If colorado was able to legalize weed even though it was banned on the federal level is there anything stopping a pro...

if colorado was able to legalize weed even though it was banned on the federal level is there anything stopping a pro gun state like arizona from passing a law legalising machines or just disregarding all federal gun laws like the nfa and 4473
pic unrelated

Attached: 1527124020003.png (1195x814, 1.58M)

Other urls found in this thread:

lawcenter.giffords.org/machine-gunsautomatic-firearms-in-alaska/
azgunlaw.com/nfa-myths.html
latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworkers/
forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/#4aab943544f2
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I actually think there are some states like this. I know there was this big court case in Kansas a few months ago because some guys were selling homemade suppressors. Just because the state won't charge you doesn't mean the feds wont. This isn't like pot, they take that stuff seriously.

More importantly, is there anything stopping citizens from organizing and just wilfully and publicly flaunting unconstitutional laws? Other than cowardice, I mean.

ATF trys a lot harder than the DEA to make itself seem inportant

No, how do you think the whole civil rights movement worked? They might mass arrest people but then public opinion will have to decide whether or not throwing a million+ people in prison for 10+ years for something that ultimately isn't harming anybody is morally justified.

Depends on the law. Nobody takes Colorado's 15rd mag limit seriously. Don't fuck with federal laws though.

The police and autism medication.

Alaska legalized automatics, the feds are afraid of the weather and lack of easy backup.

Automatics already weren't illegal so long as you went through the process of getting the right license. How did Alaska remove the federal requirements for owning automatics with licenses? Or is it just a group of individuals that ignore the federal law?

State law in Alaska states nfa nullified. Full fun gats are normal to make yourself

Where is the state legislature on this? I haven't ever heard about it, all I get when looking this up is this source below, which basically says the state still conforms to federal laws regarding prohibited weapons including automatics but allows a 30 day period during the transfer of an automatic weapon so long as it is registered.

lawcenter.giffords.org/machine-gunsautomatic-firearms-in-alaska/

>State law in Alaska states nfa nullified. Full fun gats are normal to make yourself
Damn it, you're just making me want to move to America even more.

why have i not heard of this before now

I suddenly have an urge to move

On the official adfg.gov Alaskan government site it states that you still require a federal permit to use or transport an automatic weapon.

Attached: Capture07.png (753x388, 80K)

Montana (and I believe Idaho) have laws on the books that they tried to say nullified the NFA under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically they said that as long as the NFA item is made in their own state, with no interstate commerce, then Congress has no right to regulate the sale or enforce any laws on it. The laws passed in the states but the ATF sent out letters advising all FFLs that they'd be fucking them up shortly if they didn't keep compliant.

As someone earlier mentioned, the state of Kansas is suing the federal government right now to about the same kind of thing - saying the NFA is a federal law which should not apply inside a state that doesn't want it, possibly under the 10th Amendment? They may be claiming 2A is all the feds can do, which is nothing, and therefore everything else falls to the states. Not sure though.

I know the Kansas case is being supported by the Gun Owners of America.

>police
Pig posting

Attached: 385BEFA4-3822-45F2-910C-43A60AB3B0D4.jpg (1242x871, 357K)

I've been reading up on unrestricted NFA states, like Arizona and Alaska, and essentially they state that the government can't regulate certain NFA items that the state can decide on for itself, such as suppressors SBRs and SBSs for example, but they stop short of unregulated prohibited NFA weapons (ie. automatics, bombs or destructive devices). In AZ and AK you can make your own NFA firearm as long as you submit or apply for a ATF form 1, but this excludes machine guns and destructive devices which are prohibited under federal of being unregulated. So essentially in these two states where NFA is already mostly unregulated by the feds, the only thing that the ATF won't give away is unregulated destructive weapons and machine guns, those always require federal registration or a permit even in AZ and AK.

is there a reason why it doesnt apply to auto gats and boom tubes?

In the federal law you cannot make or purchase a new machine gun that was made after 1986 without the proper federal permit. In cases that you do you still have to apply for an ATF form 1 and still pay the $200 tax stamp. And even in AZ and AK you still have to pay the tax stamp for all suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs (they don't need regulation beyond the stamp basically), they are simply just not specifically regulated like machines guns and destructive devices are in those states. AOWs are even more murky to classify and regulate so I still don't know about those in AZ and AK.

