- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can
In may issue states, CCW permits can be denied to people who have been previously convicted of a crime. Since CCW permits are not a fed matter, I don't see how Idahos' CCW law conflicts with a power reserved to the fed govt (as it is with immigration)
You are certainly justified in being upset when the govt doesn't do what they're supposed to do. But if you're concerned about the govt not doing what it's supposed to do, the I'd say that wanting the state govt to do what it's not supposed to do is an odd way of reacting to that.
In the case of environmental regs, or any fed law, states can only enforce those laws when the fed law delegates the power to do so. In most cases, when a state prosecutes someone (or some corp) for an environmental violation, they are prosecuting them for violating a state reg. If it's a violation of fed laws, then they refer the case to the feds.
Perhaps I did not word myself correctly either. By "convicted" I also meant already served my time in prison in Washington. And by full rights restored i'm talking about my right to carry a gun, right to vote etc etc if I moved to Idaho.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can
In may issue states, CCW permits can be denied to people who have been previously convicted of a crime. Since CCW permits are not a fed matter, I don't see how Idahos' CCW law conflicts with a power reserved to the fed govt (as it is with immigration)
First, the feds already made their decision, illegal aliens are suppose to be deported, that is the law. That is the decision.
You are certainly justified in being upset when the govt doesn't do what they're supposed to do. But if you're concerned about the govt not doing what it's supposed to do, the I'd say that wanting the state govt to do what it's not supposed to do is an odd way of reacting to that.
So the states don't have to carry out the regulations that the EPA demands? They don't have to carry out the federal ban on machine guns? With your logic the States can ignore any federal law there is because they can't carry out any of it without going beyond their capacity.
In the case of environmental regs, or any fed law, states can only enforce those laws when the fed law delegates the power to do so. In most cases, when a state prosecutes someone (or some corp) for an environmental violation, they are prosecuting them for violating a state reg. If it's a violation of fed laws, then they refer the case to the feds.