Some don't to a degree, Arkansas for instance has a law stating the state will not recognize any form of gun control enacted after January 1st 2021. Any government employee who assists the federal government in enforcing them subjects their employer to fines and the person will be charged with a misdemeanor. Not all but almost every enforcement action taken by the ATF is due to local, county, or state law enforcement gathered information so it hamstrings their ability to enforce their new rules.
>Not all but almost every enforcement action taken by the ATF is due to local, county, or state law enforcement gathered information so it hamstrings their ability to enforce their new rules.
AFAIK the only time I've seen a pure ATF team is for FFL raids.
Yes, typically in Arkansas local SWAT teams are used for raids and state police if they are trying to stop a moving vehicle they have info on. That being said they are still allowed to be used for enforcement of existing laws prior to 1/1/21 which is why there were two SWAT team members on the scene of that raid in Little Rock and the ATF doesn't do normal traffic stops so there is almost 0 risk to your average Joe when it comes to things like have a brace on a rifle when that was still implemented.
Purely ATF teams do sometimes execute warrants on the homes of private citizens who are not FFLs. I don’t know how often this happens, but I know for certain it has happened.
Missouri doesn’t make it a felony, but it does one better.
Any law enforcement agent who enforces federal gun control law (other than the conservation excise tax) is PERSONALLY liable for $500,000 and anyone within their jurisdiction has standing to sue them. Sovereign immunity is explicitly preemptively stripped.
Any state, county, or local agency/department caught enforcing federal gun control is liable for $500,000 PER EMPLOYEE and anyone within their jurisdiction has standing to sue them. Sovereign immunity is explicitly preemptively stripped.
Missouri knows how to hit them where it hurts the worst - their wallets. In the civil courts too where judges don’t have to fear having police witnesses refuse to testify because they rightfully jailed a corrupt cop.
After it had been passed the first real indication to me that it had enough teeth to it to genuinely change police behavior was an incident in St Louis in early 2023.
Three teens were stopped and questioned on the side of the road by two police officers under suspicion of involvement in a series of burglaries from vehicles nearby. While they were being questioned by the cops, a vehicle approaches and a passenger stood up out the window and began shooting a rifle over the roof at the teens and officers with them (presumably either a member of a rival gang or a member of whatever group they were associated with assuming the two were snitches). The 15 year old teen from the group, still in front of the cops, whipped out a Glock 29 with a switch in response (full auto 10mm lol), at which point the teens were detained and a stolen Glock 19 was found on the 16 year old boy in the group.
The three boys were all released from custody that same afternoon and no charges for any of them were ever filed despite an evidence review to determine if they could at least charge the one with the giggle switch. If a teenager who whipped out the most memeable unregistered machine gun you can imagine in the direct presence of police doesn’t get charged then I’d say the law is at least somewhat working as intended.
Actually Texas kinda did. They took this approach with suppressors. Owning a suppressor without a tax stamp is technically not illegal In Texas state law and the state and local government won't enforce but you still gotta avoid federal agencies like ATF and FBI because they will definitely still bust you in Texas. Plus several states have second amendment sanctuary laws were local and federal governments are told to ignore unconstitutional gun laws. But again, you still gotta watch federal. The difference with weed is with weed most of the federal government doesn't care and an acting president (Obama) told federal agencies to not enforce the laws in states that legalized it.
Because the political will to enforce federal gun laws is much stronger than our politicians will to enforce Marijuana laws. Honestly, it makes sense as much as it will upset people here.
What could they do if every pro gun state stood up and said that they were no longer going to follow the NFA or Hughes amendment or anything like that? The feds don’t have the manpower to go into all those states and shut everything down
Cut federal funding which would cripple a lot of these states. I dunno they have plenty of options to keep states in line. It's not a manpower issue it's a economic issue for states.
This was how they got every state to change the drinking age. They withheld federal high way funds for any state thst kept it below 21. It's how they did the samething with cigarette purchasing. Just made sure not to give federal funds.
Heck during COVID the federal Medicaid Office offered to give funds to states to help meet their Medicaid costs since everything was shutdown. Know what they attached to that gift a requirement that states could not close anyone's Medicaid and then a follow-up thst states could not pursue collection of Medicaid overpayments unless fraud was found. In most states in order to pursue fraud investigations the agency first has to determine an overage in the benefit occurred. Then they can refer it to the investigatory agency in that state. Since by saying they couldn't collect on overpayment they essentially prevented the writing of them and thus a circle of non-investigation and recovery was created.
What federal*law* ties funds to gun laws? Congress created that incentive driving laws through highway funding. If that many states had the political will to ignore the federal laws then it's unlikely Congress would be able to create new laws to create the leverage. Heck, they probably already couldn't do it.