Here's the AZ NFA info I've been reading
azgunlaw.com/nfa-myths.html

Truly, a state cannot override or nullify federal law, due to a concept called dual sovereignty. That is, both a given state and the federal government have jurisdiction to enforce their laws in nearly every place within that state.

Sometimes the federal government looks the other way, but its not the same, and you can still be prosecuted.

>get drunk and slip into gf’s jeans
>3 years later my ass is still being reposted

Attached: A394642A-3E52-40D2-A34F-C3E888FF1AF9.jpg (711x620, 49K)

Did you also slip into her thong?

yeah alright I and that was her top also. I don’t miss her, she turned out to be a real bitch, but man did she have a sweet ass.

Attached: 6744B93E-27EE-46D9-93E6-6C5A4FBE9DBB.jpg (270x216, 26K)

Looks like you’ve got one too, faggot.

Err... Didn't you even take requests in that thread? Me thinks she (male) doth protest too much.

t-thanks. my current gf is probably too tiny for me to desecrate her panties and such. she’s like 100lbs size zero.

I don’t think so, there was just a few shots in the bathroom. then someone screencapped and there were funny shoops like the OP posted.

Look up hb69 in Alaska.
Basically what you are saying.

Attached: 1530045983110.jpg (1080x888, 72K)

Dual-sovereignty and the ATF needing to be more than a goon squad for the taxman and forensic experts on bombings. Fighting pot in America makes Sysiphus look like Sissyphus. Fighting machine guns and DDs gets you affluenza votes.

Do you currently crossdress for enjoyment, either for sexual purposes or just cuteness?

>is there anything stopping a pro gun state like arizona from passing a law legalising machines or just disregarding all federal gun laws like the nfa and 4473
Other than the ATF actually caring about enforcing those laws?

So what you're saying is every single kind of legal weed dispensary can get v& by the DEA if they decided they want to? Why the fuck haven't they done it then?

>Why the fuck haven't they done it then?
Because politics.

Because there's much bigger issues to worry about, such as illegal dealers who are actually involved in violent crime, and they only have so much money.

One thing a lot of people don't understand about federal law enforcement is that in the majority of circumstances they require the local cops to do their work for them. If the people won't care it's likely the cops won't and if the neither does, nothing substantial enough to act on gets reported to the feds.

Jesus christ we've been over this a million times, yes they "could" do it but everyone touching one would still be liable for a felony under federal law and the atf would have a field day, there are many cases of states having looser gun laws than the feds (Alaska especially) but that doesn't save you if the feds want to fuck you.

why do you ask?

Theres litterally been hundreds of cases of this happening.

>Why the fuck haven't they done it then?

They did back in the early 2000s, they raided dispensaries, they arrested patients (some terminal), they arrested doctors too. The political shitstorm this caused was fucking unreal. The DEA (or local law enforcement working with them) also killed a few people in middle of the night no-knock raids over less than an ounce of cannabis.

People who were buying their children D.A.R.E. shirts and holding anti-drug rallies a week before were now calling for the total dissolution of the DEA. The federal government at that point just stepped back, and changed their strategy to making it borderline impossible for any of those businesses to store and process funds or pay taxes.

Attached: 1528594482350.jpg (1024x767, 115K)

I'm gonna need someone to post the screen caps of the Jow Forumsommando in those pants

From a purely legal standpoint, what Colorado and other states have done is outright unconstitutional. The Constitution has a supremacy clause which states that Federal law overpowers state law. However, local law enforcement is more or less prohibited from enforcing federal law, only federal officers can do that. Feds often serve as an umbrella for local agencies, providing equipment, surveillance, intelligence, and then of course backing on the raids. Very rarely do the feds do full fledged operations by themselves. So, the states that have legalized weed have effectively handicapped the operations arm of the feds by making it impossible for their officers to assist in the raids. The DEA would have to spend a great deal of resources to target these businesses, and ultimately cause negative public response, which they don't want.

