Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick
State laws, do not supersede federal laws.
|
Yep. Aware of the Supremacy Clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick
If a state passes a AWB after passing one of the "firearms freedom laws" then it would be a state matter, but if a federal AWB passes, it supersedes what the state wants to do.
It would have to go to the SC, and be ruled upon, and they wouldn't have to enforce it till it had been, but thats not what they're doing or saying.
Before anything has happened, these LEO's are saying, we're not going to obey any laws that we don't agree with, and there's nothing you can do or say about it. Before any law is passed.
|
I can't speak for any of them, but my guess is they're looking at this the way I suppose I am. The ban goes against the Constitution
now. They can take it to the SCOTUS later, at which point it would become Constitutional, but in the mean time...
I'm not saying that their logic or mine isn't erroneous regarding what the Constitution implies about contrasts between current legal interpretations and the AWB. Just being honest about what I
think it means, and guessing what I imagine they think it means as well. You are certainly correct; thinking it doesn't make it so. That said, when I am less medicated, and more focused, I'm going to hone my understanding of this for sure.
I'm sure your position is not in favor of the AWB, and your objection is simply to the idea of rebellious professionals keeping their jobs. No worries. Like I said earlier, consequences in the wake of virtuous intent are merely incidental. Looks like we both pretty much see it as "do what you gotta do, but accept the outcome."