Blocking Federal Gun Control

[Birds Away]

I agree with your signature. Bullies suck.

 

[MarkC]

I want to be clear. If you are talking about immigration, if the state allows them to, cities can refuse to enforce (or assist in enforcing) federal immigration laws consistent with the Constitution. Where it gets sticky is if they actively work to thwart federal enforcement. Then whether it is legal or not depends upon the specific facts. I guarantee that active attempts to inerfere with federal agents enforcing immigration laws is illegal. (I mention "if the state allows" because there are states that have passed laws that prevent cities from declaring "sanctuary city" status)

Likewise, states do not have to enforce or assist in enforcing guns laws, constitutional or not. What they cannot do in interfere in federal law enforcement enforcing federal laws.

It's actually very consistent.

You mean we just can't pass a law saying that we don't want to obey a federal law?

Provides that any federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute found by the general assembly to be inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is void in Indiana. Provides that a resident of Indiana has a cause of action to enjoin the enforcement or implementation or the attempted enforcement or implementation of a federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute declared void by the general assembly. Provides that a plaintiff who prevails in such an action is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally implements or enforces, or attempts to implement or enforce, a federal law that is declared void by the general assembly commits a Class D felony. Finds that the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Ark]

A state may "legalize" marijuana within its borders with regard to state law. It does not change Federal law. If ATF, the FBI or any of the other federal three letter law enforcement agencies choose to enforce Federal drug laws that prohibit the growing, possession, transport and sale of marijuana, they can enforce Federal law and the state cannot prevent it.

John

Yup. "Legal" marijuana isn't a real thing, there is only illegal production and sale of marijuana that the government is currently declining to prosecute. Trump could sign an order throwing every "legal" marijuana grower in federal prison tomorrow and the states couldn't do a damn thing about it.

 

[Birds Away]

When the third lawyer showed up I knew the conversation had become a soup sandwich.

 

[MarkC]

Yup. "Legal" marijuana isn't a real thing, there is only illegal production and sale of marijuana that the government is currently declining to prosecute. Trump could sign an order throwing every "legal" marijuana grower in federal prison tomorrow and the states couldn't do a damn thing about it.

And, if I recall correctly, didn't AG Sessions make some noise early on in the Trump administration about starting to enforce the federal law?

 

[HoughMade]

I agree with your signature. Bullies suck.

They also make you stronger.

 

[HoughMade]

And, if I recall correctly, didn't AG Sessions make some noise early on in the Trump administration about starting to enforce the federal law?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement

 

[Birds Away]

They also make you stronger.

Unless they kill me.

 

[Birds Away]

They also make you stronger.

BTW, this is almost never true.

 

[MarkC]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement

ah, yes, the "return of the rule of law." ETA: I thought it was closer to the election, but my memory isn't what it used to be.

With 33 states allowing "medical" marijuana and 10 recreational use, this issues seems ripe for Congressional action, one way or the other.

But that's wishful thinking.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

And, if I recall correctly, didn't AG Sessions make some noise early on in the Trump administration about starting to enforce the federal law?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement

^^^Yep, and all of that went nowhere.^^^

With 33 states allowing "medical" marijuana and 10 recreational use, this issues seems ripe for Congressional action, one way or the other.

But that's wishful thinking.

^^^And this is why the gun sanctuary stuff is a good idea. If we want to win on gun issues, we need to mimic winning strategies.^^^

 

[Denny347]

I know it's fun to look down your noses at us stupid yokels. What I hate is that the gubmint and statists seem to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Federal Laws they want to recognize as being valid. It seems to work out just great for them but if I, Joe normal citizen, were to do so I would be in the pokey. Certain people want to pave the way for the radical left and MORE governmental power and oversight. I guess that fits in with certain professions. I doesn't work out so good for the average citizen.

I'm not looking down at anyone, I'm sorry if you feel that I am. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[Denny347]

More like that the approach is working pretty well for pot smokers/growers/sellers and illegal immigrants. If the Constitution is already being thrown out the window, we might as well get our piece of the pie. No sense in fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. I completely understand and agree that the approach is unconstitutional and I don't like that one bit...but does the Constitution actually matter anymore? The Republic is dying and I don't think there is anything we can do to save it...better to have every advantage we can...if the correct side wins the struggle, maybe the Constitution will become the law of the land again.

That's fine. If we get "our piece" then we lose the right to complain about them getting "their piece".

 

[Ark]

And, if I recall correctly, didn't AG Sessions make some noise early on in the Trump administration about starting to enforce the federal law?

Yeah, well, Keebler wasn't long for that post.

 

[BlaineBug]

[FONT=&quot]Published on: Feb 20, 2014[/FONT]

 

[cg21]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

which part of the constitution protects illegal immigration.....?

 

[Route 45]

That's fine. If we get "our piece" then we lose the right to complain about them getting "their piece".

Lose the right to complain? Pretty sure that's covered in the First Amendment, no matter the whining about "hypocrisy."

 

[Denny347]

Lose the right to complain? Pretty sure that's covered in the First Amendment, no matter the whining about "hypocrisy."

I didn't mean that legally of course, C'mon.

 

[Denny347]

which part of the constitution protects illegal immigration.....?

Ah, so it's a matter of what Federal laws we deem as unconstitutional (strictly an opinion since there in no judicial ruling supporting that). I don't agree with local LE not assisting Federal LE who are LAWFULLY carrying out their duties. By lawful, I mean Constitutional by way of USSC or 7th Circuit USCA decisions.

 

[Route 45]

I didn't mean that legally of course, C'mon.

Then your objection to perceived hypocrisy is ethically or morally based. Given that hypocrisy is a universal human condition, I'm not so quick to lose sleep over a light to moderate dose of it every once in a while, especially to make a point. (ie: illegal alien sanctuaries vs. 2nd Amendment sanctuaries) I care less about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. You do too, unless you absolutely enforce every law that you see broken during a shift.