This is part of the reason why Sanctuary Cities are such a fucking problem, by making local officers unable to assist in enforcement, they severely handicap ICE, and increase the resource cost per deportation.

From a firearms perspective, public opinion will still hold that some "crazy right wing nutjob" making full-autos in his garage workshop is -worth- spending money on, so the ATF will freely do so, with or without local assistance. The exception most likely being Alaska, where people would go "Well, they do have bears".

>So, the states that have legalized weed have effectively handicapped the operations arm of the feds by making it impossible for their officers to assist in the raids.

Are the feds entitled to local law enforcement help?

Arizonan here and we're not going to do that. All the old cowboys are dead and the real reason we have so few laws is because enforcement of said laws costs money and we're broke like most red states who seem to think taxes go straight to the devil's bank account. The legislature thinks you have enough rights, their only concern is how to save money and put more in their own conniving pockets if possible. Undoing federal legislation isn't going to make us any less broke.

oh, thats why

>FFL doesn't run 4473
>ATF pulls their licence
>manufacturers no long sell them guns

I don't know if you've noticed the way the wind is blowing, but the public is overwhelmingly moving to *more* gun laws, more restrictions, more regulations (even in red states, though the process is moving slower). It's the exact opposite political client for weed. The public is overwhelmingly in support of de-criminalization and legalization (even in red states).

In a decade or two, we will have legal weed, at least in most states (though there may be some holdouts in the bible belt).

We will never have civilian legal automatics, at least not without jumping through a billion hoops and/or paying a fortune.

>we will never get civilian legal automatics
not with that attitude

>This is part of the reason why Sanctuary Cities are such a fucking problem, by making local officers unable to assist in enforcement, they severely handicap ICE, and increase the resource cost per deportation.
"Sanctuary cities" are a red herring meant to distract you from real problems, like that Trump's tax cuts are driving the deficit to record levels. Or that our current immigration detention and court system are a travesty.

haha! i made OP's pic and this collage

Attached: kay girls pants.jpg (2052x2235, 1.16M)

Yes, they are. But as of right now the Feds lack anything substantial to threaten the states with, because it isn't the whole state doing it. California being an exception.
Think of the drinking age with this. The states could lower the age to 18, or get rid of the age if they wanted to. But if they do that, they lose their federal highway funding, which is a serious issue for them. The only way the feds can force states to comply is through funding.

Trump already moved to cut Law Enforcement grants from Sanctuary Cities, but that would be a political deathblow if after he did that a terrorist attack occurred in NYC. "Trump let politics get ahead of national security" would be the headlines, rather than "New York would rather defend criminal illegals than their own"

Sancturary Cities are a constitutional issue, and have been around long before Trump.
The defecit soared under Obama, and will surge under ANY President until we cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending significantly.
Yes, our immigration system should immediately deport these people, NOT release them and hope they show up to court to be deported.

Sanctuary Cities are completely fucking illegal, there is no protection for non citizens in the Constitution, at minimum it's sedition and at worst treason.
>Trump sends Delta to no knock raid leftist mayors and governors
MY DICK.

Money is everything. You think the Jews whats in charge of Commiefornja gave a shit if some degenerates we're able to smoke weed? No, their jail systems were clogged as fuck and it was costing them more money to enforce weed laws than it would to just let idiots smoke weed and deal with the related crime and car crashes later.

Just think for a second of how morally deplorable it is to have legalized marijuana, and they still won't let us have guns that shoot too fast for their liking. They're going to let 18 year old kids out this garbage in their systems, fucking up their brains making them lazy paranoid retards, then let them walk around in public and even drive, yet we can't go pew pew.

Even gay people can get married now. Two fucking men who are probably pedophiles and don't benefit the state in any way, can get legally married.. but it's literally horrific that we can get "assault rifles" and they absolutely need to be outright banned *ignored second amendment but claims the Constitution protects gay marriage and abortion*

The absolute state of the leftist USA.

Did the ATF ever set up death squads and help rig elections in foreign countries?

because it isn't true

Now this is my America !
>Never forget

>morally deplorable legalized marijuana

T. Sheltered statist

They were also white. Fuck your blm and hippies. I hope the nat guard Kent states all of you.