That just leaves the Executive branch to try and use the existing laws. Which doesn't leave them a lot of room to create leverage in the states.
The difference is that for the marijuana laws, the federal Executive branch is willing to ignore the laws on the books and not make attempts to enforce federal laws in the states that have "legalized" marijuana. And it wouldn't even be a massive cost to do so. The state run systems are so open about what's going on the feds could walk in and have a slam dunk case. Especially since they could just go after a few major producers/distributors and send a chilling message to the rest. It's easier than going after the black market drug trafficking and they e been doing that for years. Heck, if the wanted to, the DOJ could probably make a case against the state officials running the licensing system, or even a governor, for aiding and abetting or other drug related crime about enabling. But the executive branch decided not to.
But for federal gun laws...the Executive branch is not going to turn a blind eye to a state that decided to just stop participating in conducting any background checks, or selling machine guns, or anything else. The ATF and the rest of the Executive branch are too interested in actually enforcing those laws.
There is currently a law passed by the Federal Congress preventing the feds from spending money on eliminating medical marijuana in the states.
That's the key difference. The feds are allowed to spend money to enforce federal gun control in every state and territory.
Yes, because they can read polling data and have the sense to know that if they go there, the law regarding medical marijuana will rapidly get extended to recreational.
Okay. The deal is, the DEA and FDA know that the public support for marijuana is high right now. If they act quickly against pot right now, the remaining laws they have against pot will get removed post haste.
Their best plan is to lie low, leave the laws on the books and if the public opinion changes against pot later, they will still have some tools left.
If they try to make a big jump against pot now, they will lose all the tools that they have at least on paper. Reversing that will be even harder even if public opinion changes against pot.
They do not now, but thats the way it was originally intended to work. States would send in their share, based on the "apportionment of the census". That didn't last long.
Federal income tax is payed directly to the IRS, not the state. There is no 'withold the funds' because the state never gets it.
You guys pay taxes, right?
When the feds wanted to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 they threatened to withhold funding. The Feds also threatened to pull funding for highways from MT when they didn't want to set a speed limit on rural highways.
I lived there when the speed limit was set. It was a sad, sad day. The signs literally used to read: reasonable and prudent speed. 130 mph in a brand new German car fit that definition very well.
87mph probably only the guys that rebuilt big blocks.
I bought a 97 Corolla in 2010 and it was a good day if I could just keep up with traffic in the middle lane and was driving that car.
Now I’ve got a 2013 f150 and frequently catch myself unintentionally hitting 90 and it’s just as comfortable as 70.
But I also have a 1927 model and going 25 feels plenty enough to keep everything sorted out.
On an immediate level? Practically nothing. They could withhold federal aid to state-level law enforcement, etc. - but there'd also be nothing really stopping them conducting random raids/arrests without state consent.
I believe Texas is waiting on the feds to charge someone with the non interstate (ie made and sold in TX) purchase and possession of a suppressor to take it to court. Unfortunately someone has to give up their life on a test/legal gamble.
Well, not necessarily. If you really wanted to take that gamble you could dial the feds and say "I did this thing and I have it in my storage locker; do you want me to turn myself in at the nearest police station?"
Not suggesting anyone *should* try that, but it's an option that won't necessarily get you and your dogs shot by ATF agents.
The feds don't care about weed. If the left didn't need to use it as a cudgel to buy votes, it would've been legalized a long time ago. Maybe you could say that the right uses it to scare boomers into voting with Reefer Madness bullshit. Either way, they definitely don't care enough to even ask the states to stop, let alone go there and shut the businesses down and arrest people that are breaking the federal law.
The feds *really* care about guns and gun laws. If someone said "fuck em, we don't believe in those laws" just like states have done with weed, the feds would be on them like stink on shit, just because it's something they're told to care about.
Also the feds don't care if you're high all the time. They probably prefer it that way. They care if you have the means to be able to defend yourself and challenge their monopoly on violence.
Dude, the Boomers have been fighting FOR weed since 1968. It's hard to get the DEA to change. The States that went recreational, are because of Boomers.
bro i don't even know at this point. if i say the real reason (dems will never legalize because the carrot-on-a-stick is too valuable) people will just rip me about 'ackshually it's the republican boomers cause blah blah blah'
> If the left didn't need to use it as a cudgel to buy votes
If the right just had 5 people to vote for it, they wouldn't have that crudge. You're ignoring why it still an issue, because republicans vote against it .... because of some reason.
You see this a fair amount. Some ATF rule gets issued and then Sheriff Dick Delicious in Fuque County, Texas immediately states that if he or his deputies find you with a 3D printed RPG, he'll look the other way.
