Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:43:05 AM EDT
[#1]
State laws that decriminalize marijuana don't override federal law. Neither would state laws that purport to legalize NFA items.

The difference is that federal authorites, for political reasons, choose not to enforce the federal marijuana laws in states that have decriminalized it. We're not there yet in the gun field. We don't have a gun-friendly federal administration.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:43:07 AM EDT
[#2]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
True.



But there's nothing like being that one guy the feds decided needed to be pinched.  Youtube, social media, etc. they're a helluva drug.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:

Uh marijuana is still illegal federally.  Doesn't matter if the state says its legal or not.


  But if enough states legalize it, you aren't going to get the federal govt raiding a significant number of states.  It just can't and won't.

 




True.



But there's nothing like being that one guy the feds decided needed to be pinched.  Youtube, social media, etc. they're a helluva drug.




 
Same could be said for Heller, but that turned out well.  Sadly someone has to be the guinea pig.  
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:44:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
there has to be some states that would allow SBRs or Suppressors.    
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
They don't want to
there has to be some states that would allow SBRs or Suppressors.    

maybe. but the heroin of government money keeps the states in check.

The only reason the states are allowing pot is (democrat) votes and revenue............and a implicit permission of the feds.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:45:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Alaska. We passed it a couple years ago its the Alaska firearms freedom act or something. IT says anything made in state somehow isn't subject to federal laws. As far as I know there hasn't been anyone to test those waters yet
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?

  I vaguely remember something like that but wasn't sure if it was Kentucky or Alabama.


Alaska. We passed it a couple years ago its the Alaska firearms freedom act or something. IT says anything made in state somehow isn't subject to federal laws. As far as I know there hasn't been anyone to test those waters yet




The Supreme Court decision Wickard v. Filburn will be used again, somehow.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:45:36 AM EDT
[#5]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


State laws that decriminalize marijuana don't override federal law. Neither would state laws that purport to legalize NFA items.



The difference is that federal authorites, for political reasons, choose not to enforce the federal marijuana laws in states that have decriminalized it. We're not there yet in the gun field. We don't have a gun-friendly federal administration.

View Quote




 
I don't see a future republican president sending in federal agents to Colorado and others to enforce it.  It's going to get legalized in other states and again, at that point the Feds are either just going to have a worthless law on the books that isn't enforced or they will just legalize MJ.  




Again, same idea should be used for Class 3 items.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:46:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
A state voting to legalize MJ is not the same as overriding the Feds.
View Quote


Yes it is. MJ is a Schedule 1 drug, therefor illegal in all forms for all purposes.

The current administration just isn't enforcing that law very well because it gets them votes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 9:46:21 AM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  exactly
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those laws don't override the federal givernment. They decriminalize it at the state level.




How are those State laws NOT overriding the Federal Government?

They are growing and selling cannabis.

It would be like a State ignoring the Volstead Act, and allowing people to produce and sell alcohol.

  exactly

Sir, you can't apply logic to a corrupt government........that's just silly
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:18:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yeah, Alabama sounds familiar, too.  Maybe that was it.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?

  I vaguely remember something like that but wasn't sure if it was Kentucky or Alabama.


Yeah, Alabama sounds familiar, too.  Maybe that was it.



I swear Montana started it. off to google
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:39:22 AM EDT
[#9]
States could make it perfectly legal to own Class 3 items any time they want to, they just don't want to do it.

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, which modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns, specifically to amend 18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The ATF, as a representative of the U.S. and with authority from the National Firearms Act, can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian. An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval.[4] The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer:[4]

executed under penalties of perjury[5]
both parties must reside in the same state as the individual
pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF[6]
the application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer[5][7]
the transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law
the transferee must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; and (2) fingerprints[7]
the transferee must submit with the application (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns
an appropriate (local) law enforcement official must certify whether he or she has any information indicating that the firearm will be used for other than lawful purposes or that possession would violate state or federal law[7]
the transferee must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation.
If ATF denies an application, it must refund the tax.[4] Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers.[4]
View Quote


Create an actual State Militia, create criteria for belonging to that militia, could be as simple as US Citizenship, No Felonies, etc and a pulse.  Authorize purchase of Militia Weapons invoiced through the State Militia Supply System at the expense of the requestor, transfer weapon to requestor for duties related to their role (reserve?) in that State Militia.

(This is also the work around btw for a Federal ban on any weapons in the future.)

Done.

Won't happen though.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:42:30 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I might have the state wrong, but I swear I remember reading about it here.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?

News to me


I might have the state wrong, but I swear I remember reading about it here.  




