[luckyj]

Forgive me for my ignorance on the subject but apparently all of my friends and coworkers are just as dumb as I am.

So my question is this: Under federal law marijuana is illegal correct? But it can be made legal in a state through state legislation?

So ultimately, if it were to become a federal law that you can't own a sporting rifle (I'm not saying it will. I was just curious on the subject.) could that then be overridden by state legislation to make it legal in that state?

This is purely hypothetical. I'm just trying to educate myself and didn't have much luck finding the answer on google.

 

[TheSadPanda]

In short terms. No. Its my understanding that federal law will always supersede state law. Pot being legalized in a particular state going against federal law is actually not suppose to happen. But it would be entirely ridiculous and expensive for the federal government to implement an entire force to catch college kids with a dime bag in a particular state. Guns on the other hand, they do care about. A lot. So they might be willing to use federal people to enforce those laws. The only way to truly escape the federal law as a state is to secede. Not that i recommend it, but it is the only 100% way to escape. Like abstinence. Hope this answers your question.

 

[locutus]

Correct. The Caliph hates gun owners, but he loves dopers. They helped elect him.

 

[JTJ]

The blue states (CO pleasure) that have passed marijuana laws are getting a blind eye from the feds. The red states (AZ medical) have been told the laws would be enforced. Would you call that favoritism? I still think our governor used the wrong finger.

 

[Mosin]

Yes, but a state could potentially make it a NIGHTMARE for the feds...and good.
especially if a state if sore at the federal govt.
Look at Arizona. The feds are pissing all over Arizona with the immigration issue, so Arizona is pissing back. Expect more states to tell the feds to F off.
Yeah, federal might hold SOME supremacy over states, but states can tie up the feds, etc...

What I'd LOVE to see, is the feds swoop in and throw those pot smoking morons in federal prison, and maybe give them an education on why there is a separation of powers... so those MORONS quit electing statists like Obama.

And Obama has been one of the LEAST pot friendly presidents ever... but don't expect morons who get their only news from the communist lapdog msm to know that.

 

[rhyno13]

Even though federal law supercedes state law, the federal government is not going to spend the money or the manpower to go after potheads. State law falls under the sheriff's duties and if state law legalizes marijuana, the sheriff will not enforce those federal laws.

 

[luckyj]

Yep. That was the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

And I agree, it would not be wise for a state to secede. I think many people don't fully understand what it means for a state to secede. That would only be successful in a scenario where people were actually united and EVERYONE worked to earn there keep.

 

[pnolans]

Here in the beautiful state of Colorado (and I AM being serious) many county prosecutors dropped a number of cases regarding possession of weed the day after the election.

As was mentioned before, the DEA would have to start going after weed possession cases. The locals aren't going to go after them. The DA's won't prosecute.

So, the DEA is likely to continue doing... well, whatever it is they do.

 

[John_Deer]

Another problem the federal government runs into when states decide to buck federal law is there is no local cooperation. The federal government is powerful but it needs the aid of the local government to do anything wide sweeping. Look at CA. The Federal government did try to bust pot dispensaries under the Obama administration. They ran into a huge roadblock. The only local information they were able to get was from Diane Sawyer's interviews.

 

[Chainfire]

Yes, but a state could potentially make it a NIGHTMARE for the feds...and good.
especially if a state if sore at the federal govt.
Look at Arizona. The feds are pissing all over Arizona with the immigration issue, so Arizona is pissing back. Expect more states to tell the feds to F off.
Yeah, federal might hold SOME supremacy over states, but states can tie up the feds, etc...

What I'd LOVE to see, is the feds swoop in and throw those pot smoking morons in federal prison, and maybe give them an education on why there is a separation of powers... so those MORONS quit electing statists like Obama.

And Obama has been one of the LEAST pot friendly presidents ever... but don't expect morons who get their only news from the communist lapdog msm to know that.

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomattox.

If the Federal government wishes to enforce any law, they have the resources to handle it. A lot of conservative gun owners like to brag that "we have the guns". By that same standard, the big guns belong to the Army and the Government that issues their orders. When the tiger is tired of getting it's chains rattled, it can become nasty. Ask the ghosts of Waco.

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on. Those old boys can take you out in your mountain bunker hide-out from the airconditioned comfort of a drone driver's computer from 10,000 miles away.