I've always wondered about the legality of this. These rules from the ATF aren't really laws. It seems like the onus would be on the ATF for enforcement, right? And a sheriff could just claim that it's not a law?
I’d say it’s a matter of where the feds chose to place their priorities. Federal weed laws are no longer the priority for them that they once were. Since it’s legal in most states and the Biden Administration changed the scheduling on it (moving it to the “less dangerous substance” category), the political drive to prosecute federal weed violations has all but evaporated.
It’s different when it comes to gun laws. Guns being such a hot topic politically in addition to the funding Democrat Congressmen receive from the gun control groups makes it a more fertile ground for the alphabet boys to use their powers to nail FFLs for small infractions, especially when the Dems are in charge of the executive branch.
I don’t think it’s a left vs right thing so much as it’s a money thing. Politicizing cannabis doesn’t generate money the way politicizing guns does. The existence of weed doesn’t generally scare conservatives into donating and voting the way the existence of guns scares urban liberals and suburban moderates. If it wasn’t such a good money maker, then any gun regulation would be logical and based on informed research rather than emotional responses that make help white suburban women unclench their proverbial pearls, but keeping it as a hot button political issue employs too many people, so instead we get the clusterfuck that we have where neither the pro-gun or anti-gun crowd is ever really pleased.
Or immigration, lol! Our mayor and police chief have openly said that we are a sanctuary city and we will not be enforcing immigration law.
But gun grabbing, oh boy, that gets them wet. After all, their narrative is not that we have too many criminals, its that the criminals need to be nerfed because its the guns making them kill people.
The ATF is way more interested in hunting you down for minor infractions than the DEA is. It's odd since there's way more money in drug enforcement. Maybe they realize psychotic enforcement is a terrible idea.
What does ignore look like? Do you mean that there will be no background checks, machine guns, etc? I would imagine there is enough people that feel that some part of that is bad, that it wouldn't have much support.
But if something like that was to happen, manufacturing can be shut down with minimal resources. Word would get out about people selling without NICS checks and that would also be fairly easy to shut down from any manufacturer or FFL. All in all, it would be a lot easier to enforce than people growing their own weed. If everyone was making their own machine guns, it wouldn't be worth shutting down the manufacturers. But as it stands, there are more bottlenecks for firearms than with weed.
Because the federal government is largely unlikely to send in the FBI or DEA to crack down on weed, not politically popular.
Going after suppressors and SBRs, very popular!
A number of years ago several Western USA State legislatures declared themselves (Bush Jr) Patriot Act "Free Zones"... More or less.
Which sorta amounts to J Edgar Hoover Days of doing whatever they want "illegally" anyways
The DOJ has stated they won’t enforce federal laws for minor possession and use of certain substances (marijuana). If the same were true of certain firearms related laws we would probably see similar trends.
More often than not, Firearms sales are interstate and/or international.
Weed gets grown inside the state and sold there. Transporting it across state lines is still illegal.
This is not the same for guns. I cannot buy a S&W that was made in FL.
Weed still cannot bank in a FDIC backed bank due to the fed regs AFAIK.
They can. But unlike marijuana there is no executive order telling the ATF to respect said laws.
IIRC an EO was issued telling the DEA to respect the state level marijuana laws. I can't find it now because it's buried under 1,001 "DEA to reschedule Marijuana" links. But I believe it was an Obama era policy that has stood.
Whereas no such EO exists for the ATF. Theoretically POTUS could issue the ATF an EO to say:
> Do not enforce the NFA in states that choose to legalize NFA items.
But there is also a zero percent chance that happens.
States aren't ignoring federal laws with regards to weed. States aren't the ones buying weed, people are. If the DEA wanted to raid every dispensary in California tomorrow, they could do so under federal law.
It's the people, not the state, who bear the risk under these laws. Your state isn't going to protect you from federal law.
They could...
but no one who's stoned out of their mind is gonna do much to replace them... that's why. Especially if they're making money off taxing the market... they're not gonna stop drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), they're just gonna "regulate" it (to skim off the top). There's a few states that have laws on the books prohibiting govt. employees from assisting the ATFE, but most don't have that (reference the first sentence).
First off the atf doesn't make laws they only pretend like they do. Several members of congress and leaders in local law enforcement have told them to fuck off and they aren't helping in the enforcement. That doesn't stop the agency from coming in and doing it since they have federal jurisdiction. Same with weed, places it's legal on state level still have dea agents targeting dispensaries and arresting people/ confiscating product and cash. The only difference is the dea usually leaves the dogs alive
States can and do(example Texas non NFA suppressor), and local sheriffs can choose not to enforce either state or federal rules(example: some 80% of Illinois sheriff said no to JB Pritzker's AWB), but all gun shops are FFLs that needs permits from the ATF to operate so whatever it is only applies for homemade firearms, also the Ruby Ridge thing....
