|
If the states law expands (Bills of Rights) protection to the citizen it is constitutional...
Also if pertains to instructing its law enforcement on what not to enforce, as opposed to what to enforce.
It would only be subject to scrutiny if the law had addtional restrictions to federal law right?
Freedoms and restrictions as they pertain to the bill of rights.
Or am I just misinterpreting what I read?
Another way to look at it would be that on basic level the right to keep and bear arms would allow us to own any weapon and bear any weapon. The federal government has put restrictions on this freedom. If a state passes no gun owners protection act than it is subject to this law. However if it passes a law guaranteeing more freedom than that protection act would be perfectly constitutional.
Of course there has yet to be a supreme court decision on such a matter. Or would it even be subject to a Supreme court decision?
The only clash would of course be if a state refused to allow federal authorities to exercise law in their state that would violate that states protection acts.
|