Iowa Governor Signs Constitutional Carry Bill

[Arrowsmith]

Only minutes ago Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed the Iowa Constitutional Carry bill into law. Iowa becomes the 19th state to approve Constitutional Carry.

[flywise]

Sad and embarrassing the great state of Texas is so far behind on this deal.

[ACbob]

^^^^^^
yep

[Walker]

Sad and embarrassing the great state of Texas is so far behind on this deal.

There is a bill in committee in the Texas house to make Texas a firearms sanctuary state. In other words federal firearms laws won't apply to us. We'll see how far it gets.

[kumathebear]

Sad and embarrassing the great state of Texas is so far behind on this deal.

x'2

[tvc184]

There is a bill in committee in the Texas house to make Texas a firearms sanctuary state. In other words federal firearms laws won't apply to us. We'll see how far it gets.

It will go as far in the dictionary to the letter “U”.

[oneeye]

Sad and embarrassing the great state of Texas is so far behind on this deal.

Texas doesn't even honor my permit to carry from Minnesota.

[IowaHunter]

Sad and embarrassing the great state of Texas is so far behind on this deal.

Isn’t that the truth!

[RR 314]

It will go as far in the dictionary to the letter “U”.

Is it unconstitutional that states have laws regarding marijuana etc. contrary to federal statute?

[DosToros]

Not surprising from a trending purple state like Texas.

[tvc184]

Is it unconstitutional that states have laws regarding marijuana etc. contrary to federal statute?

It is two completely separate issues under dual sovereignty.

A state can make marijuana legal but the federal government can come in and arrest the people selling it under federal law. It is just that no president have had the DOJ push the issue. Is no different if a state allowed machine guns without a permit but the federal law can still ban you from having them without a tax stamp.

Both jurisdictions have equal rights to create their own laws independent of the other. To that extent, even the prohibition against double Jeopardy does not apply. Both have the authority to bring you to trial for the same crime and using the same facts even if the other finds you not guilty.

If a state such as Texas had the authority to ban federal law, they could simply ban The federal government from regulating interstate commerce, income tax, immigration, voting, civil rights, etc. That means a state could secede from the union without actually seceding from the union. They could say, OK we are still part of the union but we will just not allow you to uphold your laws.

[RR 314]

It is two completely separate issues under dual sovereignty.

A state can make marijuana legal but the federal government can come in and arrest the people selling it under federal law. It is just that no president have had the DOJ push the issue. Is no different if a state allowed machine guns without a permit but the federal law can still ban you from having them without a tax stamp.

Both jurisdictions have equal rights to create their own laws independent of the other. To that extent, even the prohibition against double Jeopardy does not apply. Both have the authority to bring you to trial for the same crime and using the same facts even if the other finds you not guilty.

If a state such as Texas had the authority to ban federal law, they could simply ban The federal government from regulating interstate commerce, income tax, immigration, voting, civil rights, etc. That means a state could secede from the union without actually seceding from the union. They could say, OK we are still part of the union but we will just not allow you to uphold your laws.

The commerce clause (Article 1 of the Constitution), voting (15th, 19th and 26th amendments), civil rights (14th etc) are all constitutionally protected. 2nd amendment states, “. . . shall not be abridged.” That doesn’t mean, “unless the Federal government is the one abridging.” :-). I have no doubt the current administration would sue Texas if the legislation passed (which it won’t), but there would be viable constitutional arguments that the federal provision asserted to preempt is actually unconstitutional.

[Etxbuckman]

People in places like California and Colorado seem to more or less ignore federal law regarding marijuana. I reckon places like Texas should ignore federal laws regarding firearms.

[tvc184]

The commerce clause (Article 1 of the Constitution), voting (15th, 19th and 26th amendments), civil rights (14th etc) are all constitutionally protected. 2nd amendment states, “. . . shall not be abridged.” That doesn’t mean, “unless the Federal government is the one abridging.” :-). I have no doubt the current administration would sue Texas if the legislation passed (which it won’t), but there would be viable constitutional arguments that the federal provision asserted to preempt is actually unconstitutional.

I understand the political argument however, a state cannot ban the federal government from enforcing a law.

I honestly don’t think there’s any argument at all.

It is dual sovereignty.

[tvc184]

People in places like California and Colorado seem to more or less ignore federal law regarding marijuana. I reckon places like Texas should ignore federal laws regarding firearms.

It does not matter with the people ignore.

What matters is the enforcement arm of which government you were talking about. Texas for example says that a felon cannpossess a firearm in his own home five years after he has done all his time or five years after he is off parole.

What that means is is then after five years, if a convicted felon is off of paper (as they call it) and he has a gun in his home, the Texas police cannot make an arrest. That is because it is not against Texas law. If the ATF finds out, they can file charges and sometimes do. It does not matter what the felon ignores. What matters is which jurisdiction cares to take the time to file charges.

We can ignore anything we wish. What matters is if the controlling jurisdiction ignores it also.