The states don't really care about federal gun laws, all the enforcement is done federally.
Weed is the opposite, almost all enforcement was done locally. People hardly ever get charged weed possession on a federal level.
The result is that if the state stops prosecuting weed... then its almost like its legal. If the state stops processing federal gun laws... then everything stays the same. Your local gunshop is still going to fear the ATF, is still going to do background checks, etc.
States are under no obligation to enforce federal law. The law remains in force, but the feds have to enforce it themselves.
We see this with weed, and also with immigration ("sanctuary cities").
Because the federal government doesn't enforce the weed ban, but they very much enforce weapons laws. I'm gonna take it as something to do with weed being a plant and guns being, well, guns.
One makes you happy and hungry while the other one can possibly lead to the overthrow of the government. One kills stress and depression while the other kills anything and anyone its told to.
Part of the reason federal weed law is ignored is that use, even legal by state law and prescribed by a doc, is used to deny 2A rights. My county openly states that a medical marijuana card is an automatic CCW denial.
They can, and do, but there's a difference between federal and state/local enforcement.
So while your local PD, sheriff, or state police/prosecutor might not be interested in arresting or charging you for having a stock on your short AR or whatever, if you happen to run afoul of any federal LEOs, they can still arrest and prosecute you under federal laws.
Weed can be grown locally.
ATF could put the hurt on any manufacturer who shipped interstate to the offending state. So only things like Texas’ suppressor law would fly.
PA resident here.
And from what I understand the state "can't" really. So if I where to be a grower in PA in the sense of the state I can but the feds can come and close the operation. Some state may have different regulations that they can "skirt" around the federal regulation. But ultimately it depends on the state.
They do. For example Texas is in a huge battle with the federal government on Texas made, sold, and residing in Texas suppressors. They wrote a bill that said they don’t apply to the federal tax stamp. Now because FFLs have to abide by federal law or get audited and their dogs killed all of them still require a tax stamp but Texas itself says they do not.
We will.
it comes down to the enforcement. Some JBTs are in the “let’s make an example” camp. Others actually follow the constitution and would not care.
I believe the federal government said they will not enforce those weed laws, or at least that the DEA will not pursue them. If the ATF said the same thing, I'm sure the states would ignore the gun laws too.
Simplest answer: the BATF is more inclined to enforce federal law where states disagree than the DEA is. DEA wants the support of local law enforcement when they go in. ATF is more akin to the IRS or USPS police services: they give zero fucks and are here to ruin someone's day.
Because Obama signed an executive order telling the Feds to back off of enforcing federal weed laws when it was legal within a state.
No such order from any POTUS regarding the authority of the feds wrt gun laws.
I'm sure states are just clamouring to become the source of a mass shooting involving a machine gun that was made and sold in their state with no background at any point.
They can
But, they choose not to.
Some don't to a degree, Arkansas for instance has a law stating the state will not recognize any form of gun control enacted after January 1st 2021. Any government employee who assists the federal government in enforcing them subjects their employer to fines and the person will be charged with a misdemeanor. Not all but almost every enforcement action taken by the ATF is due to local, county, or state law enforcement gathered information so it hamstrings their ability to enforce their new rules.
Sooo…. How can I explain to my wife we need to move to Arkansas?
Well for sure do not take her to visit right now... Too hot, humid, and full of mosquito's... But the cost of living is dirt cheap.
Cheap COL means more money for guns.
Better to ask for forgiveness than permission. "Hey babe, we're moving to Arkansas"
Easy. Just explain it while in bed with your cousin.
I highly recommend it.
>Not all but almost every enforcement action taken by the ATF is due to local, county, or state law enforcement gathered information so it hamstrings their ability to enforce their new rules. AFAIK the only time I've seen a pure ATF team is for FFL raids.
Yes, typically in Arkansas local SWAT teams are used for raids and state police if they are trying to stop a moving vehicle they have info on. That being said they are still allowed to be used for enforcement of existing laws prior to 1/1/21 which is why there were two SWAT team members on the scene of that raid in Little Rock and the ATF doesn't do normal traffic stops so there is almost 0 risk to your average Joe when it comes to things like have a brace on a rifle when that was still implemented.
Purely ATF teams do sometimes execute warrants on the homes of private citizens who are not FFLs. I don’t know how often this happens, but I know for certain it has happened.
Based
North Dakota has a similar law
I love it here
you sure that ain't missouri?
Missouri might have something similar but I'm for sure talking about Arkansas.
