Does federal law trump state law...

[TroutStalker]

So check out US Code 42-5207 at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5207

It discusses the Federal Govt's restrictions during a State of Emergency with respect to firearms confiscation. Currently the US code states that firearms can't be confiscated during a state of emergency mentioning State law prevails. However, Most state codes refer to this US code as setting precedent if the state is receiving Federal funding to help in the emergency. Seems like a change to this US code would be an easy way for Obama Bin Lyin to set the stage for authorized confiscation when the SHTF. Thoughts?

 

[gunnerbob]

IMO, if it isn't expressly granted in the Constitution that the Federal Government SHALL do something... everything else is left to the States or to the People! Sound familiar...? I hope so people.... I hope so.

 

[TroutStalker]

Sure. But you know how these guys play.

 

[gunnerbob]

Sure. But you know how these guys play.

Oh of course, of course... they're slime, complete slime. Let 'em come for our firearms during SHTF... a dare 'em.

 

[fuhr52]

This has been the law of the land sense man appeared on earth. He who controls the money makes the rules. The fed puts money out there and the states grab on to it. Now they are hooked like any junkie. You want to keep the money flowing, you do as I say.

 

[spdracr39]

I must agree if the SHTF to the extent they believe they need to confiscate my fire arms because of a "National Emergency" they will have a difficult time doing so.

 

[DRNurse1]

The Executive Branch enforces the laws enacted by Congress...so-o-o-o-o BHO can interpret the law, enforce it as he sees fit and let the Judicial branch sort it out in 3-15 years....remember, We, The People, picked him to do this job.

 

[TroutStalker]

I'm not in that line waiting for handouts.

 

[UATKP]

The Executive Branch enforces the laws enacted by Congress...so-o-o-o-o BHO can interpret the law, enforce it as he sees fit and let the Judicial branch sort it out in 3-15 years....remember, We, The People, picked him to do this job.

Just to clarify something: We the people didn't elect that Marxist scumbag... Scumbags on the dole, elected him. That includes all who voted for him. And we don't have 15 years left before the undoing of America, by his interpreting the law as he sees fit. It is happening right now. And when he tries to enforce his law on We the People, he'll see where he made his biggest mistake. Just sayin'....

 

[JimTh]

Federal law does trump state law as long as the law is constitutional. Some federal statutes may be ambiguous as to how they overlap with state law and how state laws will be a modifier to federal law. There are lots of exceptions in the interpretation and enforcement of federal law.

 

[UATKP]

In addition to my post (#9) above, I submit this, copied from a March 8, 2013 blog on Oathkeepers:
"So, now it is time to amend and update that particular plank of our Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey. I will work on it this weekend. You should consider that update to be akin to moving the hands on the “battle for freedom dooms-day” clock at least a half hour closer to midnight. I’d say we are now at about 11:45. All of the legal, political, and physical infrastructure for a total destruction of the Republic/spark of a civil war is now in place, and is only awaiting a sufficient trigger event."
I couldn't be that articulate.

 

[Seeya]

Article 6 US Constitution, says it all.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[gunnerbob]

Article 6 US Constitution, says it all.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

This is great, as long as the three branches of gov't follow the rest of the Constitution to the letter. Otherwise, this would be used to force States into enforcing unConstitutional laws. It's not whatever the Federal gov't says, goes. No sir!

 

[Seeya]

This is great, as long as the three branches of gov't follow the rest of the Constitution to the letter. Otherwise, this would be used to force States into enforcing unConstitutional laws. It's not whatever the Federal gov't says, goes. No sir!

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

The above has SCOTUS opinions that apply to your concerns. In simple terms a unconstitutional law has no force.

 

[mappow]

10th Amendment if we're to act and abide by the Constitution. Another dam thing if our executive branch chooses not to. And or the Congress fails to enforce. So I guess the bottom line is YES State law trumps Federal. Federal out guns States and also holds the funding our sorry a$$ states have suckled over all these years. What's the real answer; in theory or in practice? Now that's the question.

 

[UATKP]

In theory and in practice, Unconstitutional is still unconstitutional, and therefore not enforceable. So when the feds decide that it's time to enforce their unconstitutional law, then it is also time for Americans with intestinal fortitude to stand against them. Period.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

question

Question- are several of the states now getting or attempting to get legislature passed that would make it a felony (punishable by up to one year of prison time <- yeah right on that one) for a federal agent to seize our firearms?

 

[AndeyHall]

Question- are several of the states now getting or attempting to get legislature passed that would make it a felony (punishable by up to one year of prison time <- yeah right on that one) for a federal agent to seize our firearms?

Yes they are. However it is only to prove a point because one sheriff's office in Tenn said that if the law pass, it would hold no weight because it would be state law contradicting a federal law, thus nullifying the state law. However they would have every right to "detain" the federal agent.

Any agent, state or federal that tries to seize guns from me on my property, he'll be treated as a trespassing civilian. Because as law enforcement they take an oath to ultimately protect and uphold the constitution, so by seizing guns, they have gone against that oath and voided whatever weight that badge once held.

 

[Seeya]

Yes they are. However it is only to prove a point because one sheriff's office in Tenn said that if the law pass, it would hold no weight because it would be state law contradicting a federal law, thus nullifying the state law. However they would have every right to "detain" the federal agent.

Any agent, state or federal that tries to seize guns from me on my property, he'll be treated as a trespassing civilian. Because as law enforcement they take an oath to ultimately protect and uphold the constitution, so by seizing guns, they have gone against that oath and voided whatever weight that badge once held.

In effect they lack authority as they become private citizens, and are subject to the laws of the state they are in. We as people/citizens must question every challenge to our civil liberties/rights under color of law in order to maintain them.

 

[AndeyHall]

Yes they are. However it is only to prove a point because one sheriff's office in Tenn said that if the law pass, it would hold no weight because it would be state law contradicting a federal law, thus nullifying the state law. However they would have every right to "detain" the federal agent.

Any agent, state or federal that tries to seize guns from me on my property, he'll be treated as a trespassing civilian. Because as law enforcement they take an oath to ultimately protect and uphold the constitution, so by seizing guns, they have gone against that oath and voided whatever weight that badge once held.

In effect they lack authority as they become private citizens, and are subject to the laws of the state they are in. We as people/citizens must question every challenge to our civil liberties/rights under color of law in order to maintain them.

You're saying they can enforce the law?