Idaho’s “Prohibition on Federal Regulationof Certain Firearms”

[Jimi Jah]

"No controlling legal authority" is why states get away with stuff.

The days of sending in Federal troops to enforce Federal laws is over here.

[Epaphroditus]

Just like pot - Feds say illegal but several states say legal. Its a mess but pretty much the same situation.

Lots of parallels to prohibition it seems - that didn't go very well.

[fiddletown]

...Lots of parallels to prohibition it seems - that didn't go very well.

No, it's really not parallel to Prohibition beauses as far as I know, the there were no conflicting state laws.

The Relationship Between State and Federal Law

1. Our's is a federal system. States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State or Commonwealth effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution. Our nation would not have come into existence had the States/Commonwealths not retained an acceptable degree of sovereignty.
   
   
2. A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as police power:

   The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

   
   
3. The police powers of States are broad and general.
   
   
4. However, as our federal government has been established under the Constitution the federal government has no general police powers. Instead, its powers are specifically described in the Constitution. So, for example, Congress only has the power to pass laws consistent with the specific powers granted to it under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (subject to certain limitations set out in Section 9 of Article I).
   
   
5. That arrangement is acknowledged by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

   
   
6. Deciding whether a law or other act of the federal government is within its power.
   
   
   1. The first issue will be whether a law or act of the federal government is within a power granted to it by the Constitution. So for example, the scope of the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to pass laws regulating marijuana has been defined and confirmed under a number of Supreme Court decisions, most recently Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
      
      
   2. A second issue will be whether a particular federal law impairs rights protected under the Bill of Rights. However, the courts have ruled that some regulation of rights protected by the Bill of Rights is permissible.
      
      
   3. The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to decide what the Constitution means and how it applies to matters in controversy (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

      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,...

   
   
   
7. Deciding whether a law or other act of a state government is within its power.
   
   
   1. While the police powers of a State are general and broad, each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution. A State's constitution may circumscribe powers of the State government and provide explicit protection of some rights.
      
      
   2. Since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.
      
      
   3. While the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)), some years following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis, using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus those enumerated rights found applicable to the State have also become limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power.
      
      
   4. To the extent that the question of the validity of a state law raises an issue under the United States Constitution, the meaning and application of the Constitution is finally a matter to be decided by the federal courts.
   
   
   
8. What about when there's federal law and state law on the same subject?
   
   
   1. The whole area of choice of law (where the laws of multiple jurisdictions could be applicable) is a huge, complex, and pretty much non-intuitive subject.
      
      
   2. In general federal law will supercede state law. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:

      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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      
      
   3. If the particular issue addressed by the state law is also addressed by the federal law, there's the question of whether the particular federal law was intended to "occupy the field", i. e., be the final word on the subject. In that case the federal law preempts the state law and applies instead of the state law.
      
      
   4. On the other hand, if a court decides that the federal law did not reflect an intent to occupy the field, in order to decide if federal law or state law applies a court will need to decide if the state law is consistent a federal policy concern or would, on the other hand, frustrate the federal policy furthered by the law. Or a federal law could be found to preempt state law if either expressly or by inference the federal law was intended to promote national uniformity with regard to a particular issue.
      
      
   5. Sometimes federal law will be explicit about how a conflict between federal law and state law is to be resolved. An example which comes immediately to mind involves the confidentiality of medical information regulation under HIPAA. Those regulations expressly provide that they don't supersede state laws to the extent providing greater protection of an individual's confidentiality interests. For another example, with regard to firearms regulation, federal law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) expressly doesn't preempt state laws. See 18 USC 927:

      No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

      
      
   6. Sometimes there's no conflict between federal and state laws. If something is a crime under federal law but not state law, the crime would be prosecuted by the federal government, and visa versa. An act that is both a federal and state crime can be prosecuted by either, or both, the state and federal governments.

[Epaphroditus]

I meant in terms of wide spread ignoring of federal law. If anything the current state of affairs re pot is even worse than prohibition.

Parallels are not equality.

[IVC]

Completely worthless.

There is the legal side, then there is the practical side - CA marijuana laws are technically worthless too, yet people smoke pot and don't sweat the feds.

Any state that decided not to enforce a federal ban would be in the same position. Feds would have to enforce the law at the local level.

[fiddletown]

There is the legal side, then there is the practical side - CA marijuana laws are technically worthless too, yet people smoke pot and don't sweat the feds.

Any state that decided not to enforce a federal ban would be in the same position. Feds would have to enforce the law at the local level.

And in the current political climate there's really not much, if anything, to be gained by the federal government vigorously pursuing prosecution of routine, recreational marijuana use. There's really no downside from a political or policy perspective to the federal government exercising prosecutorial discretion and not committing resources to such prosecutions.

The same thing probably can't be said for enforcing either the NFA or the GCA68.

[rootuser]

There is the legal side, then there is the practical side - CA marijuana laws are technically worthless too, yet people smoke pot and don't sweat the feds.

Any state that decided not to enforce a federal ban would be in the same position. Feds would have to enforce the law at the local level.

Difference is only in how they word it.

IF the Idaho law would specifically call out for a "Prohibition on Federal Regulation of certain Firearms" it would be unconstitutional immediately. Said, done, put a fork in it. It cannot be presumed constitutional if it specifically calls out something like that.

However, if it is a "protection of commonly used firearms in Idaho" then you get to a point where it is probably presumed constitutional until proven otherwise.