Should Red States Nullify the new Federal Assault Weapons law should it pass?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Scott Conklin
New member
It's by saying things like the above you make your understanding of the law and the process suspect. You obviously aren't paying attention...
That IS the process we abide by. Especially in the "Democracy" mindset that I suspect you share with others. In my "Republic" world-view it actually takes a bit more than that, since the most basic aspects of our nation are not subject to the whims of the masses that the democracy-lovers support. BUT, all we are talking about here are some casually-passed laws that, like most laws, come and go regularly.
I don't know? First, why have you fogotten it, and then, why do you seem to want others to?
Since you appear to recognize this, why continue to be one?
Since you do NOT seem to recognize the difference between this very weak clause you are fixated on vs the ability of the Citizenry to change almost anything via one means or another why are you talking to others about understanding? Federal "supremacy" exists only so long as the people accept it. Period. There is no other logical view and no other supportable position.
Scott Conklin
New member
But we aren't even talking about amendments here. We're talking about law, which is the part of our governance directly suceptible to casual direct democratic process. Just takes enough referendums or deposed politicians and *poof*, new law, or at least a lack of enforcement of old law. And this entirely ignores the fact fedgov can't actually enforce it anyway, if a single state government refuses. What would they do, send in the army? For a variety of reasons that's downright funny.
Old Gaffer
New member
Danzig wrote
I just did a little research - mostly to make sure of the facts before I went off half-cocked {again
}.
Permit me the luxury of quoting a couple of documents that have bearing on the current issue - to wit, the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.
First, the Declaration of Independence
And now the Preamble to the Constitution
It's CLEAR from the first that RIGHTS are bestowed upon us from that same higher power: I'll not get into a discussion of religion here, I'm only developing a framework for understanding the Founder's intention and belief.
Within the framework of a belief in a higher power, BLESSINGS are the provenance of that same higher power.
Given that the Second Amendment falls early within the Bill of RIGHTS, one logically infers that it is NOT within the provenance of man to withdraw that right.
I am not content to sit idly by and let Congress or any other group of people play with my rights.
All the best,
Rob
I just did a little research - mostly to make sure of the facts before I went off half-cocked {again
}.Permit me the luxury of quoting a couple of documents that have bearing on the current issue - to wit, the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution.
First, the Declaration of Independence
(italics mine),
And now the Preamble to the Constitution
again, italics mine.
It's CLEAR from the first that RIGHTS are bestowed upon us from that same higher power: I'll not get into a discussion of religion here, I'm only developing a framework for understanding the Founder's intention and belief.
Within the framework of a belief in a higher power, BLESSINGS are the provenance of that same higher power.
Given that the Second Amendment falls early within the Bill of RIGHTS, one logically infers that it is NOT within the provenance of man to withdraw that right.
I am not content to sit idly by and let Congress or any other group of people play with my rights.
All the best,
Rob
Blackwater OPS
New member
Most recently I would cite United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), but all you have to do is read what the designers of the constitution wrote about the limitations of the Federal government in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to understand that the Federal government was NEVER supposed to have the power it does today.
Ummm, where exactly did Morrison say that state laws can preempt federal laws?
The court in Morrison held that VAWA exceeded the authority of congressional powers under the commerce clause and the 14th. NOWHERE did it say that state laws preempt federal laws.
Furthermore, I'd love to see some support for your statement that the framers intended state governments to preempt the federal government. The failure of the articles of confederation is a perfect example of why the framers INTENDED the federal government to have supremacy.
So, once again show me a court case that says state law preempts federal law.
Hugh Damright
New member
It seems to me as though saying that federal law trumps State law is to say that the US is sovereign over the States in all matters. You know ... there was a time when the British Parliament claimed that they could "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." The Colonies responded with a Declaration of Arms.
Maybe Gregory v Ashcroft is an example of a case which describes a federal system of dual sovereignties, in which the US is supreme in enumerated powers, and the States are otherwise supreme:
"As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle ... under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause."
...
The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States."
