Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
7/4/2017 8:17:35 PM EDT
Simple question: If Federal law preempts or trumps State law, how do states get away what they do with laws hog tying the 2A?
7/4/2017 8:25:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Because generally speaking, and with few exceptions, the lower federal courts willfully ignore Heller and SCOTUS won't grant cert on any cases to correct them.
7/4/2017 8:25:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Because the Feds don't really like the 2A.
7/4/2017 8:27:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Because we have not had an Executive willing to use the Federal Civil Rights laws against those states and cities who violate our rights.  

Maybe the NRA should lobby Trump to do so.
7/4/2017 8:27:22 PM EDT
[#4]
The Federal law sets the floor for firearms law. In other words the states can make a tighter law such who can get a concealed carry permit, or what type of firearms can be sold, until a federal law or judicial ruling says they can't make such a law.

However a state could not make a law that says supressors can be sold over the counter, since it would take the Federal government to abolish the NFA.
7/4/2017 8:29:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote History
Quoted:
Because generally speaking, and with few exceptions, the lower federal courts willfully ignore Heller and SCOTUS won't grant cert on any cases to correct them.
View Quote
But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
7/4/2017 8:30:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Can you imagine a certain state saying people of a certain race can't vote or own property?
7/4/2017 8:32:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History
Quoted:


But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
View Quote
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
7/4/2017 8:32:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Apparently the Andrew Jackson quote about Justice Marshall making his decision, now let him enforce it, works both ways.
7/4/2017 8:36:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote History
Quoted:
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
Does anyone know if "discretionary review" was a deliberate act by the Founders?
7/4/2017 8:37:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Because NOLO has not had a chance to kick those asshole states in the nuts yet in front of the USSC.
7/4/2017 8:37:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History
Quoted:
Can you imagine a certain state saying people of a certain race can't vote or own property?
View Quote
Yes actually I can. (Pre 1964)
7/4/2017 8:38:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote History
Quoted:
Does anyone know if "discretionary review" was a deliberate act by the Founders?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
Does anyone know if "discretionary review" was a deliberate act by the Founders?
Came about in 1891 and expanded in 1925 according to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_review
7/4/2017 8:39:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote History
Quoted:
Yes actually I can. (Pre 1964)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you imagine a certain state saying people of a certain race can't vote or own property?
Yes actually I can. (Pre 1964)
I meant can you imagine a state trying to pull that today.  I think the feds would come down hard and fast.  As they should with the RKBA violations.
7/4/2017 8:40:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote History
Quoted:
The Federal law sets the floor for firearms law. In other words the states can make a tighter law such who can get a concealed carry permit, or what type of firearms can be sold, until a federal law or judicial ruling says they can't make such a law.

However a state could not make a law that says supressors can be sold over the counter, since it would take the Federal government to abolish the NFA.
View Quote
then that should apply to the 1st Amend as well.  States should be able to make more restrictive free speech laws than the laws Congress passes
7/4/2017 8:43:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Because the average person whose rights are violated lacks the resources needed to defend themself.
7/4/2017 8:48:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote History
Quoted:
Came about in 1891 and expanded in 1925 according to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_review
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
Does anyone know if "discretionary review" was a deliberate act by the Founders?
Came about in 1891 and expanded in 1925 according to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_review
So apparently it only exists because the Supreme Court would be too busy without it. The Founders had nothing to do with it.
7/4/2017 8:50:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote History
Quoted:
Because NOLO has not had a chance to kick those asshole states in the nuts yet in front of the USSC.
View Quote
I like this answer
7/4/2017 8:53:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote History
Quoted:
So apparently it only exists because the Supreme Court would be too busy without it. The Founders had nothing to do with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


But this has been going on long before Heller. How can SCOTUS just ignore it?
They can ignore anything they want. They are a Court with almost complete discretionary review.  It takes 4 Justices to grant and only Thomas and Gorsich want to take 2A cases.
Does anyone know if "discretionary review" was a deliberate act by the Founders?
Came about in 1891 and expanded in 1925 according to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_review
So apparently it only exists because the Supreme Court would be too busy without it. The Founders had nothing to do with it.
That's what I got out of it.  Or, at least, that's ostensibly the reason.  It could also be a hell of a way to avoid addressing certain issues they're uncomfortable with.  You know...if there were any such issues.
7/4/2017 8:54:45 PM EDT
[#19]
After the Supreme Court enacted gay marriage we had a county clerk go to jail for disobeying. Why haven't we had anybody go to jail for disobeying Heller?

Why is my right that is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution less important than one that the Supreme Courts invented?
7/4/2017 9:00:55 PM EDT
[#20]
I just don't understand how 'shall not be infringed upon' can be ignored. If I lived in New York I would be pissed. But the stop and frisk basically shit on the 4th. How do states get away with it?
7/5/2017 7:02:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote History
Quoted:
After the Supreme Court enacted gay marriage we had a county clerk go to jail for disobeying. Why haven't we had anybody go to jail for disobeying Heller?
View Quote
The way that would work is for somebody (lots of people would be better) in a commie state to do exactly what Heller and McDonald authorize, report themselves to the police ("I am sitting in my living room with a loaded pistol on the coffee table",) get arrested, and raise Heller and McDonald as defenses to the crime through the courts, as an issue on appeal, and in civil rights actions in federal court.
7/5/2017 7:09:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote History
Quoted:
Can you imagine a certain state saying people of a certain race can't vote or own property?
View Quote
Yes. I can imagine CA doing just that concerning white tax paying citizens subjects.

A.W.D.
7/5/2017 7:13:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote History
Quoted:

However a state could not make a law that says supressors can be sold over the counter, since it would take the Federal government to abolish the NFA.
View Quote
Right.

That's why nobody has been able to legalize weed.....


The ultimate law of the land is the constitution.

Not the Fed.

State and Fed laws are legal only when they agree with the power given to them by us.(the constitution)
7/5/2017 7:17:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote History
Quoted:

Why is my right that is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution less important than one that the Supreme Courts invented?
View Quote
A frustratingly valid question indeed.

But we all know the real answer.

Queer behavior does not threaten statist totalitarians.