Kinda of hard to compare illegal activity (federally) to state restrictions.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2012, 10:17 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Federally pot is illegal.

States have rights to restrict certain aspects of firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2012, 10:19 AM
Baconator's Avatar
Baconator Baconator is offline
Bacon makes it better
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,381
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

It's kind of funny. The feds regulate drugs under the commerce clause, because they have no enumerated right to do so in the Constitution, it should be up to the states. The feds should have complete control in enforcing the "shall not be infringed" because it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but the states still regulate. No one is doing what they should.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-17-2012, 10:29 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With gun laws, things are peculiar. Unlike with drugs, anyone who owns a firearm has the unstated responsibility to comply with ALL State, Federal, and LOCAL laws even if they overlap or contradict each other.For a practical example, this means a resident of someplace like Chicago has to comply with Federal laws ( no unregistered NFA items), State law ( must have a Firearm Owners ID card to touch a gun/ammunition, and NFA items are forbidden to non law enforcement or military) and local city law ( Chicago bans "assault weapons",firearms equipped with laser sights, high capacity magazines, or unsafe firearms which are listed on a city roster, and mandates a local Chicago City Permit on top of the state permit).

With drugs, well, some states are issuing local permits to acquire medical marijuana despite Federal law listing it as a Schedule I narcotic. That said, with guns there is a close equivalent to that situation- Montana passed a law stating that firearms made and sold within the state do not require Federal compliance with the 1968 gun control act or NFA Statutes-so , on paper, an FFL in Montana can sell a 14.5" AR15 to a state resident who never crosses the state border.

Of course, the ATF threw a hissy fit and issued an opinion memo which basically said "if you try this we'll jam up the dealer and buyer so badly you guys will beg to be sent to Gitmo.", so at this point the Federal status quo is preserved for lack of anyone wanting to take on the American KGB.But nevertheless, it IS legal to buy an NFA item in MT without a permit according to the state regs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-17-2012, 1:10 PM
Bansh88's Avatar
Bansh88 Bansh88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,662
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Federally pot is illegal.

States have rights to restrict certain aspects of firearms.
This is what I'm saying.

High Cap magazines are federally legal to use, illegal by California state standards. Does a federal law enforcement agent, enforce the state law or the federal law?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-17-2012, 1:31 PM
meaty-btz's Avatar
meaty-btz meaty-btz is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,885
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bansh88 View Post
This is what I'm saying.

High Cap magazines are federally legal to use, illegal by California state standards. Does a federal law enforcement agent, enforce the state law or the federal law?
There is a concept concerning security that governs most computer security. It is the concept of: Most Restrictive. That means the Most Restrictive has sway, this appears to be an operation in truth in the modern legal system. So if you were to grant and restrict the same thing, most restrictive comes into play and you are restricted.

It works both ways, if the State you are in makes Drug X illegal but the feds say it is legal.. it is illegal (just like our gun laws). If the Feds say the Drug X is illegal and the State says it is legal it is still illegal.. most restrictive.

That isn't how it is supposed to work but that is how it turned out.
__________________
We give them happiness and they give us authority.
You assuage their conscience.
They give us their freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-17-2012, 2:02 PM
vliberatore's Avatar
vliberatore vliberatore is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 9,123
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
With gun laws, things are peculiar. Unlike with drugs, anyone who owns a firearm has the unstated responsibility to comply with ALL State, Federal, and LOCAL laws even if they overlap or contradict each other.For a practical example, this means a resident of someplace like Chicago has to comply with Federal laws ( no unregistered NFA items), State law ( must have a Firearm Owners ID card to touch a gun/ammunition, and NFA items are forbidden to non law enforcement or military) and local city law ( Chicago bans "assault weapons",firearms equipped with laser sights, high capacity magazines, or unsafe firearms which are listed on a city roster, and mandates a local Chicago City Permit on top of the state permit).

