Posts
So, Washington State voters approved I—594, a ballot initiative that prohibits all private firearms transactions and requires County Sheriff approval for gun purchases.
So here is a legal question, intended in all seriousness: why is it that when a state passes a law against illegal immigration that directly mirrors federal law, the courts step in and say, no, federal law is “preemptive”, which means that states are forbidden from controlling illegal immigration in exactly the ways that federal law requires the federal government to do, but which it then neglects.
But when a state passes a gun-control law that goes over and beyond federal law, there is nothing preemptive about federal gun control: states are perfectly free, except as constrained by the 2nd Amendment, to pass whatever additional gun restrictions they choose.
I ask this because, whatever it is that’s different between federal immigration law and federal gun control law, I want to reverse. I want to preempt states from imposing gun control above federal law, but allow them to impose restrictions on illegal immigrants without limit.
What kind of legislation would accomplish this?
2 comments:
The law is plainly uncontitutional and will not pass judicial review.
You have more faith than I sykes about what will not pass judicial review. I suspect that what you mean is that in a sane system where judges actually believed in the Constitution it would not pass judicial review.
Post a Comment