Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check this out. It sure is good to know that gun owners do intact have some law makers on their side. Although this article only

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jhjimbo
    replied
    I think the states and localities are not passing laws against any federal law or regulation, it seems more like the local or county sheriffs are choosing not to enforce them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenhead
    replied
    Ncarl, I understand what you mean, but the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause would find such a law unconstitutional. Any state law forbidding the enforcement of a federal law creates a conflict - it would be impossible to follow one without violating the other. In such instances, the conflict is resolved in favor of the federal law.

    States cannot take any action that is interpreted to interfere with the federal government executing its laws. In one case, the Supreme Court even found that states could not charge state income tax to federal buildings. In that context, there is no way that a law expressly forbidding the enforcement of a federal law would be found constitutional.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ncarl
    replied
    I think the point has been missed. In part because of me getting us talking about the constitution. This law wouldn't override any federal laws. Is more of a loop hole, while the federal law is still applies it would be illegal to enforce in missouri if this legislation passed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry A.
    replied
    I should add the laws enacted by states can be more restrictive than Federal laws, as long as the aren'y unconstitutional.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry A.
    replied
    States can enact laws that are more restrictive than Federal law, but they cannot enact laws less restrictive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenhead
    replied
    What I meant was that there are no federal laws stating that two people of the same sex cannot get married, so there is nothing for state laws to conflict with.

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    Hoski,

    You are most correct, sir. I will await with bated breath to see how this one pans out with the Supremes!

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    Greenhead --- Wrong!

    The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenhead
    replied
    Pot is still illegal in Colorado and Washington based on federal law, but the DEA has simply chosen not to prosecute it. They could certainly change their minds, though, and the fact that there is no state law against it wouldn't matter.

    Marriage, on the other hand, is a state issue. There are no federal laws regulating marriage, so the feds have no dog in that fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    OK, so why does Colorado and Washington have laws legalizing pot usage and the Feds still say it against the law? Gay marriage? Same deal. Selective enforcement by the progressives that would not have happened 30 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhjimbo
    replied
    Greenhead - Hoski
    If Washington keeps it up maybe down the road it will be
    the Country of Texas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chewylouie
    replied
    I think Mississippi is working on something like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoski
    replied
    Thank you Greenhead,
    Seems to me we have a Supreme Court for a reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenhead
    replied
    It is pointless posturing. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution clearly states that state laws cannot override federal ones.

    "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."

    Leave a comment:


  • jhjimbo
    replied
    In a letter to the White House; Texas, Oregon and Mississippi have warned the White House they are not going to enforce additional federal gun laws. Texas warned that any federal agent sent to Texas would be arrested.
    You gotta love Texas.

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

  • Reply to Voter Fraud
    by 99explorer
    Another thing.
    It is possible if not likely, that SCOTUS would refuse to hear the appeal.
    It take four justices to grant the appeal, and they
    ...
    Today, 01:15 PM
  • Voter Fraud
    by bowhunter75richard
    For those who claim voter fraud is not happening......Google The Heritage Foundation/election fraud cases ! All states are listed.......it just might...
    11-06-2020, 08:01 PM
  • Reply to Voter Fraud
    by 99explorer
    Wouldn't it be nice if SCOTUS would just take Trump's word for it that massive fraud took place, and not require all that nitty gritty evidence that courts...
    Today, 01:08 PM
  • Reply to Voter Fraud
    by crm3006
    From #1 Bubba: "One step closer to SCOTUS.....not that it will make any difference."

    I would have to respectfully disagree with...
    Today, 12:49 PM
  • Reply to Is ammo shortage affecting your hunting season?
    by Sarge01
    I have plenty of primers, powder and bullets for my 300WSM and my 308. The only problem is I am running short of small rifle primers for my new toy...
    Today, 12:37 PM

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X