New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
You cannot circumvent Federal Law.
You can but then there will be challenges.
If this passes it will be appealed and eventually (hopefully) go to the US Supreme Court.
‘Who lately seems to be very anti Woke.
‘Thank you Mr. Trump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Actually Constitutionally the States can circumvent Federal Law, its the 10th Amendment protection. The States are suppose to be sovereign unto themselves.

People tend to forget, the federal government was created by a compact between the States for the limited purposes of helping protect individual rights, provide national protection, and to govern international commerce and commerce between the several States.

The federal government cannot be a party to the compact, as the signing of the compact creates the federal government. Therefore the federal government is a product of the compact, not a party to it. That means all (lent) power flows from the States to the Federal government, not the other way around. In this case, the States are the master and the federal government the servant. The master does not beg permission from the servant.

The federal government is only suppose to interfere with the States business if the State is violating one of its limited functions, such as infringing upon individual rights. Remember also that the power of the States comes from the People in turn, which makes the People the State's masters. The rights of the people are suppose to be protected at all levels of government. (Mostly covered by the Bill of Rights, and especially the 9th Amendment, and part of the 10th Amendment as well.)

I agree King Andy's BS is pure Cuomo-style BS. It certainly more of his delusional over-reach, and will hopefully be struck down for the anal dribble it is. Constitutionally you cannot hold an unrelated third party liable for what the first party does with a item to a second party. That means he can only be passing this crap in the realm of statute (contract) law, and not Constitutional Law (where it doesn't have a leg to stand on.)

The first case to challenge this is going to be interesting. If its challenged on a Constitutional footing, then it should be cut and dry, if they challenge it and fight it as the contract law it is, then it has the potential of becoming a huge mess... with some very bad results. Contract law involved with anything to do with Constitutional rights never ends well for the People. The bad part is the attorneys fighting over it, make their bread and butter within contract law, not Constitutional Law, and contract law has to be constantly revisited to fight over again and again. Which means its future money in the bank and job security for the attorneys.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top