imported post
We had this conversation before. I supplied
all the information with respect to State Police powers, the fact you seem to think there is no 10th Amendment, you cite a
losing case to make you point, ignore the docrine of implicit facts of law ("well established")and base your 'legal' standing on wishful thinking insufficient to convince a stone statue that you haveany case. I don't see the point of going over the same ground again. Do your petition, I was being witty in saying it will be tossed in 5 minutes. It probably will take a good hour and a half to be dismissed. Just don't try and convince other well intentioned 2A types that your pseudo law has merit. Identify it as what it is: your opinion with not one citable case that supports its resolution in your favor. As I also said before, I agree with you 100% that it would be nice to happen the way you wishfully think. But it won't.
To save you from reading it again, here it is:
The court does not have to cite
implicit facts of law. By its language, in granting the
fact that states have residual powers for the common welfare and safety of its own citizens, and thereby may make a discriminatory ruling via state law between residents and nonresidents--the P&I notwithstanding, it recognizes an
implicit fact of Constitutional law. Where the hell else do youthink this implicit fact of law comes from, if not the residual powers of the state amendment? No specific citation of any kind is made as to this trying of law because it is not necessary anymore than citing the first amendment in a freedom of speech case. It can be cited; but it is not necessary to do so on well established ground.
One more comment, and I'm out of here: what you don't seem to understand is that each state has the Constitutionally guaranteed power to make and enforce its own laws which may be different or contradictory to other states. CO does not regulate under commerce power ocean front property because it is n/a, not because they couldn't if they wanted to on the off chance a couple of states break off into the Pacific. IA has no reciprocity with anyone, neither does MA. IL doesn't allow CC, period. If your logic, or lack of it in my opinion, held any water, I can sue IL because they don't allow me to have what
my state gives me, the privilege--not right, of concealed carry. The basis would be IL deprives me of a privilege I have in CO. Your 'logic' says CO deprives you of a right CO residents have, or those with reciprocity and a resident CCW from other states. You are no more deprived than I am. You can't carry in CO--neither can any other nonresident without the above credentials. I can't carry in IL--neither can anybody else. Classes are excluded, not individuals. And the classes are excluded because the state feels they should be. The Federal Courts always have and always will uphold the states' right to make that distinction. That it is based on the 10th Amendment is well established and may or may not be cited de jure, but is always implicit de facto.
As suggested above, the Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in
New York v. United States 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to
January 1,
1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment.
Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see
South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act, this time the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied
New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.
