Hypothetical Question about state laws vs federal laws

[mkm]

Insomnia has got me to thinking.

Many states have gone in defiance of federal law to pass medical marijuana laws, and Colorado has now passed a law in favor of recreational. I know the  newest one is untested and may not stand. However, states  (mostly blue) are willingly going against the feds and  decriminalizing drugs. If the feared weapons ban happens, could/would states be willing to defy it by either not enforcing the ban or decriminalizing the possession of banned firearms?  Not enforcing immigration laws is another example.

"Why yes sir officer I do have a prescription for this rifle."

I know it wouldn't stop federal law enforcement from arresting you, but most contact low key individuals have with the law is local and state.  New firearms would likely still be off the table, but all those preexisting ones that we don't have anymore would still be out there.

[TAB]

Here is the thing about pot.  The feds leave it up to the state if you have less then  "X" ammount.   I know growing its 100 plants, I don't know what the weight is.  Its policy,   gun crimes on the other hand, there is no limit, you are either legal, or being charged.

[mkm]

Here is the thing about pot.  The feds leave it up to the state if you have less then  "X" ammount.   I know growing its 100 plants, I don't know what the weight is.  Its policy,   gun crimes on the other hand, there is no limit, you are either legal, or being charged.

Any amount of pot is still illegal under federal laws. States choose to look the other way over possession of less than x amount, and the feds haven't pushed back hard, yet. You're correct about current gun laws even though they vary widely among states. My question involves the states deciding it's ok to have x type of firearm or accessory in their state despite what the feds say. The feds say you can't grow a plant at all; California says you can grow 100. If the feds say you can't have a magazine over 5 rounds, why can't Texas for example say we don't care as long as they don't go over 100 rounds? Therefore, state and local police won't arrest people who have magazines with 100 round capacity or less. The ATF agent would arrest you for it just like the DEA agent would arrest that pot grower in California with 100 plants.

[Solus]

Might depend upon the County Sheriff.

They are the ultimate law enforcement authority in their county and without their permission, the Feds might not be able to act in that county.

[MikeBjerum]

There is still the issue that Federal law trumps all law below it.  If you are imposing restrictions a lower authority can be stricter, and if you are guaranteeing a minimum standard of freedom a lower authority can guarantee more freedom.  However, if a higher authority restricts something a lower authority can not lessen that restriction.

In cases where these laws are not allowed the higher authority uses funding - Fifty-five mph speed limit, and No Child Left Behind are examples of the Feds saying do this or we will not funnel tax dollars back to you.

[Sponsor]

[Jrlobo]

Doesn't the state of Montana (?) get around federal firearms laws by exempting rifles and pistols that are manufactured in the state and remain in the state thus avoiding inter-state commerce provisions? Now their exemption cannot apply to those riffles and pistols that are manufactured in other states or abroad. But if every state manufactured their own firearms and sold only to in-state residents?

[JC5123]

Plus, what about states rights via the 10th Amendment? The 2A says that it's the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and has been reaffirmed by recent SCOTUS rulings. In my mind, that fact combined with states already standing up to the feds over immigration, and obamacare, I think hunting states especially would have reasonable grounds to fight back against overreaching federal laws.

[tombogan03884]

 The feds could only act if they could charge you with a "Federal offense" so the state would not charge you for possession of an ounce, but if it was broken up into 1/4 ounce bags the Feds would charge you with "intent to distribute"

[Solus]

Not saying I am sure I know the law involved here, but my understanding was that the Feds don't get to work in a county looking for 1/4 oz. bags unless the Sheriff approves their operation in his county....might be wrong, was not an official document that I read.

[tombogan03884]

Not saying I am sure I know the law involved here, but my understanding was that the Feds don't get to work in a county looking for 1/4 oz. bags unless the Sheriff approves their operation in his county....might be wrong, was not an official document that I read.

The reason for the search would be irrelevant, that is how the charge would work out.