South Carolina has had it introduced, but never made it to the floor.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:44:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Because states can not pass laws that override the federal laws - but Berry has actively decided to not uphold and defend the laws of the United States.  The federal laws are in place, but being actively (top down orders) not enforced.

---

Imagine if the feds raided every pot shop in CO.  Got their client list - and declared everyone on the list was an unlawful drug user - no more background checks.  They could even cross reference during audits and find people who lied on their 4473.

Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:49:58 AM EDT
[#12]
One thing at a time.  I'm letting acceptance of pot take hold here, then I'm going to push for distilling without a license.  If I can grow weed in my backyard and roll my own, and I can brew beer with my buddies, why can't I capture steam?  It's ridiculous!

Then, when *two* things have been legalized, I move on to suppressors as Europhilish hearing protection and good neighboring.  Then SBR restrictions become a violation of the ADA and discriminatory of the elderly who lack the arm strength to stabilize a long barrel.  
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 10:56:12 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?
View Quote



It was Idaho, and there is no NFA burden for suppressors as long as the item was built and stays in-state.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 11:03:23 AM EDT
[#14]
The Fed.gov won't let states define a marriage as between one man and one woman, through a democratic process, and you think they will allow states
to get around the NFA laws?



Not seeing it........
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 11:07:26 AM EDT
[#15]
the feds would decide to enforce that law, because they like it.

Quoted:


Some states do allow suppressors apart of hunting applications so its already in motion if you think about it
View Quote



some states allow silencers for hunting. TX does.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 11:38:08 AM EDT
[#16]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


State laws that decriminalize marijuana don't override federal law. Neither would state laws that purport to legalize NFA items.



The difference is that federal authorites, for political reasons, choose not to enforce the federal marijuana laws in states that have decriminalized it. We're not there yet in the gun field. We don't have a gun-friendly federal administration.

View Quote




 
All part of their plan. It draws voters to the Democrats due to voter stupidity. Once they have enough control they can go in a remove that burdensome and pesky 2nd Amendment through drug laws.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:13:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Then why don't we get state laws passed to allow Class 3 items?  If enough states did it, it would force the hand of the Federal Government just like whats starting with Pot it starting to do.  
View Quote

Two states already have, Kansas and... I'll have to look up the other one.

Check the Tenth Amendment Center for their Tracking and Action Center, and look for The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

ETA

It took the page a while to load.  It's Kansas, Alaska, and Idaho.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:27:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Montana kicked it off. It's a feel-good law only.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:34:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Montana kicked it off. It's a feel-good law only.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com
View Quote

The Firearms Freedom Act is different from the 2nd Amendment Preservation act.

Also, looks like the 2AP act passed both houses of the Missouri legislature and all the Governor has to do is sign it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 12:39:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?
View Quote



I think it was MO.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:11:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think it was MO.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?


I think it was MO.

Look at the post above yours, you are correct.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:16:30 PM EDT
[#22]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That's not what is happening.  



The Feds and the states have concurrent jurisdiction over certain crimes.  States may choose to legalize pot but that doesn't mean you couldn't be charged under federal law for possession.
View Quote
Yep.  You'd still have to worry about getting cornholed by the ATF.

 
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:17:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:18:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:18:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 1:25:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I might have the state wrong, but I swear I remember reading about it here.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasn't it Kentucky or something, that has, or is pushing for, the residents to be able to own Class 3 stuff without the usual fed requirements, as long as it was manufactured in state?

News to me


I might have the state wrong, but I swear I remember reading about it here.  


You are correct. It was shot down.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 4:56:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because states can not pass laws that override the federal laws...
View Quote

Better go read the Tenth Amendment again.
Link Posted: 10/6/2014 5:16:28 PM EDT
[#28]


Quoted:

Then why don't we get state laws passed to allow Class 3 items? If enough states did it, it would force the hand of the Federal Government just like whats starting with Pot it starting to do.
View Quote


Because the state pot "legalizations" don't "override" the Federal Controlled Substances Act portion of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 ).



Federal law on marijuana is being selectively enforced.



Our historic President, Barack Hussein Obama, - himself an admitted cannabis and cocaine user (and small time cannabis dealer) in his younger days - and his current Attorney General, Eric Holder, have announced the Federal government will "no longer actively pursue marijuana offenses that take place in those states that have legalized the small consumption and possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Agency will only become involved if the offense involve violence or firearms, the proceeds go to gangs and cartels, or when marijuana is distributed to those states where it is illegal".



Our historic President, Barack Hussein Obama, is selectively enforcing laws that he disagrees with and / or are unpopular.



While the subject has never been publicly addressed, I'm fairly sure our historic President, Barack Hussein Obama, approves or the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended. I know his current Attorney General, Eric Holder, does.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top