That is exactly why politics are a hell of a sight better way to solve our issues with the government than threats.

 

[danf_fl]

Some states are trying to cite the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights pertaining to firearms manufacturered in their states.
They are basically saying that firearms made in their state and sold in their state to their citizens will not fall under the realm of the Federal government or the Federal government regulations.

http://www.gunlaws.com/MontanaMadeGuns.htm

This is being played out in courts now.

How this will affect Mary Jane? Pretty much the same (IMO).

 

[luckyj]

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomattox.

If the Federal government wishes to enforce any law, they have the resources to handle it. A lot of conservative gun owners like to brag that "we have the guns". By that same standard, the big guns belong to the Army and the Government that issues their orders. When the tiger is tired of getting it's chains rattled, it can become nasty. Ask the ghosts of Waco.

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on. Those old boys can take you out in your mountain bunker hide-out from the airconditioned comfort of a drone driver's computer from 10,000 miles away.

That is exactly why politics are a hell of a sight better way to solve our issues with the government than threats.

I don't always agree with some of your views but this I do agree with.

The question is, how do we accomplish that now? It seems as though the scales are at a tipping point where the "entitlement crowd" are seemingly outnumbering the "work my *** off to support my family crowd".

The obvious answer is taking the initiative to educate those with the entitlement mentality but with the current state of our government, they certainly are not going to take on that task.

 

[scottybaccus]

What's really happening right now is various states are lining up the Constitutional challenges to any potential Federal legislation. Whatever happens will depend on rulings of the Constitutionality of any new law against the 2nd Ammendment, however failing that, a whole slew of challenges could be mounted under State's Rights. The Fed's DON'T have the resources for enforcement without States cooperating because they can't employ the military in domestic police matters.
Now on the sunny side, the rabid bans being put into play by California, Connecticut and New York will set the stage for multiple Constitutional challenges, concurrently and in short order. Those outcomes will draw out federal action on anything that Congress or Obama are able to squeak out this month. Hopefully, the politicos will get bored and move on before anything meaningful can hurt us.
About the "cold dead hands", it won't come to a stand-off over seizure or surrender as long as there is respect for the courts. The day that the courts are set aside by any member of the government, we will have a revolution on our hands.
In the remote chance that a wide ban or surrender order should happen, we need to mount a wide, and I mean WIDE, scale surrender of our persons, overwhelming any ability of enforcement agencies to handle us all. Not a shot need be fired, and they will be counting dockets instead of ballots. Just hold out your hands and tell them you will not comply, then go quietly. Leave no evidence behind to aid your prosecution, but tie up the court's resources. they WILL cry uncle.
Keep this in mind, too. NRA campaign contributions to the last election cycle total several million dollars, with 382 representatives scoring an A on the NRAs report card. Contributions from gun control groups? About $4000. What do you think the House of Representatives will do, even IF the Senate advances a bill?

I expect Obama to opt for Executive order, so that he gets credit even if the courts shoot him down (was that a pun?). In that order he will institute a federal, uniform background check on all firearms transfers. It may be driven by a registration mandate (which none of us should comply with), and it will encompass all gunshow sales, probably hamper mail order, and it will kill classifieds sales by individuals. He will certainly opt for magazine limitations, but it will be sticky if he goes any further than new manufacture. Trying to ban those already in circulation could create millions of felons overnight. Get ready to march on Washington. Then he will deflect a lot of the attention to committees on mental health and the role of the entertainment and video game industries. Those will be hampered by the 1st Ammendment, so only policy and guidelines will result.
Feinsteins bill was DOA and she was too stupid to know it.

