When should Fed law supercede State law?

This is a discussion on When should Fed law supercede State law? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I was going over the FAQ on the sheriff's website and they directly state that a person who has a medical marijuana card is still ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48
Like Tree74Likes

Thread: When should Fed law supercede State law?

  1. #1
    Member Array ScubaSteve08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    170

    When should Fed law supercede State law?

    I was going over the FAQ on the sheriff's website and they directly state that a person who has a medical marijuana card is still ILLEGALLY engaged in a shedule I controlled substance (according to fed law) and is therefore ineligible to get a concealed carry permit. But since CO has legalized pot to a certain extent, it creates kind of a conundrum. CO state laws say pot is legal and says its ok to have, but doesn't have the authority to override Fed law when it comes to guns.
    CHP - Frequently Asked Questions - Sheriff's Office - Jefferson County, CO

    So is CO just picking and choosing which level of law it wants to uphold? AKA make $$$ on pot taxes?

    I want to know because I have several friends who have their Med Cards but since they're in the system, they can't buy any firearms, and now technically the ones they do own are now illegal, even though none of them are criminals (at least in CO) and have no felonies. And with the MMJ industry growing (pun not intended) to be as abundant as Starbucks its going to be very hard to uproot if the Feds do decide to step in.

    I personally do not smoke.

    I just don't want to be that one guy who sells to a technical felon 'because I didn't know"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array BigJon10125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,069

    When should Fed law supercede State law?

    Ever since the civil war.
    BigJon


    "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" ~ Mark Twain

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,950
    You'll never get an answer that will satisfy all, but my view is the feds should have control of interstate matters, the states should have control of intrastate matters.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,450
    I think this subject resides in a beautiful shade of grey.
    Hopyard, Mr B and surefire7 like this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    666
    The Fed doesn't want states to enforce imagination laws. I say that if that is the case, then all fed laws need to be enforced by the feds. Some states have no laws against full auto weapons, so if a sheriff stops a car load of full auto weapons, driven by an illegal alien, ( undocumented democrat ) he should bid him a good day and forget it.
    1911 when a follow up shot just isn't an option

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon10125 View Post
    Ever since the civil war.
    Even before that. From the start, depending on subject matter. For example, Jefferson imposed
    an export embargo on goods to Great Britain. This embargo greatly angered the NE maritime state
    which relied on trade for their livelihood. Though there was plenty of illegal shipping that persisted, and
    though the NE states threatened secession, Jefferson (Uncle) enforced its laws against the states when
    necessary. Imagine that, and Jefferson the fire breathing rebel.

    With regard to the CO MJ laws and other similar ones, Uncle retains the right to enforce its laws. It has
    chosen to sort of look the other way on the medical MJ issue as far as the marketing and distribution, but apparently
    not with regard to the laws which prohibit gun purchases by illegal drug users.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    I ask students in my classes if they have one. I fully understand its none of my business, but I will not give them a cert if they do. I will not put myself or any of the other instructor out there like that. If its still illegal, then its still illegal. Good law or not.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array Randalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sumner
    Posts
    163
    When human rights are under threat.

    i.e....1964.
    Hopyard likes this.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    Normally, a law is not written to make something legal. Laws make things illegal. Everything is legal by default, unless there is a law against it (it's a free country). This makes it cumbersome to even think of an example of a federal law superceding a state law, except for state laws that violate the US Constitution.
    Nmuskier likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    Normally, a law is not written to make something legal. Laws make things illegal. Everything is legal by default, unless there is a law against it (it's a free country). This makes it cumbersome to even think of an example of a federal law superceding a state law, except for state laws that violate the US Constitution.
    ADD to that, or violate Federal law.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,549
    This is the doctrine of Federal Preemption. In a nutshell, when Federal and State laws conflict, the Federal laws trump the state laws. Lots of analysis and sub-areas - agencies, express preemption, implied preemption.

    This study of this doctrine has bored many a law student to death, including me when I was a law student way back when.

    My suggestion - spend your time preparing for the season premier of Mad Men. That's what I'll be doing.
    Rock and Glock and Hopyard like this.
    -PEF, a Framer with a Steelie...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    1. All guns are always loaded.
    2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
    3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
    4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,923
    The issue at the heart of this question is, why do we allow the federal government to enact laws that go beyond the powers delegated to them in the Constitution?

    The argument of states' rights advocates is not that no federal law should trump state laws, but that federal laws that had no business being passed in the first place (since the fed lacked the Constitutional authority to pass them) are not valid...
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    The issue at the heart of this question is, why do we allow the federal government to enact laws that go beyond the powers delegated to them in the Constitution?

    The argument of states' rights advocates is not that no federal law should trump state laws, but that federal laws that had no business being passed in the first place (since the fed lacked the Constitutional authority to pass them) are not valid...
    I know I've commented on this at least a dozen times in various threads. Before a law is written, before
    a regulation is written, there are high power law firms and state's attorneys general looking at whether
    or not to challenge the constitutionality or legality. If its on the books its because it is rock solid
    constitutional or a court has agreed with Congress that it is lawful.

    This notion that our laws are largely unconstitutional is just plain wrong.
    boatman likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...if you honestly don't know that there's any legal reason why an individual in your state can't buy or own a firearm, you haven't broken a federal law to sell him one...individual to individual...unless there's a provision of CO law that you should ask or do some kind of paperwork that would disclose that fact to you on an individual-to-individual sale...I know nothing of CO law...old or new...
    Quote Originally Posted by ScubaSteve08 View Post
    I was going over the FAQ on the sheriff's website and they directly state that a person who has a medical marijuana card is still ILLEGALLY engaged in a shedule I controlled substance (according to fed law) and is therefore ineligible to get a concealed carry permit. But since CO has legalized pot to a certain extent, it creates kind of a conundrum. CO state laws say pot is legal and says its ok to have, but doesn't have the authority to override Fed law when it comes to guns.
    CHP - Frequently Asked Questions - Sheriff's Office - Jefferson County, CO

    So is CO just picking and choosing which level of law it wants to uphold? AKA make $$$ on pot taxes?

    I want to know because I have several friends who have their Med Cards but since they're in the system, they can't buy any firearms, and now technically the ones they do own are now illegal, even though none of them are criminals (at least in CO) and have no felonies. And with the MMJ industry growing (pun not intended) to be as abundant as Starbucks its going to be very hard to uproot if the Feds do decide to step in.

    I personally do not smoke.

    I just don't want to be that one guy who sells to a technical felon 'because I didn't know"

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I know I've commented on this at least a dozen times in various threads. Before a law is written, before
    a regulation is written, there are high power law firms and state's attorneys general looking at whether
    or not to challenge the constitutionality or legality. If its on the books its because it is rock solid
    constitutional or a court has agreed with Congress that it is lawful.

    This notion that our laws are largely unconstitutional is just plain wrong.
    It depends upon what you base your judgment of constitutionality; "experts," or the text itself...

    Judges, lawyers, and attorneys general are not impartial, unbiased, disinterested parties, for starters; politics is a game of compromises, and those who want to advance must play the game.

    Secondly, if you read the Constitution, then compare questionable laws to what the text actually says, and not to precedents set by biased judges (on both sides of the political aisle), it is relatively easy to see whether a law is, if at least not "unconstitutional," extra-constitutional.

    Thirdly, I never made the claim that our laws are "largely" unconstitutional.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can states rights ever supercede federal government?

,

does federal law on open carry supercede state law in california

,

does federal law supersede state laws on guns

,

government laws that supersede human rights laws

,

sheriff law supercedes federal law

,

state gun laws supercede federal

,

state law may not supersede federal law

Click on a term to search for related topics.