I understand this to mean that, if a power is not granted to the US under the Constitution, then the States are the sovereign or final authority, and the US may not constitutionally impose its will on the States. Of course it doesn't say "State law trumps federal law" or "federal law trumps State law", because our system is more complicated than that ... but I understand it to mean that State law is supreme unless the power in question is delegated to the US by the US Constitution, and only then is the US the sovereign or supreme authority.
Maybe Gregory v Ashcroft is an example of a case which describes a federal system of dual sovereignties, in which the US is supreme in enumerated powers, and the States are otherwise supreme:
"As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle ... under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause."
...
The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States."
I understand this to mean that, if a power is not granted to the US under the Constitution, then the States are the sovereign or final authority, and the US may not constitutionally impose its will on the States. Of course it doesn't say "State law trumps federal law" or "federal law trumps State law", because our system is more complicated than that ... but I understand it to mean that State law is supreme unless the power in question is delegated to the US by the US Constitution, and only then is the US the sovereign or supreme authority.
I think the Articles failed because they needed amendment and every State had to agree unanimously ... if I am not mistaken, the State they affectionately referred to as "Rogue Island" blocked any attempt to improve the Articles ... and so a new system was framed where 3/4 of the States could ratify amendments ... I reckon it must have been hard for a State like Virginia to agree to abide by a system that could be changed against our will ... but of course we reserved the right to secede, so that is what kept it a free system.
Blackwater OPS
New member
Stage 2 you are missing the point....
The case I cited implies that fed law ONLY trumps state law in the case of very specific and limited authority/powers granted to the Federal government by the constitution(states). The only federal law that can exist at all is that which is approved by the states.
The authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was most definitly NOT one of those powers given to the feds by the states.
The case I cited implies that fed law ONLY trumps state law in the case of very specific and limited authority/powers granted to the Federal government by the constitution(states). The only federal law that can exist at all is that which is approved by the states.
The authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was most definitly NOT one of those powers given to the feds by the states.
Christ on a crutch. If this is the state of education of our general polulace today its no wonder why things are going round and round the porcelain bowl.
Since we are all adults here I didn't think that I had to spell out every single nuance regarding this issue. Since it seems I have to here goes.
Concerning matters that the federal government has the lawful power to legislate, where federal law and state law conflict, federal law is always supreme. Always.
Of course there are areas and matters where states reserve the right to expressly regulate. This however doesn't have anything to do with the current topic however.
The case you cited doesn't imply jack. I don't know what leaps of logic you are making here, but you won't hear this interpretation from any member of the bar.
Morrison was simply a case of congress overreaching. It has zero implication on state and federal interaction. Federal law exists apart from any approval by the states. Back before the constitution was ratified you may have had a point, but the instant it was, its over.
States no longer approve anything the fed does.
Since we are all adults here I didn't think that I had to spell out every single nuance regarding this issue. Since it seems I have to here goes.
Concerning matters that the federal government has the lawful power to legislate, where federal law and state law conflict, federal law is always supreme. Always.
Of course there are areas and matters where states reserve the right to expressly regulate. This however doesn't have anything to do with the current topic however.
The case you cited doesn't imply jack. I don't know what leaps of logic you are making here, but you won't hear this interpretation from any member of the bar.
Morrison was simply a case of congress overreaching. It has zero implication on state and federal interaction. Federal law exists apart from any approval by the states. Back before the constitution was ratified you may have had a point, but the instant it was, its over.
States no longer approve anything the fed does.
Blackwater OPS
New member
Yet, concerning matters where the state and the fed disagree on whether the fed has the lawful power to regulate, the fed's power is not so supreme. Well, if you are the current fed you might think so, but that's also what we fought the revolution over in 1776.
Blackwater OPS
New member
This deserves it's own post...
Ok, so let me get this straight-
I said Morrison implied that,
You replied,
But then you say,
Well...EXACTLY! More importantly, it was a case where the court said congress had enacted a federal law that unlawfully infringed upon state law, in an area where the constitution gave it no authority to do so.
