View Single Post
Old March 17, 2013, 08:37 PM   #4
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
What you wrote looks pretty close, with one exception:
Quote:
It would only be subject to scrutiny if the law had addtional restrictions to federal law right?
It's not a matter of whether the State law has "additional restrictions." What you're looking for is a conflict with federal law.

For example:
Federal law says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL, you must be 21, a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." (I've simplified things, but let's take this example.)

Example 1:
A state passes a law that says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL in this state, you must be 21, have been a resident of the state for 180 days preceding any handgun purchase; a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." State has passed a law that has an additional restriction, but there is no conflict with federal law.

Example 2:
A state passes a law that says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL, you must be 18, a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." In this example, we have a conflict. Federal law says that only people 21 or older can purchase handguns from FFLs, but state law would allow it at 18. Result? Federal law trumps state law, and only those 21+ can purchase handguns from FFLs.

Yes, states attempting to prevent federal officials from enforcing federal law may find themselves in conflict with the federal gov't.

I hope the Federal Constitutional Primer was of some help.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05653 seconds with 7 queries