With drugs, well, some states are issuing local permits to acquire medical marijuana despite Federal law listing it as a Schedule I narcotic. That said, with guns there is a close equivalent to that situation- Montana passed a law stating that firearms made and sold within the state do not require Federal compliance with the 1968 gun control act or NFA Statutes-so , on paper, an FFL in Montana can sell a 14.5" AR15 to a state resident who never crosses the state border.

Of course, the ATF threw a hissy fit and issued an opinion memo which basically said "if you try this we'll jam up the dealer and buyer so badly you guys will beg to be sent to Gitmo.", so at this point the Federal status quo is preserved for lack of anyone wanting to take on the American KGB.But nevertheless, it IS legal to buy an NFA item in MT without a permit according to the state regs.
You would still be violating a federal law if you had a NFA item. I don't see why that is complicated. Violating federal law, the feds can prosecute you. It's just like the DEA busting the medical marijuana dispensaries. Legal in the state, illegal federally.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-17-2012, 3:49 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,585
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The BLM LEO will enforce both the Federal and the local law, whichever one you are violating. While MJ is technically legal under CA law it is 100% illegal under federeal law. In regards to an non-registered AW AR platform with all the evil features and no BB, while it may not be illegal unde Federal law, it is illegal under CA law and the LEO will arrest accordingly.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-17-2012, 3:56 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Keep in mind, that at least in CA many federal LEO's are cross deputized from the local sheriffs. I know all GGNRA park police are deputized by SFSO, SMSO and Marin county SO.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-17-2012, 5:19 PM
Oneaudiopro Oneaudiopro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cotati
Posts: 844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To try and answer your question................LEO's can usually choose whether or not they make an arrest on state, federal, or municipal laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level and legal in some states. Federal law always trumps local and state laws.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-17-2012, 5:28 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneaudiopro View Post
To try and answer your question................LEO's can usually choose whether or not they make an arrest on state, federal, or municipal laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level and legal in some states. Federal law always trumps local and state laws.
Only under federal prosecution in federal court.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-17-2012, 5:53 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vliberatore View Post
You would still be violating a federal law if you had a NFA item. I don't see why that is complicated. Violating federal law, the feds can prosecute you. It's just like the DEA busting the medical marijuana dispensaries. Legal in the state, illegal federally.
The foundation for the Feds' enforcement of the NFA is interstate commerce of certain firearms. The Montana law applies to weapons built within the state which never leave, thus eliminating the Federal grounds for regulation. The situation is not as cut and dry as the Feds saying MJ is a Schedule I substance yet the state is openly defying it by issuing a permit for its consumption.

Here's the Montana law in text.


Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.



Link source:http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/hb0246.htm
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-17-2012, 6:12 PM
dtp dtp is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Keep in mind, that at least in CA many federal LEO's are cross deputized from the local sheriffs. I know all GGNRA park police are deputized by SFSO, SMSO and Marin county SO.
It was my understanding that ALL federal police (natl park, forestry, BLM) operate under written permission of the county sheriff in which they operate. There is a county in nor cal that has threatened to remove that permission if the USFS rangers insist on enforcing their travel management policies. It is quite a hot button issue in the OHV access world. The sheriff has stated he wil not enforce the rules in his county. Basically the ultimate law enforcement authority in any jurisdiction is the county sheriff. I think FBI, ATF and the like are different because they enforce federal law only.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-17-2012, 6:47 PM
tbhracing tbhracing is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Sac
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Tagged
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-18-2012, 8:15 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,842
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtp View Post
It was my understanding that ALL federal police (natl park, forestry, BLM) operate under written permission of the county sheriff in which they operate. There is a county in nor cal that has threatened to remove that permission if the USFS rangers insist on enforcing their travel management policies. It is quite a hot button issue in the OHV access world. The sheriff has stated he wil not enforce the rules in his county. Basically the ultimate law enforcement authority in any jurisdiction is the county sheriff. I think FBI, ATF and the like are different because they enforce federal law only.
They sheriff may decide what his deputies enforce or not, but he as absolutely zero authority to tell a federal LEA what they can do in the county.

He can posture and politick all he wants, but in the end, they are going to tell him to pound sand.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-18-2012, 8:34 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
They sheriff may decide what his deputies enforce or not, but he as absolutely zero authority to tell a federal LEA what they can do in the county.