So how on earth to you go from there to,
That is complete BS, what the court ruled was that the fed has overstepped it's bounds by passing a law which interfered with state law and which the states had given it no authority to pass. If federal law truly existed apart from any approval by the states than the law would have been upheld, and the constitution would be meaningless except as some blanket approval for complete tyranny. In fact, that seems to be exactly your position.
Also, you are ignoring the 2nd amendment issue, which is what this thread is about. That is one area where the states expressly forbid federal "overreaching".
Ok, so let me get this straight-
I said Morrison implied that,
You replied,
But then you say,
Well...EXACTLY! More importantly, it was a case where the court said congress had enacted a federal law that unlawfully infringed upon state law, in an area where the constitution gave it no authority to do so.
So how on earth to you go from there to,
That is complete BS, what the court ruled was that the fed has overstepped it's bounds by passing a law which interfered with state law and which the states had given it no authority to pass. If federal law truly existed apart from any approval by the states than the law would have been upheld, and the constitution would be meaningless except as some blanket approval for complete tyranny. In fact, that seems to be exactly your position.
Also, you are ignoring the 2nd amendment issue, which is what this thread is about. That is one area where the states expressly forbid federal "overreaching".
There is a distinction between the fed overstepping its authority and state and federal interaction.
You are making a philosophic argument in that every power not reserved to the fed belongs to the states. While this is true it doesn't really address the issue of federal preemption.
Morrison does not stand for the proposition that you are holding it up for. It doesn't address preemption because there were not two statutes in conflict.
Our entire discussion coems down to this. The federal government does not lose its powers because it infringes on state law. It loses its powers because there are express limits to its power. State law may or may not address what is beyond this limit, but it doesn't matter. If federal law was invalidated by state law then the federal government could legislate beyond its limits as long as there was no state law in opposition.
You are making a philosophic argument in that every power not reserved to the fed belongs to the states. While this is true it doesn't really address the issue of federal preemption.
Morrison does not stand for the proposition that you are holding it up for. It doesn't address preemption because there were not two statutes in conflict.
Our entire discussion coems down to this. The federal government does not lose its powers because it infringes on state law. It loses its powers because there are express limits to its power. State law may or may not address what is beyond this limit, but it doesn't matter. If federal law was invalidated by state law then the federal government could legislate beyond its limits as long as there was no state law in opposition.
Blackwater OPS
New member
Ok, well I pretty much agree with that last post, where the states have given (approved) the fed authority in a clearly defined specific area, (such as to declare war) the fed law is supreme to state law. Anything else would not be logical. That said, the fed cannot extend itself into new areas of authority without state approval through the ammendment process.
And the bottom line: The fed has no authority in the area of firearms regulation. Period. I don't care what the federal supreme court says about it (well, I do, but rhetorically speaking here), the SC is a branch of the federal government itself.
Back on topic: The real question here is does a state have the right to nullify a law that is declares to be unconstitutional?
And the bottom line: The fed has no authority in the area of firearms regulation. Period. I don't care what the federal supreme court says about it (well, I do, but rhetorically speaking here), the SC is a branch of the federal government itself.
Back on topic: The real question here is does a state have the right to nullify a law that is declares to be unconstitutional?
Sure they do. As long as a particular firearm is involved in interstate commerce, they can regulate it. I don't know about you but I can't think of the last firearm product I bought that wasn't in interstate commerce. Ammo, accessories, pistols, rifles, mags, etc.
Of course, this is all subject to the 2nd amendment, which is the reason we are all here.
If a law is declared to be unconstitutional, then there is nothing to nullify. It simply doesn't exist anymore.
Blackwater OPS
New member
It seems to me that while they have the authority to regulate things that are involved in interstate commerce, they also don't have the authority to regulate firearms. In the case of a conflict like this, particularly since the 2nd was added through the ammendment process to secure a right, I would think the 2nd would trump the commerce clause.
In any case;
That's all well and good, but what happens when the federal government sends armed agents/troops into a state to enforce a federal law the state has nullified/declared unconstitutional?
Last edited: