As a United States citizen... why should I be subject to firearms laws of California,

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Fed law always trumps state law. Not sure what your beef is.

Not true at all.

A basic civics class is in order for you.

I enjoy your posts. And enjoy you as a poster.

Do you really want to disagree with the statement that federal law always trumps state law?

Ask abortion law states.

Ask legal marijuana states.

Ask gun law states.

The 10th Amendment isn't exactly dead yet.

Actually marijuana is still illegal by federal law including states that have legalized marijuana. The feds just don’t enforce it.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: EternalSolace

I've wondered that myself..

How do states legalize a federally illegal drug?

That's the catch-22 is it not?

States can be more or less stringent on laws. Ideally states have more leeway than the federal government. We were never supposed to be federalist.

You get to pick what state you live in... And some states lean in different directions, appeasing different people. But if you don't like it, you can always go to one that suits you better.

Personally, I don't agree with many of the states... But I don't want to dictate what they can and can't do under the federal mandate, because such a thing could set a precedence for them to do the same to me and my state.

Better to defend those you disagree with than push agendas on them.

a reply to: EternalSolace Different states different laws,move to Arizona if you like carrying weapons,and need a crutch to look all cool and thug like,can tell your a millenium,by the answer,the laws are for majority,not you

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

You are. F#^8 those state laws. They can't remove your natural rights from you. And those are protected by the whole of the Bill of Rights. You might have to go down shooting to defend that particular right, so make sure you carry your manifesto with you at all times.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.
If you bow to a law some stranger concocted, how long before you kneel?

District of Columbia v. Heller

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Fed law always trumps state law. Not sure what your beef is.

Not true at all.

A basic civics class is in order for you.

Which is why i always suggest people move to a "better" state. There are plenty, especially compared to california(possibly the WORST state).

Reward good states by moving to them, bringing your production or taxmoney(or both) and shunning those that want to dive further into #hole status.

If a company called me tomorrow and offered my 500K a year to work(and move to) california, i'd laugh at them.

Yeah but when you have all these middle class upty Kalifornians coming into your neighborhoods painting every classic brick house they can buy completely white, slapping some unfinished looking wood shutters on the exterior then bitching about the plummeting property values. Hell no, they can stay in the mess they helped create.

I live in a neighborohood when the houses where built in the 60`s, good solid houses. These developers(from California) are on a mission to buy up houses sitting on lots of a certain acreage to tear them down and build multiple skinny houses. These are nothing more than glorified shacks made from inferior materials and shoddy rushed workmanship. I`m fighting with my neighbors against such a property right next door to me they are trying to buy under the disguise of a religious organization looking to start a daycare.

a reply to: StratosFear

So you're good with using the government to deprive someone of their property rights?

Intersesting.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Federal law says that states have the power to regulate firearms, so.....federal law already does trump state law.

I'll be honest the more I have thought about the Second, the more I wonder about the Founders intentions.

I've gone back and read the debates, the history of the "right to bear arms" in English Common law, and thought about all the practical arguments on both "sides" (since of course, there's no possibility of nuanced understanding /s)

Thinking about the "right to bear arms." In the past, I've always followed Scalia's logic that States under the Tenth, had the right to regulate the locations that one could bear their arms into ... but I'm not so sure as I think more about it.

Regulating what firearms can be purchased in a State and what is needed to purchase them is clearly covered under the Commerce clause ... but the government telling an adult American that they can't carry their weapon anywhere?

I'm not so sure about that.

I will make this easy for you state law is enforced by state police. Namely the officers they pay for. And federal law is enforced by employees they pay for. So which set of laws being enforced depends on who is paying the officers pay check.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I will make this easy for you state law is enforced by state police. Namely the officers they pay for. And federal law is enforced by employees they pay for. So which set of laws being enforced depends on who is paying the officers pay check.

Are you suggesting that this is some sort of answer to the OP's concern?

We have dual jurisdiction in this country: State (which includes local) and Federal. We are all also dual citizens of the United States and of each State.

I don't see how your suggestion has a great deal of legal relevance, practial relevance maybe.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Fed law always trumps state law. Not sure what your beef is.

Not true at all.

A basic civics class is in order for you.

I enjoy your posts. And enjoy you as a poster.

Do you really want to disagree with the statement that federal law always trumps state law?

Ask abortion law states.

Ask legal marijuana states.

Ask gun law states.

The 10th Amendment isn't exactly dead yet.

Good list. Let's not forget those pesky Sanctuary states/counties/cities as well.

However, as long as folks are breaking the Federal laws as you mentioned there's still monetization issues that transcend states rights. Is it legal yet for all the marijuana shops to clear credit cards, use national banks for their money, or deduct their business expenses when reporting income? NOT.

When it comes to whether or not one body of law 'trumps' another, many stupid lawyers spout this line as irrefutable fact. Case in point personal experience, city prosecutor wants to charge state maximum penalty for offense, but city law sets maximum fine lower than state maximum, as allowed by state law. For some reason, lawyers use this argument when convenient to their position. Lazy,

ganjoa

a reply to: Lumenari

While I do agree with states having the right to pass laws they want, those laws need to be in accordance with the constitution. I think a case could be made that infringing on the 2nd amendment would make a lot of states laws unconsititutional, however the SCOTUS have screwed the citizens in their interpretation of the 2nd so far so I wouldn't expect them to hear anything new on it anytime soon.

Ask Jim Crow what a state can and cannot do as far as making laws. And I know someone is going to say that is different. Yes and no. Those laws were very real and very enforced until the Federal Government stepped in and said no. The laws were not right, but it didn’t mean they were not laws.

So while there should be no such animal as California Compliant firearms with 10 round magazines and bullet button releases. They exist because they are currently allowed to exist. And all it would take is a POTUS that says Constitutional Carry is legal in all 50 states and the 16 territories. And just like that the problem is fixed because

Article 4, Section 2.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The POTUS would be free to send in troops to take over state and local governments that wish to deny the people that right. Which coincidentally could be done to “sanctuary cities” as well, just as easily.

a reply to: Ahabstar

What troops would the President send in?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Marines at first most likely as that seems to be the presidential standard procedure for all previous presidents. First in, last out and always ready isn’t an unofficial motto for no reason.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Posse Comitatus is negated by Executive Order as well?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s not police duty when defending Constitutional rights from “tyrannical” local and state laws. Nor is it police duty to “hold and make safe” an area for law enforcement to operate. Plenty of historical examples.

But for safety sake, actual commissioned military is far better and safer than shouting “Hey III%” or “Michigan Militia” “A little help here?” But your mileage may vary.

a reply to: MisterSpock

To answer that question....living in S. Oregon, we occasionally pop into N. Cali for the Redwoods, and gold mining.

Far Nor Cali folks, are good people, they just suffer living in a state with LA, and San Fran.

OP, I agree with your tenet, all states should share a minimum of open carry. I would accept reciprocity in all 50 states for concealed carry.

Its so messed up in this country. For instance, I carry a sidearm when I hunt. When its cold, I conceal...its legal on BLM, not on National forest...I literally should open my coat and expose my sidearm walking along the same mountain from one side of an arbitrary line in the woods to another.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Is it legal or illegal in the United States to deploy US forces on American soil against Americans?