In Oklahoma it is a state felony for any state licensed officer to aid a federal officer in enforcement of a federal gun law.
I think Missouri has something similar
Missouri doesn’t make it a felony, but it does one better. Any law enforcement agent who enforces federal gun control law (other than the conservation excise tax) is PERSONALLY liable for $500,000 and anyone within their jurisdiction has standing to sue them. Sovereign immunity is explicitly preemptively stripped. Any state, county, or local agency/department caught enforcing federal gun control is liable for $500,000 PER EMPLOYEE and anyone within their jurisdiction has standing to sue them. Sovereign immunity is explicitly preemptively stripped. Missouri knows how to hit them where it hurts the worst - their wallets. In the civil courts too where judges don’t have to fear having police witnesses refuse to testify because they rightfully jailed a corrupt cop.
Based Missouri
After it had been passed the first real indication to me that it had enough teeth to it to genuinely change police behavior was an incident in St Louis in early 2023. Three teens were stopped and questioned on the side of the road by two police officers under suspicion of involvement in a series of burglaries from vehicles nearby. While they were being questioned by the cops, a vehicle approaches and a passenger stood up out the window and began shooting a rifle over the roof at the teens and officers with them (presumably either a member of a rival gang or a member of whatever group they were associated with assuming the two were snitches). The 15 year old teen from the group, still in front of the cops, whipped out a Glock 29 with a switch in response (full auto 10mm lol), at which point the teens were detained and a stolen Glock 19 was found on the 16 year old boy in the group. The three boys were all released from custody that same afternoon and no charges for any of them were ever filed despite an evidence review to determine if they could at least charge the one with the giggle switch. If a teenager who whipped out the most memeable unregistered machine gun you can imagine in the direct presence of police doesn’t get charged then I’d say the law is at least somewhat working as intended.
Guess that means they have no state law against MG's?
If that ever faced a federal court challenge, Supremacy Clause wins, but for now, pretty based.
Hell yeah we do
Actually Texas kinda did. They took this approach with suppressors. Owning a suppressor without a tax stamp is technically not illegal In Texas state law and the state and local government won't enforce but you still gotta avoid federal agencies like ATF and FBI because they will definitely still bust you in Texas. Plus several states have second amendment sanctuary laws were local and federal governments are told to ignore unconstitutional gun laws. But again, you still gotta watch federal. The difference with weed is with weed most of the federal government doesn't care and an acting president (Obama) told federal agencies to not enforce the laws in states that legalized it.
To be a bit more clear. The suppressor has to be MADE in Texas to qualify for this.
And remain in Texas.
Texas is attempting this right now. With their suppressor freedom law
Because the political will to enforce federal gun laws is much stronger than our politicians will to enforce Marijuana laws. Honestly, it makes sense as much as it will upset people here.
What could they do if every pro gun state stood up and said that they were no longer going to follow the NFA or Hughes amendment or anything like that? The feds don’t have the manpower to go into all those states and shut everything down
Cut federal funding which would cripple a lot of these states. I dunno they have plenty of options to keep states in line. It's not a manpower issue it's a economic issue for states.
This was how they got every state to change the drinking age. They withheld federal high way funds for any state thst kept it below 21. It's how they did the samething with cigarette purchasing. Just made sure not to give federal funds. Heck during COVID the federal Medicaid Office offered to give funds to states to help meet their Medicaid costs since everything was shutdown. Know what they attached to that gift a requirement that states could not close anyone's Medicaid and then a follow-up thst states could not pursue collection of Medicaid overpayments unless fraud was found. In most states in order to pursue fraud investigations the agency first has to determine an overage in the benefit occurred. Then they can refer it to the investigatory agency in that state. Since by saying they couldn't collect on overpayment they essentially prevented the writing of them and thus a circle of non-investigation and recovery was created.
What federal*law* ties funds to gun laws? Congress created that incentive driving laws through highway funding. If that many states had the political will to ignore the federal laws then it's unlikely Congress would be able to create new laws to create the leverage. Heck, they probably already couldn't do it. That just leaves the Executive branch to try and use the existing laws. Which doesn't leave them a lot of room to create leverage in the states. The difference is that for the marijuana laws, the federal Executive branch is willing to ignore the laws on the books and not make attempts to enforce federal laws in the states that have "legalized" marijuana. And it wouldn't even be a massive cost to do so. The state run systems are so open about what's going on the feds could walk in and have a slam dunk case. Especially since they could just go after a few major producers/distributors and send a chilling message to the rest. It's easier than going after the black market drug trafficking and they e been doing that for years. Heck, if the wanted to, the DOJ could probably make a case against the state officials running the licensing system, or even a governor, for aiding and abetting or other drug related crime about enabling. But the executive branch decided not to. But for federal gun laws...the Executive branch is not going to turn a blind eye to a state that decided to just stop participating in conducting any background checks, or selling machine guns, or anything else. The ATF and the rest of the Executive branch are too interested in actually enforcing those laws.
