State vs. Fed: A Page From the Liberal Playbook

[sodchemist]

This raises an interesting point about the spirit of our law. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that congress or the president somehow passed a total ban and confiscation of firearms. And then some of us choose to not comply. Which group of people is the greater lawbreaker? The group that passes a ban (without repealing the second amendment), and thus rebel against the constitution, or the group of people that resist the ban and keep their guns? In the spirit of the law, it seems to me that the greater lawbreaker is the group that has rebelled against the constitution and passed a gun ban that clearly defies the 2nd amendment. This type of argument gives, in my opinion, a type of moral authority to the gun owner that is not present with those who ignore other types of federal law (e.g., pot smokers in Seattle, undocumented folk in sanctuary cities, etc). Governments often make it illegal to do the right thing.

[JJVP]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

Convictions would be easy. Feds would make the arrests and the defendants would be prosecuted in federal courts.

These laws are not only ineffective, they invite the uninformed to violate federal law, get a felony conviction, then go to prison.

Chas.

Charles, I know quite a few gun owners. None of the gun owners I have talked to will register their guns, regardless of whatever federal law gets passed. I suspect there will be tens of millions of gun owners who will refuse to register their guns and will become felons. Attempts to forcibly confiscate guns from them will result in a lot of blood being spilled on both sides.

[Charles L. Cotton]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

Convictions would be easy. Feds would make the arrests and the defendants would be prosecuted in federal courts.

These laws are not only ineffective, they invite the uninformed to violate federal law, get a felony conviction, then go to prison.

Chas.

Charles, I know quite a few gun owners. None of the gun owners I have talked to will register their guns, regardless of whatever federal law gets passed. I suspect there will be tens of millions of gun owners who will refuse to register their guns and will become felons. Attempts to forcibly confiscate guns from them will result in a lot of blood being spilled on both sides.

The OP was talking about a Texas law that would negate federal law, not confiscation of all guns. My post was in response to the theory that a state can pass a law that invalidates a federal statute.

Chas.

[JALLEN]

Our system depends on diffusing power around three branches of government in the national government and state government, and to a lesser extent, to local governments. Each branch has its functions, each level, has its own responsibility. This was deliberately done to avoid having power concentrated in one or few hands, the old "King" business they went to so much trouble to get rid of.

It has been in process for decades that the Federal government has been gradually, slowly, taking over various functions, regulating matters that were previously left to states or to local government to handle. Often, the regulations are made palatable by slipping in vast sums of federal money to state and local governments.

Now, more and more, the power has become concentrated in the hands of the federal government, for better or worse. Part of it is due to the increasing mobility of the citizens, traveling all over the place. It makes uniformity more desirable than it was in say, Andrew Jackson's day, driving on the right, recognition of drivers licenses, red-yellow-green traffic lights ( I remember some that were the opposite years ago, somewhere). Uniformity helps larger businesses. It would drive you crazy to have different laws to comply with to make and sell your products. To a certain extent this already happens. Liquor laws are slowly becoming more uniform than say 50 years ago.

Congress has allowed its role and prerogatives to be minimized. It's easier for one man to decide things when he doesn't have to play "Mother, May I" with 99 others, or 434 others. That's also where the danger is, the old "King" business again.

But if one level makes laws that the others won't enforce, or disagrees with, chaos and anarchy are the inevitable result.

[sodchemist]

JALLEN,
Good points. I wonder which of the two systems would afford us a lower tax rate and more freedom: "anarchy" or "tyranny".

[JALLEN]

JALLEN,
Good points. I wonder which of the two systems would afford us a lower tax rate and more freedom: "anarchy" or "tyranny".

It depends on whose Gore is oxed.

Anarchy is what is done to others. Tyranny is what is done to you.