Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Come and take it
Could we expect the US government to also not enforce federal law in states refusing to recognize future federal gun laws.
|
Expect? No. Is it within the realm of possibility? Absolutely.
Quote:
|
According to the primer I read, where in the primer does it mention that expanded protection under one of the Bill of Rights would contradict Federal law which gives more restriction and not more freedom.
|
It doesn't. Remember, it's just a primer, and will not give you an in-depth understanding of constitutional law. It's just to get you started. Constitutional law is a field of study to which one could easily devote their entire life. Look at SCOTUS -- it's their only task, and most would agree they screw it up from time to time.
Quote:
|
The part in the primer on Federal law brought up examples of where state laws passed which contained restrictions going beyond federal restrictions.
|
Yup, and this was explained to you above. Additional is OK, as long as there is no conflict. In the example already provided to you, residency was used to illustrate the point. Fed law requires you must be a resident. A state law requires you be a resident for a minimum of 180 days. There is no conflict, yet the state law has additional restrictions.
Now imagine the Fed law was thus:
"You must buy from a licensed FFL, be at least 21 years of age, a resident of the state in which the FFL is licensed to do business, not a prohibited person, and no other restrictions are permissible."
Then the state law in the example would be in conflict, and the Feds could act.
Quote:
|
More specifically the Kentucky bill, puts a penalty on its own law enforcement if they aid federal agencies in the execution of any new laws (after January 2013). Wouldn't it be perfectly constitutional for a state to exercise authority over its own law enforcement?
|
Yes of course, again, provided there is no Federal law requiring cooperation.