Can states legally enforce federal laws if they choose to?

States can pass laws that mirror Federal laws, however, they cannot enforce ANY Federal law. And no state can pass their own immigration bill, as that would be unconstitutional.

Any other stupid questions?
 
Sure they can. A perfect example is bank robbery. Bank robbery is a federal crime, but local law enforcement are usually the ones catching and arresting the bank robber. If states couldn't enforce bank robbery laws because that is a federal crime, we'd see a buttload more bank robberies with the robbers knowing the local law enforcement won't show up and the feds will take days or weeks to show up.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Sure they can. A perfect example is bank robbery. Bank robbery is a federal crime, but local law enforcement are usually the ones catching and arresting the bank robber. If states couldn't enforce bank robbery laws because that is a federal crime, we'd see a buttload more bank robberies with the robbers knowing the local law enforcement won't show up and the feds will take days or weeks to show up.
Click to expand...

sorry, but robbing banks is also a violation of state laws......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, but robbing banks is also a violation of state laws......
Click to expand...

Bank robbery is not both. States don't prosecute bank robbery, the feds do. The state usually shows up--virtually always--as the ones that arrest the bank robber. The feds then pick up the case. Bank robbery is only a state crime when the bank is not insured by the FDIC or part of that system--a state bank. Those are extremely rare.

Another is felon in possession of a firearm. That's a federal crime the ATF handles. States regularly arrest persons for illegal firearm possession, or even sales / trading. Again, these are strictly federal crimes and prosecuted as such.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Bank robbery is not both. States don't prosecute bank robbery, the feds do. The state usually shows up--virtually always--as the ones that arrest the bank robber. The feds then pick up the case. Bank robbery is only a state crime when the bank is not insured by the FDIC or part of that system--a state bank. Those are extremely rare.

Another is felon in possession of a firearm. That's a federal crime the ATF handles. States regularly arrest persons for illegal firearm possession, or even sales / trading. Again, these are strictly federal crimes and prosecuted as such.
Click to expand...

sorry dude, if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, don't talk......
MSA 750.531 Bank, safe and vault robbery.
Sec. 531.

Bank, safe and vault robbery—Any person who, with intent to commit the crime of larceny, or any felony, shall confine, maim, injure or wound, or attempt, or threaten to confine, kill, maim, injure or wound, or shall put in fear any person for the purpose of stealing from any building, bank, safe or other depository of money, bond or other valuables, or shall by intimidation, fear or threats compel, or attempt to compel any person to disclose or surrender the means of opening any building, bank, safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds, or other valuables, or shall attempt to break, burn, blow up or otherwise injure or destroy any safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds or other valuables in any building or place, shall, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of such larceny or felony, be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years.
Click to expand...

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rrmsyl5aksqu1ffbxst4q2qa))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-531#:~:text=Bank%2C%20safe%20and%20vault%20robbery%E2%80%94Any%20person%20who%2C%20with,safe%20or%20other%20depository%20of
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so if a state chooses, they can IGNORE federal laws? that's great to know. I've wanted a machine gun for some time now.
Click to expand...

Logic which explains why the militias are getting tromped.

Consider the question "Can a citizen enforce a state's laws such as take out a drug dealer?" Not a lawyer, but I expect the answer is no. It's all legal shit and jurisdiction....which is one of the problems at Uvalde. Who was in charge? It appears it all falls on the ex-Chief.

Bottom line, no. Not unless authorized to do so by the Feds. Remember the ramp dispute between Obama and AZ gov. Jan Brewer? Pure jurisdiction dispute between states and Feds.

FWIW, I agree with Brewer: If the Feds aren't going to enforce the law then the States should be allowed to do so for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-testy-side/2012/01/26/gIQA8mU3TQ_story.html
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I already linked that in post #6.......not saying the current court might not look at it differently, but that is the current SC precedent........
Click to expand...

The feds won't let states. Just as they let states enforce some other federal laws only getting involved after the fact. So, the feds could allow states to enforce immigration law then come in behind the state to level federal charges after the fact. It is only politics that keeps that from happening.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Logic which explains why the militias are getting tromped.

