States Rights

[Guest Liberty Seeker]

Okay I'm sitting here thinking, , yeah I know, but I was reading about restoration of rights, and how the federal law overrides the state law on this, and got to wondering why. The restriction of gun ownership isn't granted to the federal government, quite the opposite actually by the second amendment, therefore it should remain totally with the state IMHO, so how is it that they are able to create laws on the matter that supercede states law?

Maybe I didn't give myself long enough to think about it, but it is not making sense to me right now. I was reading the string about bourbon, and had to have a few, so that may not be helping. I know there are some lawyers on here, maybe they can give me a clue.

[The Rabbi]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy clause.

[midtennchip]

Try looking at David Raybin's article (link below) on this issue. Basically, a federal law prohibits convicted felons (whether the felony is a state or federal conviction) from possessing firearms. That law presumably falls under the Commerce Clause (i.e., federal law can apply to anything that affects interstate commerce - and since almost everything affects commerce in the eyes of the federal gov't, it applies to firearms restrictions I guess). However, the state does have a say in it. If the state (following a state conviction) restores the felon's civil rights, then the federal law no longer applies.

http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles88.asp

[Guest nraforlife]

State rights, bah. Abe Lincoln killed State rights 150 years ago.

[Guest tjbert47]

State rights, bah. Abe Lincoln killed State rights 150 years ago.

That was the beginning of the end for state rights.

[Mark@Sea]

The civil war was the beginning of the end for states rights, FDR finished the concept off. A complete inversion of the system the founders built. They didn't want a strong central government, because it would inevitably lead to incremental loss of liberties.

[Guest Liberty Seeker]

Try looking at David Raybin's article (link below) on this issue. Basically, a federal law prohibits convicted felons (whether the felony is a state or federal conviction) from possessing firearms. That law presumably falls under the Commerce Clause (i.e., federal law can apply to anything that affects interstate commerce - and since almost everything affects commerce in the eyes of the federal gov't, it applies to firearms restrictions I guess). However, the state does have a say in it. If the state (following a state conviction) restores the felon's civil rights, then the federal law no longer applies.

http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles88.asp

That's actually the article I was reading, and here is the part that got me thinking

6. If there is some added firearms restriction under state law then (and here is the second elusive part of the analysis) the federal "unless" clause is triggered to make the possession of any firearms unlawful under federal law notwithstanding the state's restoration of civil rights.

So basically, if I'm reading this right, if a convicted felon has his rights restored in TN, and the state passed a law making it illegal for felons to possess a red, white, and blue shotgun on the fourth of July, or whatever, then federal law would trump it and no firearm could be owned.

If the state has restored the rights to the citizen, and federal law even acknowledges this, it seems to me the state should be free to do as it wishes in regards to making laws without affecting this, but I guess that's just me.

What got me started on this was I noticed our Legislature passed some laws, one of which was banning felons from owning more than just handguns:rolleyes:, which was a total waste of time since that is covered by federal law.

And no, I'm not a convicted felon, nor do I play one on TV.

[The Rabbi]

David Raybin's

[midtennchip]

In reading Raybin's article (and he is as good at this analysis as anyone in the Tennessee legal community), keep in mind that if the state does not restore ALL rights (i.e., no restrictions), then the federal law views the restrictions as something less than full restoration of the felon's civil rights. While I am not necessarily happy about the federal law (I don't agree with many gun regulations, anyway), the federal law can be overcome by state action. That is, the state can simply not place any restrictions on those felons for whom it has restored civil rights.

[Guest nraforlife]

Federal government on State Rights. "State Rights! State Right! I got your State Rights Right Here!' Must be done with a New York accent preferably Bronx.