• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who is supreme? Local sheriffs or federal LEOs?

Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
eye95 said:
Does anyone have anything to contribute regarding the reality of the law? I have heard all the jaded opinions before (repeatedly to the point of becoming tiresome). I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of the supremacy clause.

Anyone? Bueller?
Click to expand...

Gee, I mention lese majeste, the Assizes and the Founders. How much more intellectual do you want?
 
William Fisher

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
marshaul said:
Montana is right.

Why should the Federal government be able to prosecute medical marijuana patients in California, who are totally in compliance with their state's laws (for example)?

Granted it wouldn't prevent Sheriffs from giving the Feds permission, but there is at least the notion that local LEOs do not enforce Federal laws.

Too bad they will probably lose, because this issue has already come up w/re medical marijuana, and the courts sided with the Feds.

Y'all reap what you sow. I hope everyone is pleased.
Click to expand...



I imagine that Federal would trump State, just as State trumps Local. Such as the Home Rule Laws where locals use (used) Inducing panic and such as a way to disarm a law abiding OCer.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
William Fisher said:
I imagine that Federal would trump State, just as State trumps Local. Such as the Home Rule Laws where locals use (used) Inducing panic and such as a way to disarm a law abiding OCer.
Click to expand...

Federal government trumps state government where the Constitution authorizes, and nowhere else. Aside from enforcing constitutional rights, maintaining a navy, signing treaties, and ensuring free trade amongst the state, the Federal government has very little authority.

In the case of medical marijuana, the government has no explicit or implicit (don't tell that to the SCOTUS) authority to pass prohibitions, and furthermore the Bill of Rights might actually be argued to mandate defense of medical freedom, rather than prosecution of it.

In the case of gun rights, the Federal government has no authority to pass laws curtailing the RKBA, and furthermore the Bill of Rights explicitly authorizes the Federal government (and the states) to prevent infringement, but not the other way around.

It's not a simple matter of "who is the higher authority?"
 
Last edited:
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
William Fisher said:
I imagine that Federal would trump State, just as State trumps Local. Such as the Home Rule Laws where locals use (used) Inducing panic and such as a way to disarm a law abiding OCer.
Click to expand...

Federal trumps State only where the Constitution says it does. The organization created by the Constitution is not a hierarchy. The States created the Union and are supreme over it--except where they explicitly ceded authority in the Constitution. The relationship between States and localities is entirely different. That is hierarchical since the States created the political subdivisions within them.
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
A short example of "trumping" would be a preemption-type of statute. The State of Washington fully preempts all statutes on firearm possession, and specifically states that cities, towns, counties and other municipalities may not create an ordinance that is more strict than state law. In that case, the sub divisions may adopt state law, but cannot lawfully make an ordinance that is "more strict" than what is allowed by the state. Also, if it's unlawful in the state statute's, a sub division of the state may not make it lawful in their jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
Aaron1124 said:
A short example of "trumping" would be a preemption-type of statute. The State of Washington fully preempts all statutes on firearm possession, and specifically states that cities, towns, counties and other municipalities may not create an ordinance that is more strict than state law. In that case, the sub divisions may adopt state law, but cannot lawfully make an ordinance that is "more strict" than what is allowed by the state. Also, if it's unlawful in the state statute's, a sub division of the state may not make it lawful in their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

And in that situation, if there were a more specific Federal law that was more restrictive than any state law on the books, the Federal law would have to be followed. It is not so much that Federal trumps State, but that Specific trumps General. For instance, even though there are Federal laws permitting ownership of short barrel rifles and shotguns, until recently they were not permitted in Alabama. Federal didn't trump State, Specific trumped General.

In case anyone wants me to cite, see United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 US 517 - Supreme Court 1998
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
marshaul said:
Montana is right.

Why should the Federal government be able to prosecute medical marijuana patients in California, who are totally in compliance with their state's laws (for example)?

Granted it wouldn't prevent Sheriffs from giving the Feds permission, but there is at least the notion that local LEOs do not enforce Federal laws.

Too bad they will probably lose, because this issue has already come up w/re medical marijuana, and the courts sided with the Feds.

Y'all reap what you sow. I hope everyone is pleased.
Click to expand...

Before I start, just so you know, I am against drug use, even marijuana, but do not wish to have my beliefs shoved down the throat of others.

The real question for marijuana is this: Why did we need a constitutional ammendment to over-ride the alcohol authority of the sovereign states, but don't need a constitutional ammendment to override the authority of the states to regulate marijuana?
 
M

McX

Guest
I'd say you get a better deal with the Sheriffs. i hope. I heard they were sworn to uphold the Constitution, local cops i dont know what they swear to. some days you wonder.
 
M

McX

Guest
ok guys, to settle the opinions here on who is supreme. I AM. i grant you all permission to carry, as you shall NOT be infringed. I guess i'll grant the cops permission to carry too.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
McX said:
I guess i'll grant the cops permission to carry too.
Click to expand...

I hereby revoke this permission until such a time as the police can be trusted with it.

The People are the only ones in the room, that I am aware of, trained and responsible enough to be armed in public in times of peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top