Although it is often touted that State laws cannot trump Federal laws, It would still make it very difficult for the federal government to operate against gun owners without state participation.
That is not entirely true (kind of). While the state doesn't have to enforce the laws, they can't prevent federal agents from enforcing them.
This MAY sound far fetched, but look to Colorado's legalization of marijuana for an example. Under amendment 64 to their state constitution, marijuana is legal, BUT according to the federal Controlled Substances Act, it is still illegal to smoke it.
Now, according to a memo released by the DOJ in 2009, “The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States.” However, Obama is quoted as saying, "It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal."
Furthermore, I dare say that Obama's statement could be applied to "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines. After all, my baseball bat is for recreational use until I club someone with it in defense just as my AR-15 is for recreational use until I defend myself with it. Both, I might add, are state approved.
Maybe that is a stretch of logic, but the point is still not null. If my state deems "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines legal, I should be allowed to use them because my state has determined that it is legal.
Even if that is still too much of a stretch in political thinking, my state will not enforce it, and I don't believe that it will be made a top priority for the relatively few federal agents to camp out at my local range to confiscate my AR-15 upon entering. Eat your words, Mr.President.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/what-legal-marijuana-mean_n_2322101.html
http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/index.html
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news...-at--Border-Patrol-checkpoints-192602871.html
My very own brain!!!
