Nope…
Then why sanctuary cities?
Goose.
Gander.
Stop right there. There is only one phrase you need to understand at this point. Supremacy Clause. Everything after that is irrelevant.
“Sanctuary cities” in the most common example are cities that refuse to detain prisoners beyond the time they can legally detain someone under state and federal law absent a warrant. “Sanctuary cities” have never prosecuted anyone for a federal crime…
Glad we could agree.
Oh. Ok, if they just aren’t going to enforce federal laws that is a legitimate option for a state. Marijuana laws, immigration laws, or gun laws.
Just like it isn’t my job to enforce either state or federal laws.
I’d like to see suppressors brought back to market as well. There is no reason I should be required to buy ear plugs in order to protect my hearing.
1 Like
Hear him! Hear him!
It also gives libs the added benefit of knowing that suppressed firearms are also less accurate at longer distances. It’s a win for everyone.
Weapons of Assassins! How can we tell where the shot came from? AAAAGGHHHH!! SNAP!
1 Like
Just a reminder that this is not some new idea that failed…
Guy at the horse barn was out back slayin’ hogs tonight with his .300 blackout weapon of war.
It’s an HAR.
Hog Assault Rifle.
1 Like
Actually reading the act, now, the law has two parts.
The first part is a declaration that the Federal law is unconstitutional. Giving that part validity would indeed be revolutionary, as it would imply that the state legislatures, not the Supreme Court, are the final deciders of the Constitution.
The second part of the law states that the state police are not to enforce the federal law on gun controls.
The first part would require a reversal of nearly two hundred years of precedence. Don’t hold your breath on that. The second part just says the state police are not to enforce the federal law and that is within their authority to do, IMO.
That is why the law declares its own severability. When the first part is declared invalid by the courts it wont drag the second part down with it.
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. NCAA
I can see why some would want to ignore the Anti-commandeering Doctrine. After all, wee don’t want States preserving the Unalienable rights of their sovereign citizens or anything.
Oddly enough, I live out in the country, so if someone gets shot inside their home again this year, none of the neighbors will hear it anyway.
I thought it was the responsibility of federal LEOs & agents to enforce, investigate and apprehend violators of federal laws. “Local yokels” are brought along as manpower and intel resource.
If I’m wrong, my bad.
Remember when those 34 states started legalizing cannabis for medical and/or recreational purposes in spite of federal law? That was cool. 
1 Like
You are correct… No “local yokel” LE or local court even has jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes…
No local yokels will be providing intel, manpower, or enforcement of federal gun laws under this bill either.
The feds will just have to go back to spying on people the shady way.
If they get a subpoena to appear in federal court, I doubt they will challenge the subpoena…
If it’s anything like the Kansas law that passed, they won’t need any help when the stupid believe the law and post on facebook…