>The defecit soared under Obama, and will surge under ANY President until we cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending significantly.
The increase was massively curtailed compared to the rate Bush had, and what Trump is doing now, stop lying so you can fuck over other citizens.
>Yes, our immigration system should immediately deport these people, NOT release them and hope they show up to court to be deported.
Congratulations, you're an asshole. Most of the people involved here are asylum seekers, which is not a crime. And even for those who are accused of immigration crimes, it is only a misdemeanor, generally not something worth locking you up and taking away your children to dump in a mass holding facility.

>there is no protection for non citizens in the Constitution
This is such fucking stupidity here. Only the sections that say "citizen" specifically refers only to citizens, you idiot. Every single person in the US and its territories are subject to the protections of the Constitution and the laws of the land.

>This entire post
It's like Stormfront vomited into a post window.

lol with all the insanity that leftists are schreeching about your biggest gripes are weed and gay marriage? Oh no! How horrible that gay adults can enter a monogamous commitment and smoke the devil's lettuce in the privacy of their own home! Get a grip dude. You should be worried about this open border nonsense. You should be worried about the opiod epidemic. You should be worried about putting 3 year olds on HRT. Yet you sperg out about the most harmless issues. Fucking stormfags.

>Sanctuary Cities are completely fucking illegal
How is not enforcing a law illegal? Have you ever read about all the ridiculous laws that are on the books for some reason or another about things such as carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket? Do you seriously think it's illegal for the police to not arrest people for carrying ice cream cones in their back pockets and instead spend their time on more important things?

>there is no protection for non citizens in the Constitution
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise on multiple occasions. Also, you're retarded for wanting that since it would allow the government to strip any US citizen of their rights by simply accusing them of not being a US citizen.

Annulling Federal law is only consequence free if you're a blue state. Any red-leaning locality that tries to be a sanctuary for traditional marriage or gun rights or what have you will have its funding stripped, be sued, its leaders arrested, etc.

The Opiate of The People™ supporter. Grow up kid.

I'm just pointing out the direction things are going. It's more important to the left to let a bunch of savages pour into our country unhindered than it is to secure the right to bear arms. They're threatening civil war, killing people, because Trump isn't letting every Pablo and his cousins enter the country, while not only ignoring the encroachment on 2A, but fully supporting it.

>Reminder that we only have a border "crisis" because the current closed borders make it hard for migrant workers to go home, and the cartels are entirely because the war on drugs created illicit demand
You right-wing idiots sure have a hard time understanding your actions have long-term consequences, and your only reactions are "DOUBLE DOWN AGAIN! IT'LL SURELY WORK THIS TIME!"

>harmless issues

That's what we thought 10 years ago, and our apathy is what put us in this situation today. Don't give the left a fucking inch. In the next decade you'll be wondering why people who are your current age are saying HRToddlers and no borders are ok.

You see, (((they))) will push any issue no matter how small if it contributes to the downfall of Western society. Fag marriage and drug legalization are in fact destructive issues.

What the fuck are talking about? You think we have a problem with illegal aliens because we won't let them go back to Mexico? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Please deport yourself from this life.

Probably because red states doing it are being assholes and oppressing the citizenry in most cases, while it the blue states its promoting freedom.

Before Reagan's crackdowns, there was little to no permanent population of illegals. They went home when the work seasons were finished. Try to keep up, buddy.

That's some amazing leftist projection

>cartels exist because dude drugs lmao
This hasn't been the case in decades. The cartels made heavy moves into legitimate businesses years ago. Fuck, every time you eat an avacado related product you're probably funding the Jalisco Cartel.

>Probably because red states doing it are being assholes and oppressing the citizenry
Uh huh. Like where, doing what?

Dude, fags marrying eachother and being monogamous and people smoking weed in lieu of drinking alcohol are pretty much non issues. The normalization of heterosexual promiscuity and psych meds being handed by doctors are much larger issues that threaten the societal morality you're so concerned about.