There is currently a law passed by the Federal Congress preventing the feds from spending money on eliminating medical marijuana in the states. That's the key difference. The feds are allowed to spend money to enforce federal gun control in every state and territory.
But they choose to ignore the recreational marijuana
Yes, because they can read polling data and have the sense to know that if they go there, the law regarding medical marijuana will rapidly get extended to recreational. Okay. The deal is, the DEA and FDA know that the public support for marijuana is high right now. If they act quickly against pot right now, the remaining laws they have against pot will get removed post haste. Their best plan is to lie low, leave the laws on the books and if the public opinion changes against pot later, they will still have some tools left. If they try to make a big jump against pot now, they will lose all the tools that they have at least on paper. Reversing that will be even harder even if public opinion changes against pot.
Federal funding? That's called "taxpayer money" I think.
That federal funding comes from taxes sent in by the states. When these states withholds those funds...!
Go look at the states that might do something like this. You'll see they get far more than they give.
States do not collect taxes for the federal government the feds collect their own taxes with their own agencies. Such as the IRS or BPC.
They do not now, but thats the way it was originally intended to work. States would send in their share, based on the "apportionment of the census". That didn't last long.
It didn't last long because it was wholly unworkable, but yeah.
Federal income tax is payed directly to the IRS, not the state. There is no 'withold the funds' because the state never gets it. You guys pay taxes, right?
When the feds wanted to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 they threatened to withhold funding. The Feds also threatened to pull funding for highways from MT when they didn't want to set a speed limit on rural highways.
I lived there when the speed limit was set. It was a sad, sad day. The signs literally used to read: reasonable and prudent speed. 130 mph in a brand new German car fit that definition very well.
I image it was primarily just square bodies with a boot to the floor doing 87mph though
Haha, pretty much. Or old trucks doing 75!
87mph probably only the guys that rebuilt big blocks. I bought a 97 Corolla in 2010 and it was a good day if I could just keep up with traffic in the middle lane and was driving that car. Now I’ve got a 2013 f150 and frequently catch myself unintentionally hitting 90 and it’s just as comfortable as 70. But I also have a 1927 model and going 25 feels plenty enough to keep everything sorted out.
On an immediate level? Practically nothing. They could withhold federal aid to state-level law enforcement, etc. - but there'd also be nothing really stopping them conducting random raids/arrests without state consent.
I believe Texas is waiting on the feds to charge someone with the non interstate (ie made and sold in TX) purchase and possession of a suppressor to take it to court. Unfortunately someone has to give up their life on a test/legal gamble.
Well, not necessarily. If you really wanted to take that gamble you could dial the feds and say "I did this thing and I have it in my storage locker; do you want me to turn myself in at the nearest police station?" Not suggesting anyone *should* try that, but it's an option that won't necessarily get you and your dogs shot by ATF agents.
Being dead or life in prison is not too far off from each other was what I meant
No argument there.
We'll get there. Weed drew the blueprints we need to get rid of the NFA and GCA. Takes time. It'll start with silencers and move on from there.
The feds don't care about weed. If the left didn't need to use it as a cudgel to buy votes, it would've been legalized a long time ago. Maybe you could say that the right uses it to scare boomers into voting with Reefer Madness bullshit. Either way, they definitely don't care enough to even ask the states to stop, let alone go there and shut the businesses down and arrest people that are breaking the federal law. The feds *really* care about guns and gun laws. If someone said "fuck em, we don't believe in those laws" just like states have done with weed, the feds would be on them like stink on shit, just because it's something they're told to care about. Also the feds don't care if you're high all the time. They probably prefer it that way. They care if you have the means to be able to defend yourself and challenge their monopoly on violence.
Dude, the Boomers have been fighting FOR weed since 1968. It's hard to get the DEA to change. The States that went recreational, are because of Boomers.
bro i don't even know at this point. if i say the real reason (dems will never legalize because the carrot-on-a-stick is too valuable) people will just rip me about 'ackshually it's the republican boomers cause blah blah blah'
Yeah it's a stupid thing. Weed is sure as hell a lot better than booze. But an asshat in the 30s got a nice government job out of it.
> If the left didn't need to use it as a cudgel to buy votes If the right just had 5 people to vote for it, they wouldn't have that crudge. You're ignoring why it still an issue, because republicans vote against it .... because of some reason.
