a little help...

is it true that the supreme court ruling on arizona's SB 1070 said that state laws cannot be in contradiction or in conflict with federal law?

if so, then why can't that be applied to the 2nd amendment and open carry?

It will be interesting to find out. I hadn't thought of this.

hammer6 said:

is it true that the supreme court ruling on arizona's SB 1070 said that state laws cannot be in contradiction or in conflict with federal law?

if so, then why can't that be applied to the 2nd amendment and open carry?

Click to expand...

The thing is, AZ SB1070 is virtually a carbon copy of the Federal immigration law. As I understood the SCOTUS ruling, it invalidated Arizona's ability to enforce 1070, as there was no "contradiction or conflict". Otherwise to invalidate 1070 itself would have, essentially, invalidated Federal immigration law.

In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws.

"The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Click to expand...

What the court fails to recognize is that the Federal Agents, by direction from the DOJ - and the DOJ probably by direction from higher up - aren't permitted to do their job along the border. Who's suffering from the effects of this laissez faire approach to border control? Washington D.C.? Of course not! The hardest hit are Kalifornia, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and the contiguous western states. These are the states whose economies are being drained by the influx of illegal immigrants suckling from the entitlement teat. In the recent past, one AZ hospital posted a $5,000,000+ loss in one year, due to non-payment for services rendered to illegal aliens. Welfare costs to support illegal immigrant families are depleting the coffers of our border states. State (and Federal) taxes pay for educating illegal immigrants K-16, while the citizens have to pay their own way. What's wrong with this picture? As for "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues...", the Feds can't "continue" something that hasn't recently been acted upon... they can only resume such an activity. Where is the "undermining" referred to in the majority opinion, and WHEN did "The Supremes" lose their minds and any remnant of common sense? Just sayin'. Pax...

1070, two of the three provisions were a reiteration of existing federal law, as Gil223 accurately points out. SCOTUS told AZ that they could not do what the feds currently do, whether the feds actually do anything is irrelevant. The provision that was not struck down was the key provision, check immigration status after a lawful detainment.