Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,979 Posts
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if every state had similar legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeeper1

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,907 Posts
Ya know, I like Arizona. I've considered moving there to retire. Not, mind you, to Phoenix (can you say, "hot"?) but a bit farther north somewhere. They seem bound and determined to be a state as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, making their own laws as allowed by the U.S. Constitution and not kowtowing to the Feds. Besides, they're right next door to NM, the move would be pretty easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if every state had similar legislation.
The same thing would happen in every state. LEOs wouldn't enforce the federal law, but if anyone fired a banned weapon they would end up being nailed in federal court. Even if they fired in self defense, they would face federal charges, and prosecutors would seek murder or manslaughter charges.

Even now, prosecutors will try to use the fact that someone carried an extra magazine as evidence of intent to commit murder. Imagine what they'd do with a federally banned weapon.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,530 Posts
Arizona Senate Gives Initial Approval to Bill Blocking any New Federal Gun Control | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

This would leave AZ residents vulnerable in court if they protect themselves with any federally banned weapons or magazines.
Vulnerable? Are you kidding me? Who's going to set the precedent on that move?

Seems like many states pass legislation and talk big about exempting themselves from federal gun laws, it will be interesting to see how this works in application, and not theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
I think it would be similar to how the DEA treats medical/legal marijuana now where they disregard the fact that it's legal in a particular state and just arrest people anyhow. In no way do I think that's right at all but that's probably how it would go down. At least for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
I think it would be similar to how the DEA treats medical/legal marijuana now where they disregard the fact that it's legal in a particular state and just arrest people anyhow. In no way do I think that's right at all but that's probably how it would go down. At least for a while.
But, you need to consider that the current administration is anti-gun and pro-pot. I think they would go after a federally banned weapon much sooner than weed. The DOJ doesn't have a directive to come down on marijuana: Obama would insist on a weapons ban being enforced.

Moreover, this goes beyond the DOJ. This will be the realm of the federal court system. They do NOT have the luxury of ignoring any laws...and it doesn't matter if its the President or AZ that wants the law ignored.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
But, you need to consider that the current administration is anti-gun and pro-pot. I think they would go after a federally banned weapon much sooner than weed. The DOJ doesn't have a directive to come down on marijuana: Obama would insist on a weapons ban being enforced.

Moreover, this goes beyond the DOJ. This will be the realm of the federal court system. They do NOT have the luxury of ignoring any laws.
Uhh yes they do. They shouldn't but they do. Holder told everyone to take it a tiny bit easy and there was an amendment to a spending bill that is supposed to limit things from happening in states where it's legal. All good steps but MJ is still a Schedule 1 drug.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Uhh yes they do. They shouldn't but they do. Holder told everyone to take it a tiny bit easy and there was an amendment to a spending bill that is supposed to limit things from happening in states where it's legal. All good steps but MJ is still a Schedule 1 drug.
I know what your saying, but I had in mind an administrative directive more like Nixon's "War On Drugs." I think Obama would decriminalize weed if he didn't fear the political fallout.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,530 Posts
I know what your saying, but I had in mind an administrative directive more like Nixon's "War On Drugs." I think Obama would decriminalize weed if he didn't fear the political fallout.
What political fallout? He's a lame duck president with a hostile congress. He could pull out his executive order pen in a second if he wanted to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,614 Posts
The best thing to do is work toward cleaning out Congress in 2016 and getting a good conservative president elected, then squash the Federal gun laws. Of course a convention of States could accomplish the same thing pretty handily, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
The best thing to do is work toward cleaning out Congress in 2016 and getting a good conservative president elected, then squash the Federal gun laws. Of course a convention of States could accomplish the same thing pretty handily, too.
And a Convention of States could also backfire. Badly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
What political fallout? He's a lame duck president with a hostile congress. He could pull out his executive order pen in a second if he wanted to.
The fallout for his party and his legacy legislation. Many would find Obamcare and legal weed a contradiction.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,530 Posts
The best thing to do is work toward cleaning out Congress in 2016 and getting a good conservative president elected, then squash the Federal gun laws. Of course a convention of States could accomplish the same thing pretty handily, too.
A constitutional convention would wipe the slate clean. I don't think gun owners would appreciate completely losing the second amendment and take the chance that somebody re-writes it badly, or worse, leaves it out altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,283 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
I think the AZ resident would have a dang good case since the "federally-banned" weapon would have been legal in the state in which it was used. And this only affects "new" federal bans, not existing ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,915 Posts
I suspect that the Feds would keep enforcing federal gun laws instead of running the country and letting the states govern themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
I think the AZ resident would have a dang good case since the "federally-banned" weapon would have been legal in the state in which it was used. And this only affects "new" federal bans, not existing ones.
Sorry, but federal law can not be superseded by state law. States don't get to pick and choose which laws they want to obey. AZ citizens would have no case in federal court against federal law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,283 Posts
Sorry, but federal law can not be superseded by state law. States don't get to pick and choose which laws they want to obey. AZ citizens would have no case in federal court against federal law.
Not the point. The States do not have to assist the Feds in enforcing Federal Laws. SCOTUS said so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Not the point. The States do not have to assist the Feds in enforcing Federal Laws. SCOTUS said so.
I never said that states would have to enforce the federal law. Please read the previous posts.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top