Consider the question "Can a citizen enforce a state's laws such as take out a drug dealer?" Not a lawyer, but I expect the answer is no. It's all legal shit and jurisdiction....which is one of the problems at Uvalde. Who was in charge? It appears it all falls on the ex-Chief.

Bottom line, no. Not unless authorized to do so by the Feds. Remember the ramp dispute between Obama and AZ gov. Jan Brewer? Pure jurisdiction dispute between states and Feds.

FWIW, I agree with Brewer: If the Feds aren't going to enforce the law then the States should be allowed to do so for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-testy-side/2012/01/26/gIQA8mU3TQ_story.html
Click to expand...

As usual, Smarter than you proves he is not smarter than anyone.

Yes, a state can ignore the Federal Law as long as state law doesn't run afoul of the constitution. But the FEDS don't ignore Federal law. Good luck getting that machine gun. LOL. He's a complete fucking moron. Perhaps he's not familiar with legalized marijuana.

From a practical standpoint, I don't really see how States could enforce Federal law. They are extremely limited by Constitution in that regard. If a state wants to enforce a Federal law, they need to pass a mirror law that does not run afoul of the Constitution. I don't see any other way that could happen. Arizona tried with immigration, but failed utterly.
 
Concart said:
As usual, Smarter than you proves he is not smarter than anyone.

Yes, a state can ignore the Federal Law as long as state law doesn't run afoul of the constitution. But the FEDS don't ignore Federal law. Good luck getting that machine gun. LOL. He's a complete fucking moron. Perhaps he's not familiar with legalized marijuana.

From a practical standpoint, I don't really see how States could enforce Federal law. They are extremely limited by Constitution in that regard. If a state wants to enforce a Federal law, they need to pass a mirror law that does not run afoul of the Constitution. I don't see any other way that could happen. Arizona tried with immigration, but failed utterly.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding also.

Agreed on Arizona, but the blowback from that is identifying the problem of a Federal law that isn't enforced by the Feds. That's a major problem not limited to immigration.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The feds won't let states. Just as they let states enforce some other federal laws only getting involved after the fact. So, the feds could allow states to enforce immigration law then come in behind the state to level federal charges after the fact. It is only politics that keeps that from happening.
Click to expand...

Agreed to a large extent and would only add interagency rivalry as a problem. Nobody wants to give up their rice bowl.

Just like the military before the 1990s, all Federal agencies are competing for Federal dollars. If an agency lets local LEOs do their job for them, then Congress might see that the Federal agency doesn't need as much money....which will most certainly be pointed out by competing Federal agencies.

If the Border Patrol lets Arizona and Texas do the job, then the ATF, FBI, CIA and all the other alphabets will certainly cover Congress with requests on how they need the funds for their jobs. Everyone needs more money, so everyone tries to protect what they have. It's an old bureaucratic story.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Can states legally enforce federal laws if they choose to?
Click to expand...

They are REQUIRED to enforce some federal laws, such as conforming to the election process laid out in the Constitution of the United States.

Other than what they are required to enforce, they do not have to enforce any federal law. States ARE required to uphold the Constitution, so if any federal law or action by a federal officer is unconstitutional, they are required to NOT enforce it, and are even expected to arrest any officer attempting to violate the constitutional rights of any citizen of their State.

Can a State enforce a standard set up by the federal government (which requires a federal law)? Yes. They can. Can a State enforce protection of speech? Yes they can. Can a State support an age restriction? Yes they can.
 
Concart said:
States can pass laws that mirror Federal laws, however, they cannot enforce ANY Federal law. And no state can pass their own immigration bill, as that would be unconstitutional.

Any other stupid questions?
Click to expand...

What State has passed an immigration bill?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Bank robbery is not both. States don't prosecute bank robbery, the feds do. The state usually shows up--virtually always--as the ones that arrest the bank robber. The feds then pick up the case. Bank robbery is only a state crime when the bank is not insured by the FDIC or part of that system--a state bank. Those are extremely rare.

Another is felon in possession of a firearm. That's a federal crime the ATF handles. States regularly arrest persons for illegal firearm possession, or even sales / trading. Again, these are strictly federal crimes and prosecuted as such.
Click to expand...

Wups. The 2nd amendment clearly states the right of the people to be armed is not to be infringed. The ATF enforcing ANY infringement is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top