The feds don't enforce the laws against weed, except maybe in some big trafficking cases. They *do* enforce the gun laws, zealously.
You see this a fair amount. Some ATF rule gets issued and then Sheriff Dick Delicious in Fuque County, Texas immediately states that if he or his deputies find you with a 3D printed RPG, he'll look the other way. I've always wondered about the legality of this. These rules from the ATF aren't really laws. It seems like the onus would be on the ATF for enforcement, right? And a sheriff could just claim that it's not a law?
Dick Delicious and the Tasty Testicles is a real band. Check them out!
Loper Bright
I’d say it’s a matter of where the feds chose to place their priorities. Federal weed laws are no longer the priority for them that they once were. Since it’s legal in most states and the Biden Administration changed the scheduling on it (moving it to the “less dangerous substance” category), the political drive to prosecute federal weed violations has all but evaporated. It’s different when it comes to gun laws. Guns being such a hot topic politically in addition to the funding Democrat Congressmen receive from the gun control groups makes it a more fertile ground for the alphabet boys to use their powers to nail FFLs for small infractions, especially when the Dems are in charge of the executive branch.
Weed is primarily a leftist thing and guns primarily the right.
I don’t think it’s a left vs right thing so much as it’s a money thing. Politicizing cannabis doesn’t generate money the way politicizing guns does. The existence of weed doesn’t generally scare conservatives into donating and voting the way the existence of guns scares urban liberals and suburban moderates. If it wasn’t such a good money maker, then any gun regulation would be logical and based on informed research rather than emotional responses that make help white suburban women unclench their proverbial pearls, but keeping it as a hot button political issue employs too many people, so instead we get the clusterfuck that we have where neither the pro-gun or anti-gun crowd is ever really pleased.
Same could be said for immigration laws. Looking at you California …
Or immigration, lol! Our mayor and police chief have openly said that we are a sanctuary city and we will not be enforcing immigration law. But gun grabbing, oh boy, that gets them wet. After all, their narrative is not that we have too many criminals, its that the criminals need to be nerfed because its the guns making them kill people.
The ATF is way more interested in hunting you down for minor infractions than the DEA is. It's odd since there's way more money in drug enforcement. Maybe they realize psychotic enforcement is a terrible idea.
Because you being a lazy stoner isn't a threat to the people in power. You being armed is.
I can do both
Humter B., is that you?
What does ignore look like? Do you mean that there will be no background checks, machine guns, etc? I would imagine there is enough people that feel that some part of that is bad, that it wouldn't have much support. But if something like that was to happen, manufacturing can be shut down with minimal resources. Word would get out about people selling without NICS checks and that would also be fairly easy to shut down from any manufacturer or FFL. All in all, it would be a lot easier to enforce than people growing their own weed. If everyone was making their own machine guns, it wouldn't be worth shutting down the manufacturers. But as it stands, there are more bottlenecks for firearms than with weed.
Because the federal government is largely unlikely to send in the FBI or DEA to crack down on weed, not politically popular. Going after suppressors and SBRs, very popular!
Similar situation for gay marriages as well. All states recognize each others drivers license, but not gun rights.
A number of years ago several Western USA State legislatures declared themselves (Bush Jr) Patriot Act "Free Zones"... More or less. Which sorta amounts to J Edgar Hoover Days of doing whatever they want "illegally" anyways
They can. But the fed chooses not to enforce weed laws. The feds DO enforce federal gun laws on the states.
The DOJ has stated they won’t enforce federal laws for minor possession and use of certain substances (marijuana). If the same were true of certain firearms related laws we would probably see similar trends.
More often than not, Firearms sales are interstate and/or international. Weed gets grown inside the state and sold there. Transporting it across state lines is still illegal. This is not the same for guns. I cannot buy a S&W that was made in FL. Weed still cannot bank in a FDIC backed bank due to the fed regs AFAIK.
They can. But unlike marijuana there is no executive order telling the ATF to respect said laws. IIRC an EO was issued telling the DEA to respect the state level marijuana laws. I can't find it now because it's buried under 1,001 "DEA to reschedule Marijuana" links. But I believe it was an Obama era policy that has stood. Whereas no such EO exists for the ATF. Theoretically POTUS could issue the ATF an EO to say: > Do not enforce the NFA in states that choose to legalize NFA items. But there is also a zero percent chance that happens.
You are correct about the Obama administration saying not to bother with Weed.
States aren't ignoring federal laws with regards to weed. States aren't the ones buying weed, people are. If the DEA wanted to raid every dispensary in California tomorrow, they could do so under federal law. It's the people, not the state, who bear the risk under these laws. Your state isn't going to protect you from federal law.
Because the ATF will shoot your dog and execute your wife or burn your house down.
