What is a Sunset Ban and would it aloow one to Purchase an AR in California, should it occur?

MAchingbird.

I believe you are talkin about the Assault Weapons ban. This will "sunset"(no longer law) in 4yrs time unless it is re-enacted.

If it is allowed to "sunset", it will not affect CA gunlaws. States can have stricter laws than that of Federal laws. They cannot be more laxed but can be stricter. Only way to buy an AR in CA is to have RR89 and SB23 law repealed. BTW CA state constitution doesn't say in it the Right to Keep and bear arms.[url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1[/url] and based on the 10th Ammedment they have the right to restrict ownership of firearms. But thats another debate for another day.

Except that California owners of registered AWs may, during the brief interlude, slap bayo lugs and flash supressors and collapsible stocks and DIASs on their guns.
PSYCH!  No DIAS, but the rest is true.

Now I feel ignorant 'cause I can't figure out what D.I.A.S. would be, though I guess it's kinda moot.

[red][size=4] P.R.K.

Drop In Auto Sear.

I suppose that depends on the price of tea in China.

The gov. wants to ban sunsets now?

Damn, and I always thought they were so pretty.........................

Thanks, bigdb1

Paul, I'm not a lawyer but I know this is a particularly sticky area of the law.  

I think the general idea is that state law is has to defer to federal law where the two conflict.

But if the state law is more restrictive than a restrictive federal law, there isn't a conflict, even if it may bad for us.  However, theoretically it can't be unconstitutional.

And possibly it goes the other way -  if the federal law [b]creates[/b] rights, you can have a state law on the same topic that is [b]more expansive[/b], but not creating fewer rights.  What the federal law did would supercede and invalidate the state law.

Also, even if there is no federal law, there can be a state law, as long as it's constitutional.

I think Lordtrader & Troy were talking about otherwise 'constitutional' law.

In your answer, you intentionally used unconstitutional state law ideas to make your point, as examples of 'more restrictive' state laws.  

Your purpose in doing this seemed to be to point out the inconsistency of the idea that it's OK for a state to pass any old law that would be more restrictive than a federal law (or in an area lacking federal law).

Obviously, California couldn't sustain laws like your examples. I think you're right.  But your example seems to boil down to constitutional law, and 10th amendment vs. any other amendment or part of the constitution.  Also the 'strict interpretation' vs. other dogmas may enter into the arguments.

Seems like this eventually goes to whether the 10th amendment allows a state to pass a law that violates another part of the constitution or not.  Without being an expert, I would say probably not.

Then you might ask how can the California laws be valid in view of the 2nd.  I would say that's a really good question, just as many federal laws would seem to violate it and we're still waiting to hear on that Texas case.

(was it Emerson? I wanted to say Miller but think that goes way back).

Hopefully we will hear from Steve in VA on this.

[red][size=4] P.R.K.

ACTUALLY, the federal constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, and states are prohibited from restricting already guaranteed federal constitutional rights.  However, they can, and often do, go [i]beyond[/i] what our federal constitution grants us.  

For example, in the context of the 4th amendment, there exists serveral exceptions to the exclusionary rule (where illegally obtained evidences is "excluded" from trial- as a consequence of the manner in which it was obtained; called "tainted fruit from the poisonous tree").  One of those is called the "good faith exception" where LE acts in "good faith" reliance on, say, a defective search warrant handed down by a magistrate or judge who dropped the ball(there are many wrinkles to this and exceptions to the exception that I won't get into).  So, despite the fact that the search warrant was defective and therefore the search was "unreasonable" per the 4th amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence obtained [i]may[/i] still come in at trial despite the exclusionary rule based on good faith.  NOW , for my example, in Virginia, in 1996, the Court of Appeals handed down a decision that basically said, in certain misdomeanor cases (and maybe more), the good faith exception does not apply.  [i]See[/i] Ford v. City of Newport News, 23 Va.App. 137 at145-46 (1996).  This is an expansion of the 4th amendment as it relates to federal caselaw today.  I love this case and use it often.

However, state courts can never tighten already guaranteed federal constitutional rights.

To clarify, L/T is right when he says states can have "stricter laws", so long as those laws do not restrict already guaranteed federal (or even state) constitutional rights.  Now, the state legislature can, and often do, enact such a law, but then it is challenged and struck down- I've seen it happen, very fun stuff.

However, states can and do indeed enact laws more "laxed" than those found in the federal code (different from my post above, but same principal).  What does that mean to the feds?  They can't come in and nab someone violating their law (that was ok per a state law) unless they have federal jurisdiction (for eg. interstate commerce affected).

This all mercifully ignores the "dormant Commerce clause."

Cible -

Don't know what your "dormant Commerce clause" point is.  I read a bit about it and it looks like it is not a total preemption.  It appears that states get to pass laws that are in their direct local 'police' powers and that do not bear on interstate commerce in any significant way.  

An example was a case where people tried to say the state couldn't dam a stream, and I think there was one where a bridge was an issue.

Also there were cases about cyberspam, too.

So please tell us what you're thinking on this topic in the context of this issue about the sunset of the '94 ban.

[red][size=4]P.R.K.

It has no context with respect to the AW ban.  It is Constitutional theory that has to do with preemption and is a real pain.  It was mercifully ignored, that's all. [;)]

Didn't the Clinton Administration prove the U.S. Constitution was a "WORKING CONSTITUTION"
 Basically meaning the Consitution was up to interpitation.

I thought a Sunset Ban was what happened in the great white north during the Northern lights thing.