 

[Chainfire]

What's really happening right now is various states are lining up the Constitutional challenges to any potential Federal legislation. Whatever happens will depend on rulings of the Constitutionality of any new law against the 2nd Ammendment, however failing that, a whole slew of challenges could be mounted under State's Rights. The Fed's DON'T have the resources for enforcement without States cooperating because they can't employ the military in domestic police matters.
Now on the sunny side, the rabid bans being put into play by California, Connecticut and New York will set the stage for multiple Constitutional challenges, concurrently and in short order. Those outcomes will draw out federal action on anything that Congress or Obama are able to squeak out this month. Hopefully, the politicos will get bored and move on before anything meaningful can hurt us.
About the "cold dead hands", it won't come to a stand-off over seizure or surrender as long as there is respect for the courts. The day that the courts are set aside by any member of the government, we will have a revolution on our hands.
In the remote chance that a wide ban or surrender order should happen, we need to mount a wide, and I mean WIDE, scale surrender of our persons, overwhelming any ability of enforcement agencies to handle us all. Not a shot need be fired, and they will be counting dockets instead of ballots. Just hold out your hands and tell them you will not comply, then go quietly. Leave no evidence behind to aid your prosecution, but tie up the court's resources. they WILL cry uncle.
Keep this in mind, too. NRA campaign contributions to the last election cycle total several million dollars, with 382 representatives scoring an A on the NRAs report card. Contributions from gun control groups? About $4000. What do you think the House of Representatives will do, even IF the Senate advances a bill?

I expect Obama to opt for Executive order, so that he gets credit even if the courts shoot him down (was that a pun?). In that order he will institute a federal, uniform background check on all firearms transfers. It may be driven by a registration mandate (which none of us should comply with), and it will encompass all gunshow sales, probably hamper mail order, and it will kill classifieds sales by individuals. He will certainly opt for magazine limitations, but it will be sticky if he goes any further than new manufacture. Trying to ban those already in circulation could create millions of felons overnight. Get ready to march on Washington. Then he will deflect a lot of the attention to committees on mental health and the role of the entertainment and video game industries. Those will be hampered by the 1st Ammendment, so only policy and guidelines will result.
Feinsteins bill was DOA and she was too stupid to know it.

Diane's proposal is not stupid. When you go into a negoiation, you begin asking for the world, you never start with the minimum you expect to get.

You seem comfortable that any gun control legislation will be challenged in court. I agree with that. You also seem to think that, when it gets to the Supreme court that the legislation will be found to be unconstitutional; that is not a given. It is quite possible that a new interpretation of "gun rights" may be established.

Whatever laws are enacted, the vast majority of Americans will follow the law. Those who don't will be outlaws. We have always had outlaws, and always will, but they are a minority of the population.

 

[John_Deer]

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomattox.

If the Federal government wishes to enforce any law, they have the resources to handle it. A lot of conservative gun owners like to brag that "we have the guns". By that same standard, the big guns belong to the Army and the Government that issues their orders. When the tiger is tired of getting it's chains rattled, it can become nasty. Ask the ghosts of Waco.

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on. Those old boys can take you out in your mountain bunker hide-out from the airconditioned comfort of a drone driver's computer from 10,000 miles away. If our military has to fire on American citizens there will be no burning desire to succeed.

That is exactly why politics are a hell of a sight better way to solve our issues with the government than threats.

Our sporting weapons are scary to the federal government. The people of Afghanistan are illiterate and only had rocks when Russia invaded. They held off the Russians for 20 years. Now they are giving our troops a good fight. Heavy artillery has to be manned by soldiers with a burning desire to win for it to be effective. Some military units will defect with all of their equipment. If our military has to fire on US citizens there will be no burning desire to succeed.

 

[texaswoodworker]

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on.

Last I checked, the States had that too. Why don't you ask the Texas National Guard?

We also have a few units that have several M1A1 Abrams.

Would the Texas National Guard defeat the US military alone? Probably not. Would they serve as a huge deterrent or really cause some damage the the US military? Yes they would.

If we're talking about armed conflict between the feds and the states, it's only fair to include the people who would join the state military to fight off the feds. It's also only fair to include other states that may decide they are tired of the feds too, and join the fight.

Just FYI, We also have a HUGE amount of gun owners that would defend their this state. Overall, we have around 8,733,000 gun owners in Texas. Many on us would fight for this state. The US military is way outnumbered by Texas gun owners.

It's in the fed's best interest not to mess with Texas, or really any other state for that matter.

If there is a war within America, it is more likely that it will be the People against the Government. Not the feds against the states.

 

[1911love]

Chain- Yes, we will always have outlaws. Right not they are the minority. If any of these illegal laws pass, outlaws wouldn't be a small minority anymore. Millions of outlaws would be "created" with the swipe of a pen. Every American should be concerned about this, especially the govt.