>Hurr durr actool hizturry iz prujuctin
How about just taxes? Low taxes for the rich haven't resulted in the trickle-down effect, it's only let a new class of ultra-wealthy arise and gain massive power over the political process, while wages for everyone else have stagnated over the last forty years. But your response is "WE JUST HAVEN'T CUT THEM HARD ENOUGH!"

They shouldn't be here AT ALL. How is this difficult for you to understand? You have to go back Jose.

It's what made the cartels, pretending otherwise is stupid.

>Sanctuary for traditional marriage
Aka not letting people marry who they love because you think they're icky. Bathroom bills. Efforts to sneak in laws that disenfranchise minorities.

>moving the goal posts
>assuming everyone on the right is exactly the same
>assuming my stance on taxes
Slow down there kiddo, pick a topic and stick to it. Like your claim that our migrant problem is because we won't let them go home lmao.

Jesus. Leftists really are unhinged. You guys make fascists look completely normal and you can't understand why.

>If I pretend he has to be an illegal his argument doesn't count!
latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farm-labor-guestworkers/
If "dey durk ma jerb" is your claim, I guess you're lining up to do migrant harvesting full time. It was only by fiat we made coming into the US short term to work illegal in the first place, and made it harder to leave once here.

>It's what made the cartels, pretending otherwise is stupid.
I never said otherwise but pretending like that is any longer relevant is just embarrassingly obtuse.

Avoiding his argument. They shouldn't be here.

>fags marrying eachother and being monogamous
You just contradicted yourself.

>Giving a concrete example is moving the goalposts
Yep, retarded.

Fuck off, just because you can't see the reality doesn't mean it's not what's happening.
forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/#4aab943544f2

A concrete example of what? I said you were full of shit on the illegal immigrant topic and you sperg out about taxes and start accusing me of completely unrelated things.

>Avoiding his argument. They shouldn't be here.
Completely irrelevant to the debate. Unless you, personally, are willing to take over their role in our economy, their presence is currently necessary.

And he we have yet another "brilliant" insight from Phil.

>Example of how the Right constantly doubles down on doing the wrong thing hoping it'll eventually be right
>Durr unrelated hurr

Phil, do you understand what marriage is?

Illegals are scabs. Those jobs should be worked by American citizens who are being paid a living wage. If you support illegal immigration you support a racialized slave class. How progressive.

>Trying this argument
Not seeing you going to work the fields either, bubba.

There is no such thing as a monogamous faggot. It's a fiction.

>According to Phil's extensive "research" into the gay community
You really should just drop the trip, you embarrass yourself every time you post and everyone knowing it's you just makes it funnier.

Because he'll buy you your own jeans and panties if you let him lay some pipe

desu I want to bite your butt

Because I have other skills that are more lucrative dipshit. You're not even presenting an argument. There are Americans would do those jobs if they were paid a proper wage. How can you justify importing virtual slaves? You can't.

lol. I suppose a tripfag would know. What's the largest number of dicks you've taken at one time Phil?

>There are Americans would do hard, 10-hour day labor often hundreds of miles from home for months, staying in little better than shacks, if they were paid a proper wage
You wouldn't like the increased food costs it'd take to make Americans want to do the work. And in Mexico, that "low" wage rate is better than they can usually get locally. Opening the border with seasonal/short term work visas would do a lot more to solve the permanent illegal population than becoming more draconian.

Claiming you care about if they're "slave labor" (which they clearly aren't, they feel the work is worth the pay, otherwise they wouldn't take all the risks to come to the States to work the jobs) but none of the other factors simply shows you don't care about actually arguing it, you just want to try to vilify your opposition so anything you do is justified.

The fuck are the mods doing? this should have been moved to Jow Forums hours ago

Less than you think besides a lack of backbone and a willingness to let federal agents walk all over them. It's illegal for 18 year olds to drink to but New Orleans told them to eat shit. It's illegal to harbor fugitives but sanctuary cities have court support. It's illegal to prevent simple access to abortions and clinics but half the states in the union have gone out of their way to violate the shit out of that ruling. If automatic weapons had a large enough amount of popular support within a state there would be exceptions.

I lived in Wyoming for 9 years and it was like this. You could build and own an MG as long as all the parts were sourced from the state and you didn't leave the state or sell it.