Prop 64 DES Bulletin

[acespawnshop]

So, Im sure you all just got that. Here's what I read. State law is _______ but unlawful under federal law. Federal Law prevails.

So in regards to CA's BS gun laws should we interpret this logic in the bulletin that we ignore state laws and follow federal law in regards to firearm sales and ownership?

Because that's exactly what I read....

[Baboosh]

State laws can be more strict than Federal.

So if Federally they had a Handgun Roster CA could not bypass that.

But CA has every right to make laws more restrictive.

[glockman19]

State laws can be more strict than Federal.

So if Federally they had a Handgun Roster CA could not bypass that.

But CA has every right to make laws more restrictive.

NOT where Federal LAW supersedes State Law, as in the 2A...The 2A is encompassed entirely by the Federal Government.

Amendment X
"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."

The Federal Government encompasses the entirety of Firearms Laws and Regulations. CA has NO AUTHORITY under the 2A as INCORPORATED onto CA under the 14th Amendment in the McDonald v Chicago Decision.

[DrJeds44]

State laws can be more strict than Federal.

So if Federally they had a Handgun Roster CA could not bypass that.

But CA has every right to make laws more restrictive.

No they don't have every right. Especially when a right is at stake. Feds make the minimum standard for a right that the states can not violate.

[acespawnshop]

I think we need firearm sanctuary cities. (get on it city of Redlands)

[Baboosh]

NOT where Federal LAW supersedes State Law, as in the 2A...The 2A is encompassed entirely by the Federal Government.

Amendment X
"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."

The Federal Government encompasses the entirety of Firearms Laws and Regulations. CA has NO AUTHORITY under the 2A as INCORPORATED onto CA under the 14th Amendment in the McDonald v Chicago Decision.

Oh yea? Then why do we have these laws and why are the feds doing nothing about it?

[wchutt]

Oh yea? Then why do we have these laws and why are the feds doing nothing about it?

Because the 14th Amendment (which was specifically written to force the states to honor the first 8 Amendments amongst other Priviledges or Immunities) was basically written out of the Constitution in the Slaughter House cases. While most of the rights have been "incorporated" against the states, and McDonald was supposed to do just that for the 2nd, there is no backbone to support it in the Supreme Court. Basically as long as the court refuses to recognize that the rulings in the Slaughter House cases were worse than Plessy v Ferguson, our rights are at the whim of the state.
Worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi2WM1LSdBA

[kemasa]

There are some laws which are Federal, so even if the state does not have a law, it is still illegal. SEC, for example.

Yes, our Rights are being violated, but that is a different issue.

[acespawnshop]

.

Yes, our Rights are being violated, but that is a different issue.

Twas the whole point of my post.

[glockman19]

Oh yea? Then why do we have these laws and why are the feds doing nothing about it?

? I have no idea.

I have appealed to my Congressman, he's a liberal democrat complicit in the denial of Rights.

[baranski]

? I have no idea.

I have appealed to my Congressman, he's a liberal democrat complicit in the denial of Rights.

I have appealed to mine and not only does he support the 2nd, he's active about it. I will continue to write and support him.

[kemasa]

Twas the whole point of my post.

Perhaps that was your intention, but if you read what you originally posted, it was about that although state law allowed drug use, it was still illegal under Federal law and somehow that related to the state making something illegal which is not illegal under Federal law, but it doesn't. There are many things which are illegal in a state which is not illegal under Federal law.

Rights are a very different thing. It is not about where the law is (state/Federal), but just the fact that the law even exists anywhere.

[acespawnshop]

Maybe better put I was more concerned with the fact that in certain cases ( and this is a stretch) you can ignore one law and choose to comply with others. I know this doesn't apply and more restrictive laws restrict, but my point was that if you can ignore why not become "sanctuary cities and counties"

[kemasa]

That is not the way the law works.

The law makes things illegal to do, not legal. You can do anything which does not violate a law. So, what happened was that the law was changed to make that which was illegal to be no longer illegal. If there is another law, then it could apply. There are those who try to justify something as being legal because it is acceptable under one law, but that does not matter if there is another law which makes it illegal.

Yes, there should be sanctuary cities and counties in which unConstitutional laws are ignored, but that should be everywhere.