Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
With GOP owning both halves of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, can they force SAFE Act to be reversed; or does the State trump the Fed on all gun laws?
Can the Fed make the SAFE Act illegal?
- Thread starter Snappo
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
It's already illegal, they just need to actually enforce the 2A.
They could also pass any number of preemption laws, etc...
They could also enforce the "full faith and credit" clause for concealed carry (why your drivers license, and marriage are required to be recognized by all states, but your CCW does not is indefensible IMHO).
Not going to hold my breath waiting for any of that, but things certainly look better now than they did this same time yesterday...
They could also pass any number of preemption laws, etc...
They could also enforce the "full faith and credit" clause for concealed carry (why your drivers license, and marriage are required to be recognized by all states, but your CCW does not is indefensible IMHO).
Not going to hold my breath waiting for any of that, but things certainly look better now than they did this same time yesterday...
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
There are so many things illegal on the SAFE Act. The gun free zones w/o a secured perimeter are criminal. Why don't they use the signs only in airports and court houses just like in school campuses?
That's right, it doesn't work.
That's right, it doesn't work.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
There should be one law coast to coast state to state after all this is America the place where everyone wants to be in 
And by the way FUAC
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
Do what the dems have been doing for years ... NO FED $$$ FUAC ... drop the safe and Pistol permits .. O.O ....
fnfalguy
.308 Win
As much as i hate to say this, even if it hurts my interests, the fed should stay out of state issues. If by some means the supreme court makes a decision, swell, otherwise, no.
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Well, if we get a pro-2A SCOTUS judge (and I think we will) then I say let the lawsuits fly.
Toecutter
.308 Win
Yes all the lawsuits stopped when scalia passed , they wouldn't win without him. Now if we get some constitutional judges in there . The lawsuits will commence and the safe act be no more. It is illegal and unconstitutional.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
But the 2a is a federally protected right that applies to the states. I support states rights, but when the state i violating its citizens rights wouldnt we want the fed to step in?
C3D
.338 Win Mag
It will take 1-2 years for the Supreme Court to change with another vacancy (meaning two new Trumpstices appointed). We'll see what happens at that point.
Gunner57
.223 Rem
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
It should be nasty woman.
Saw a chick on election day wearing a shirt that said that right across her bossom. Was tempted to ask what STD she had.
spat
.950 JDJ
Clyntonmidia
Liberalism
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
As others have said, the Feds poking their noses into State's Rights issues is what led to the Civil War.. however since we're talking about a constitutionally-protected right, then they should absolutely get involved. It would have to be delicately handled though, and it sounds like California could use the help also.
The only way the fed could possibly influence the safe act is to have the Justice Department sue then in Federal Court for violating the people's 2nd and 14th amendment rights. Just as they take the state's to court about voter laws.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Even absent going to the SCOTUS they could enact a federal law that overrules state ones. I doubt there is the support for that, though.
As stated judges are probably the best, but are the slow way. Personally I would like to see done what the did with the drinking age, withhold funding until they get on board. I would like to see the withholding to be on some entitlement program so we are guaranteed a win either way.
Could they actually enact a Federal Law that would supersede the SAFE Act?
I thought the way it worked was that States were permitted to make Laws that were MORE strict than the Federal... Just not less strict. (surprisingly, marijuana Laws are less strict at the State level).
I think it would require withholding State funds, or suing the State in Federal court.
*I'm still not holding my breath
I thought the way it worked was that States were permitted to make Laws that were MORE strict than the Federal... Just not less strict. (surprisingly, marijuana Laws are less strict at the State level).
I think it would require withholding State funds, or suing the State in Federal court.
*I'm still not holding my breath
spat
.950 JDJ
I can't see how that civil war would go. Who are the states going to get to fight ? "we want to deny you the right to own guns, so take these guns and go fight the people who are trying to stop us....."
spat
.950 JDJ
The 2A supersedes them all, all Trump needs to do is fix SCOTUS and then sue the states for violating people's civil rights.
He doesn't need a single piece of legislation if he gets SCOTUS right.
Maybe for another topic but will Trump release the Fast and Furious documents? They could be used as evidence to show how insidious the anti-2nd amendment movement is and that we need stronger/clearer pro-2A laws overturning fed/state unlawful restrictions.
Gunright
.45 acp
As I posted earlier, the federal government has an ENUMERATED power (section 1, Article 8) which allows them to: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Note that it specifically allows them to arm the Militia and specify the rules (discipline) associated with the Militia. I see no reason why this clause can't be used to allow citizens to have modern sporting rifles that can be used in the defense of the nation.
Note that it specifically allows them to arm the Militia and specify the rules (discipline) associated with the Militia. I see no reason why this clause can't be used to allow citizens to have modern sporting rifles that can be used in the defense of the nation.
spat
.950 JDJ
That clause would support the Feds providing arms, and would keep the states from preventing them from doing so .
The plain matter is that the ammendments are what keep the states from (legally ) restrict your ownership of a select fire M4, much less an AR15, anymore than they can keep a black kid from going to a white school.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
The (un)SAFE Act is illegal, in concept and execution. Soon enough we have the opportunity for SCOTUS to strike it down in it's entirety. If NYSRPA doesn't have their lawyers already trying to ressurrect their case, they are way behind the curve.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
im actually hopeful that we get a strong conservative SCOTUS and that the challenge to the safe act makes it way there. it could still be years away, but its some hope.
The issue I see with this statement is the following...
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT A STATE RIGHT. STATES HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Well apparently FUAC and his stooge on the court FUJS (skreteny) didn't get the memo. Hard to miss, It looked just like the Constitution of The United States of America. Dirtbag's
Robin
Robin