He can posture and politick all he wants, but in the end, they are going to tell him to pound sand.
AND this^^^ is being very politically correct, LOL
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-18-2012, 8:37 AM
Manolito's Avatar
Manolito Manolito is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milford California Pop. 72
Posts: 2,327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is an interesting thing going on in San Bernadino county. The BLM normally operated under a MOU with the sheriffs department to allow them to enforce state statutes and vehicle laws.

BLM took away some grazing rights that had been in families for generations and the sheriff (Penrod at the time) withdrew the MOU and BLM was not allowed to enforce state statutes. The sheriff had an obligation to his ranchers in his jurisdiction not the BLM.

The result of that was BLM had to hire DEputies if they wanted to enforce vehicle laws etc. on BLM property. I can't say if this still hold true with the new sheriff (Hoops)

I would like to see you ask your sherriff in writing if they have an MOU with BLM for your county and if not can BLM enforce state laws. Specifically ask if a member of your party has a medical MJ card can they be arrested on BLM property? Then ask about magazine capacity.

Just for fun.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-18-2012, 8:46 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manolito View Post
There is an interesting thing going on in San Bernadino county. The BLM normally operated under a MOU with the sheriffs department to allow them to enforce state statutes and vehicle laws.

BLM took away some grazing rights that had been in families for generations and the sheriff (Penrod at the time) withdrew the MOU and BLM was not allowed to enforce state statutes. The sheriff had an obligation to his ranchers in his jurisdiction not the BLM.

The result of that was BLM had to hire DEputies if they wanted to enforce vehicle laws etc. on BLM property. I can't say if this still hold true with the new sheriff (Hoops)

I would like to see you ask your sherriff in writing if they have an MOU with BLM for your county and if not can BLM enforce state laws. Specifically ask if a member of your party has a medical MJ card can they be arrested on BLM property? Then ask about magazine capacity.

Just for fun.

Bill
Politics is just that. BLM will enforce state gun laws because the Feds allow for state regulations, transfers, and acknowledgments of state laws in each state.

For MJ cards and possession, BLM if they want can arrest under federal jurisdiction. AND they should! The perp will go to fed court as opposed to state court.

Feds concede state restrictions on firearms, it's legal, Feds do not concede to state laws that are federally prohibited like controlled substances.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-18-2012, 8:53 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

BATFE enforces state gun laws all the time.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-18-2012, 9:48 AM
surfguy's Avatar
surfguy surfguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I saw an episode of Wild Justice where DFG warden Beels arrested someone on federal land for possession of marijuana even though they had the locally issued medical marijuana card. It would appear that medical marijuana laws or exemptions are not valid everywhere in the state. Is medical marijuana legal or just decriminalized?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-18-2012, 10:13 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,853
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfguy View Post
I saw an episode of Wild Justice where DFG warden Beels arrested someone on federal land for possession of marijuana even though they had the locally issued medical marijuana card. It would appear that medical marijuana laws or exemptions are not valid everywhere in the state. Is medical marijuana legal or just decriminalized?
California provides a limited exemption from prosecution for persons who possess a valid medical marijuana identification card (refer to Health and Safety Code section 11362.775). There's some semantic creativity in the way the law was written to prevent conflict with federal law. California has never "legalized" medical marijuana. That would invite legal action because our law would then conflict with federal law. By using the "shall not...be subject to state criminal sanctions" language, the law against marijuana stays intact and the folks that were indented to benefit from "medical marijuana" still get the supposed benefit.

Marijuana still remains illegal under federal law. The state law section preventing prosecution has no impact on the federal court system. They're good to go.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-18-2012, 10:48 AM
surfguy's Avatar
surfguy surfguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks RickD427. Very informative. My cousin, who is a federal police officer in KY, was visiting last week and was surprised that so many people openly smoke pot here. My reply was that it's sort of legal, but that never stopped anyone in Santa Cruz even before prop 215. Of course, he was also surprised to hear all the hoops we get to jump through to own, use and posses firearms.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.