Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just wondering if anyone could shed light on this. How is it constitutional for the federal government to supersede state law in regards to firearm regulation? Was there a Supreme Court case, or some other statue that gives the federal government the power to do so? They obviously got a ban passed on the federal level that held firm until it expired, so I guess that they have he legal right to do so, but how?
The constitutional law supercedes any federal or state law.... Federal laws are limited in scope and wide in range but state laws have wide scope and are limited to state lines... I do find it odd that there are federal laws for guns within a state rather than laws for guns "between" states... Federal law has been known to extend beyond its reach like the Prohibition...
A Federal law (actually the 2nd amendment) supersedes any State attempt to restrict guns, just as the 13th amendment supersedes any state attempt to enact slavery.
Both amendments also supersede any Federal attempts.
The Feds have gotten away with unconstitutional attempts at restricting guns, ever since they passed the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was immediately found unconstitutional by a Federal district court, but when it got to the Supreme Court none of the defense showed up for the trial. So it was declared constitutional by a freak accident, basically.
Gun-rights-haters have been leveraging off that unexpected windfall ever since. But they are starting to lose ground at last as judges start reasserting what the 2nd actually says, and striking down gun restrictions.
BTW, in matters NOT overridden by Constitutional amendments, Federal law supersedes state law ONLY when the Federal law is constitutional.
If a Federal law says that the "dollar" shall be the unit of money in the United States, than a state cannot make some other unit its own official state money, for example.
I'm just wondering if anyone could shed light on this. How is it constitutional for the federal government to supersede state law in regards to firearm regulation? Was there a Supreme Court case, or some other statue that gives the federal government the power to do so? They obviously got a ban passed on the federal level that held firm until it expired, so I guess that they have he legal right to do so, but how?
That's been a subject of much argument. However, there are some things that are written very clearly, as is the 2nd Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't carve out any exemptions for states to do it, nor does it say that "congress shall not". It just directly addresses the individual right. By ratification of the Constitution, the states have agreed to these terms, as well, so the states, by being a state in the union, recognize them. Of more interest is the 9th and 10th Amendments. In theory, the people could delegate their states additional powers above the small list of powers of Congress, but it never says anything about infringing rights being allowed by the states, either.
I'm just wondering if anyone could shed light on this. How is it constitutional for the federal government to supersede state law in regards to firearm regulation? Was there a Supreme Court case, or some other statue that gives the federal government the power to do so? They obviously got a ban passed on the federal level that held firm until it expired, so I guess that they have he legal right to do so, but how?
We the people long ago, have told "they the government" to not infringe on our weapons of any kind.
A Federal law (actually the 2nd amendment) supersedes any State attempt to restrict guns, just as the 13th amendment supersedes any state attempt to enact slavery.
Both amendments also supersede any Federal attempts.
The Feds have gotten away with unconstitutional attempts at restricting guns, ever since they passed the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was immediately found unconstitutional by a Federal district court, but when it got to the Supreme Court none of the defense showed up for the trial. So it was declared constitutional by a freak accident, basically.
Gun-rights-haters have been leveraging off that unexpected windfall ever since. But they are starting to lose groud at last as judges start reasserting what the 2nd actually says.
If that is in fact true, under what premise was it found to be constitutional. It's not like a civil case where if one side doesn't show, the other can usually win. Also, I did see the NRA or other pro gun groups even mention anything about state rights, etc during the pass attempt to renew an "assault weapon" ban.
the 2nd Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
When you point this out, please point out also that the 2nd gives a reason WHY the right shall not be infringed: Because an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom.
The reason actually makes no difference to the effect or meaning of the law. Even if someone somehow proved that an armed and capable populace was NOT necessary for security and freedom, the 2nd amendment would still ban government from restricting the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.
But when you leave out that part from your explanation, it sets off the gun-rights-haters once again, who try to pretend you are quoting part of the 2nd out of context (even there IS no context).
If that is in fact true, under what premise was it found to be constitutional. It's not like a civil case where if one side doesn't show, the other can usually win. Also, I did see the NRA or other pro gun groups even mention anything about state rights, etc during the pass attempt to renew an "assault weapon" ban.
When you point this out, please point out also that the 2nd gives a reason WHY the right shall not be infringed: Because an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom.
The reason actually makes no difference to the effect or meaning of the law. Even if someone somehow proved that an armed and capable populace was NOT necessary for security and freedom, the 2nd amendment would still ban government from restricting the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.
But when you leave out that part from your explanation, it sets off the gun-rights-haters once again, who try to pretend you are quoting part of the 2nd out of context (even there IS no context).
It's not like they believe that tripe. And if they do, it's because they refuse to reason... which is why you can't accomodate them in the first place. You can't reason with people who do not reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
