For instance, The Federal Government signed into law that all retired law enforcment officers in good standing could carry a concealed weapon in the United States as long as they followed all of the rules, Why then will states not issue National Concealed Weapons permits? Is it because the Government left out who would be liable if an shooting took place and who would be liable?
2006-06-30 16:05:12 · 5 answers · asked by Darby H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
doent this bring back the civil war-era issues of states' rights? I think all states are required to abide by Federal laws.
2006-06-30 16:09:51 · answer #1 · answered by texastigerzt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're mixing up the concept of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says federal laws override (preempt) contradictory state laws.
The example you gave doesn't say "all retired officers can carry concealed weapons". It says "can.... as long as they follow all the rules". I haven't read the law you're talking about, but as phrased, it just means the federal government doesn't consider carrying to be criminal. It says nothing about the states, and explicitly allows the states to set rules for concealed carrying.
Where there is no direct conflict between federal and state laws, both can co-exist. But where there is a direct conflict (where it is not possible to follow both), then the federal law preempts.
To answer the other part of your question, the reason that states are not required to issue concealed permits is that the federal government is not allowed to compel state legislatures to enact laws. In other words, they can override state laws, or strongly suggest that states enact certain laws (and withhold funds if they don't) but they cannot force states to enact a certain law. Part of the Constitutional limits of federalism.
2006-06-30 17:39:33 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its government 101. The federal government is simply stating that its OK with them if the state wants to let people carry weapons. All states the the option to establish their own laws, but within certain perameters. Example: "a state law must cannot deny a persons civil rights". If so, the federal government can strike it down as unconstitutional. Its has happened regarding hate crimes, abortion, etc. As a federal cop, I known that you better not carry a concealed weapon without a permit? Retired cop, or retired crook.
2006-06-30 16:21:15 · answer #3 · answered by ocram 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federal laws supersede any state law. The states must abide by those laws or face reductions in federal funding. A state, on the other hand, cannot make a law that governs any other state. States do have agreements in which concealed weapons permits are recognized by one another, but it is not a national permit.
2006-06-30 16:12:50 · answer #4 · answered by jared 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think a state could issue a "national" permit for anything. That would be issuing permits for other states. A state can only issue permits for itself. Also many laws are not enforced. Makes you wonder why they were ever enacted.
2006-06-30 16:09:43 · answer #5 · answered by papricka w 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