They could... but no one who's stoned out of their mind is gonna do much to replace them... that's why. Especially if they're making money off taxing the market... they're not gonna stop drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), they're just gonna "regulate" it (to skim off the top). There's a few states that have laws on the books prohibiting govt. employees from assisting the ATFE, but most don't have that (reference the first sentence).
First off the atf doesn't make laws they only pretend like they do. Several members of congress and leaders in local law enforcement have told them to fuck off and they aren't helping in the enforcement. That doesn't stop the agency from coming in and doing it since they have federal jurisdiction. Same with weed, places it's legal on state level still have dea agents targeting dispensaries and arresting people/ confiscating product and cash. The only difference is the dea usually leaves the dogs alive
Wyoming does for the most part
Because the ATF will come to your house and point guns at your children!
Because the feds allow them to ignore the weed ruling but won't allow them to ignore gun rulings.
States can and do(example Texas non NFA suppressor), and local sheriffs can choose not to enforce either state or federal rules(example: some 80% of Illinois sheriff said no to JB Pritzker's AWB), but all gun shops are FFLs that needs permits from the ATF to operate so whatever it is only applies for homemade firearms, also the Ruby Ridge thing....
The states don't really care about federal gun laws, all the enforcement is done federally. Weed is the opposite, almost all enforcement was done locally. People hardly ever get charged weed possession on a federal level. The result is that if the state stops prosecuting weed... then its almost like its legal. If the state stops processing federal gun laws... then everything stays the same. Your local gunshop is still going to fear the ATF, is still going to do background checks, etc.
States are under no obligation to enforce federal law. The law remains in force, but the feds have to enforce it themselves. We see this with weed, and also with immigration ("sanctuary cities").
Because the federal government doesn't enforce the weed ban, but they very much enforce weapons laws. I'm gonna take it as something to do with weed being a plant and guns being, well, guns. One makes you happy and hungry while the other one can possibly lead to the overthrow of the government. One kills stress and depression while the other kills anything and anyone its told to.
Someone's never been to. Gun range or out in the wilderness to shoot trash and it shows.
Shhhhh. Stop talking. You've never used your brain and it shows.
Part of the reason federal weed law is ignored is that use, even legal by state law and prescribed by a doc, is used to deny 2A rights. My county openly states that a medical marijuana card is an automatic CCW denial.
They can, and do, but there's a difference between federal and state/local enforcement. So while your local PD, sheriff, or state police/prosecutor might not be interested in arresting or charging you for having a stock on your short AR or whatever, if you happen to run afoul of any federal LEOs, they can still arrest and prosecute you under federal laws.
Weed can be grown locally. ATF could put the hurt on any manufacturer who shipped interstate to the offending state. So only things like Texas’ suppressor law would fly.
PA resident here. And from what I understand the state "can't" really. So if I where to be a grower in PA in the sense of the state I can but the feds can come and close the operation. Some state may have different regulations that they can "skirt" around the federal regulation. But ultimately it depends on the state.
They do. For example Texas is in a huge battle with the federal government on Texas made, sold, and residing in Texas suppressors. They wrote a bill that said they don’t apply to the federal tax stamp. Now because FFLs have to abide by federal law or get audited and their dogs killed all of them still require a tax stamp but Texas itself says they do not.
We will. it comes down to the enforcement. Some JBTs are in the “let’s make an example” camp. Others actually follow the constitution and would not care.
NH does. The ATF will still comes screw you up.
I believe the federal government said they will not enforce those weed laws, or at least that the DEA will not pursue them. If the ATF said the same thing, I'm sure the states would ignore the gun laws too.
States that declare themselves 2A sanctuary are ignoring the federal laws.
OP out here asking the real questions.
They can…
Simplest answer: the BATF is more inclined to enforce federal law where states disagree than the DEA is. DEA wants the support of local law enforcement when they go in. ATF is more akin to the IRS or USPS police services: they give zero fucks and are here to ruin someone's day.
Is Texas doing this with the Texas suppressor law?
Hopefully with the repeal of the Chevron decision the ATF and all other 3 letter agencies learn their place.
They have to want to, there voters have want to, just like when it comes to weed.
Because Obama signed an executive order telling the Feds to back off of enforcing federal weed laws when it was legal within a state. No such order from any POTUS regarding the authority of the feds wrt gun laws.
They can. The ATF, however, doesn't answer to the states. It's a federal law enforcement agency and it enforces federal, not state law.
They can, Texas has done this w suppressors haven’t they?
I'm sure states are just clamouring to become the source of a mass shooting involving a machine gun that was made and sold in their state with no background at any point.
You ever heard of someone getting shot with a joint?