If one says you must follow a state law that violates the 2nd amendment then...

davidmcbeth said:

Is one advocating breaking the law?

Click to expand...

Gil223 said:

Would one be in violation of the state law? Yes. However, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land - therefore it follows that all State laws must be in compliance with the Constitution in order to be legally enforceable. Just my thoughts. Pax...

Click to expand...

motoxmann said:

yes, that is true. but what one needs to understand is the various levels of government, and specifically law enforcement. police work for the town/state. they are responsible for enforcing town/state laws. if a state law is unconstitutional, it will be at the "discretion" of the cop on whether to enforce that law or not. and if they do enforce that law, it passes to judicial; town/state courts for prosecuting under that law, and they have "discretion" on whether it can be prosecuted and convicted.

it's a world of butthurt with too many possible outcomes, most of which are not very good for at least 1 person involved

Click to expand...

If one says you must follow a state law that violates the 2nd amendment then...

Is one advocating breaking the law?​

Click to expand...

The equally unadorned answer is - Yes. They are advocating breaking the Supreme Law, in favor of some batsh*t local ordinance. The rest is just conjecture on the ramifications of failing to obey that State law should you be accosted by a LEO. However, there was no request for the "what if's" in the original question, so in the interest of brevity (and to avoid the quicksands of investigating legal repercussions) I chose to be succinct. Pax...
​

davidmcbeth said:

Is one advocating breaking the law?

Click to expand...

77zach said:

No. But truth is no defense in the Empire of Lies. Under Miller, the federal government cannot ban or even register full autos, yet they do both. Under Heller and Mcdonald, making necessary inferences on what is "common", no level of government can severely restrict sem-automatic firearms or magazines. No one can say magazines holding up to 30 rounds aren't "common". One could make an argument that magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not "common".

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

I think that the current SCOTUS has muddied up our rights ... I want access to the same arms that the gov'ts will point at me ... they clearly see these arms as having value

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Is one advocating breaking the law?

Click to expand...

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Click to expand...

77zach said:

No. But truth is no defense in the Empire of Lies. Under Miller, the federal government cannot ban or even register full autos, yet they do both. Under Heller and Mcdonald, making necessary inferences on what is "common", no level of government can severely restrict sem-automatic firearms or magazines. No one can say magazines holding up to 30 rounds aren't "common". One could make an argument that magazines that hold more than 30 rounds are not "common".

Click to expand...

From US v Miller:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Click to expand...

motoxmann said:

I would lean towards no. because they are advocating abiding by a law in which is probably very specific. whereas violating the 2A would need some form of case law to support the previously mentioned law being deemed a violation of the 2A. if a previous case law exists, then I don't know how to answer. if no previous case law exists though, then it would be a decision for the courts.

IE: NY's new AWB. it heavily violates the 2A, and there are several previous SCOTUS cases indirectly related that state it as being unconstitutional and violating the 2A. so in this case, yes, I believe anyone supporting NY's new gun ban is advocating breaking the law. because no matter what you do, you're breaking A law, directly or indirectly

Click to expand...

carolina guy said:

I am not sure that Miller even says that it has to be weapons that are commonly held by only the general public...I would suggest that it covers ALL arms that are in common use.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Miller examined the question with a question: does the device have value in a military sense? Almost all arms do ...

Click to expand...

BerettaOC said:

Any law that violates the original constitution, shall be aborgated by the citizens and ignored. If the constitution says I can bear arms. And my state says no you can not, I'll still do it and fight my battle in court.

Click to expand...

carolina guy said:

I would suggest that the lawmakers, any law enforcement officers and court officials that try to enforce the blatantly Unconstitutional act of NY are in violation of their collective oaths and should be removed from office.

Click to expand...