GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Use a potato 
HPA will pre-empt state law
- Thread starter Exonautic
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I thought they were only for car mufflers??Use a potato
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
PS don't forget to use duct tape also potato last longerUse a potato
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
ATF determination that duct tape is a silencer in 5-4-3...
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that,
A state's law
as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer,
that requires a tax be collected for making, transferring, using, possessing or transporting a silencer, or requires registration or a serial number
shall have no force or effect.”.
won't be valid.
This is as plainly as I can word it. Since NY has none of these provisions and silencers are outright illegal, the HPA would not change a thing. This being said the states where it is legal can still choose to jam you up and you would have to challenge it in court.
Glenn B
.308 Win
That is a quite leftist manner of seeing it. Think about it. It would mean that states' rights would all but be destroyed and the federal government would have end all be all power. Such is exactly what the framers of the Constitution were trying to limit - the power of the federal government and of tyranny that would rule over the states.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The supremacy clause of the constitution would disagree with you.
The plain truth is that the constitution limits the power of the feds to only a few specifically enumerated powers.
The states OTOH are not limited in that way, but the ammendments to the Constitution specifically proscribed certain powers that the states do not have.
When a state law and the constitution are in conflict, the constitution reigns supreme. States rights come about because the constitution limits what the feds can order, not because they are inferior.
Glenn B
.308 Win
Yes the Constitution reigns supreme but you are missing the historical and factual point that the framers were limiting the federal government and that all powers not given to the federal government remained under the power of the states or to us.
The 10th Amendment has been pretty much destroyed by now. The federal government was pretty much extremely limited in its power until Lincoln screwed things up and almost all other presidents followed suit. The most notable exception to the federal government being better if bigger was, in my estimation, Calvin Coolidge.
Anyway, the Supremacy Clause may make Constitutional, federal laws and treaties the supreme law of the land but the federal government is still limited to acting constitutionally and to enacting laws and treaties that are constitutional. At least that is the theory if obviously not the practice of modern day petty tyrants like some presidents and their administrations.
The 10th Amendment has been pretty much destroyed by now. The federal government was pretty much extremely limited in its power until Lincoln screwed things up and almost all other presidents followed suit. The most notable exception to the federal government being better if bigger was, in my estimation, Calvin Coolidge.
Anyway, the Supremacy Clause may make Constitutional, federal laws and treaties the supreme law of the land but the federal government is still limited to acting constitutionally and to enacting laws and treaties that are constitutional. At least that is the theory if obviously not the practice of modern day petty tyrants like some presidents and their administrations.
Exonautic
.308 Win
this is pretty much what i needed to read. i don't make it a habit of trying to decipher this shit so i was a little hopeful in my interpretation of it i guess.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You are correct, but the context of this discussion was prosecuting states (and state officers) that violate the limits placed on them by the constitution.
It is not a federal overreach to do that.
S
stuck in ny
Guest
Voting rights were left to the states. The rkba is ensured at the federal level. The fed has interfered with voting restrictions, which are not in the const., but has not interfered when states violate the rkba, which is in the constitution.
On a practical level, show me one example where ny law would be preferable to fed law. ny law has always been worse.
Glenn B
.308 Win
If I wer to choose any law in NYS that I said was preferable to a federal law there is no doubt you would not agree with me so why ask an essentially lpoinyless question. What you are missing is that you seemingly prefer a strong federal government as witnessed by your statements here. You are also missing that the framers wanted a lot of power to remain on the state level and thus restricted the federal goverment. The way you seem to want it wpuld make things the same for everyone across the country with an all powerful fedrrsl govetrnment. So imagine then what the federal goverment would be had Hillary been elected and had that kind of power and none with the states. What if ypu do not like it but others love it and force it on you. What to do. Move to another cointry!
I prefer a restricted frderal government and states that adhere to the Constotution. If my state becomes unbearable then I can try to change it as I have tried and when totally intolerable I can move away if I choose to another if I so choose. If I decide to move from one terrible syate to a better one, If however the fedrral goverment has all power and becomes terrible where would you go. Which other country in the world would be better. By yhe states having powers not given to the fedrral government, we can rest bettervsssured that the federal govt will not become an all powerful tyranny.
carpediem
.338 Win Mag
It is like I said when Trump was elected. Whatever legislative victories there are in the rest of free America, Andy Panders will work to counter act them with the opposite state laws. Tax reduction at the federal level? Andy will raise state taxes. Crackdown on illegals by the feds? Andy will negate that within NY, and on your dime! It is better than if Hellary was elected, but not much. Andy Panders will still run rough shod over the citizens of his kingdom while he grooms himself for a run against Trump. We will never enjoy legal suppressors nor will we ever see a repeal of the SLAVE Act.