Because states are separate sovereigns with plenary powers. They can’t forbid enforcement of federal law. That’s not what we are talking about. But they can say that state law enforcement officers are not allowed to help. And, again, supremacy doesn’t come into it, because if state officers can comply with both laws by not enforcing federal law, there’s no conflict, and that is, therefore, what those officers must do.
It’s similar to the laws states and cities have passed saying no employee can provide any assistance to ICE, by, for example, processing detainers, etc., except anything required by law. In my state, no public funds can be spent to assist ICE. That includes anyone doing work to assist them.
Yes, and I keep saying that this is an open question. In the Printz case, Justice Stevens et al made a very good argument that the feds could tell states to enforce their own laws. I disagree with that and think the Printz majority was right. But I believe as a part of our federal system, no state can say that its employees may not enforce federal law. A step too far whether that is immigration or gun laws.
You would basically have rogue officers within state and county and municipal police.
So, if in West Virginia they had an anti-gun crusader among the police he/she could run around arresting people for federal gun violations despite state policy to not do that. Can the police fire him/her for that?
Or, is the officer now just a citizen doing a citizen’s arrest? In which case we can all make such arrests as long as we are “good citizens”. We are all law enforcement. Do they have to tell the person they are arresting they are not doing so as a state officer but as a citizen?
Both. In West Virginia, you would probably be concerned if you saw a loaded sawed off shotgun in my front seat. You might even want to reach in and grab it because you are afraid of my intentions. Even though it is a federal felony to possess it, WV forbids anyone from enforcing that law. Does that seem right to you? As a big pro gun guy that seems not right to me.
But a citizen’s arrest pretty much has to have proof positive results, beyond probable cause. Otherwise, you risk a lawsuit and possible criminal charges. And I would assume that finding evidence not present when the arrest was made would also cause a serious legal problem for the “upstanding citizen acting on his own…”?
And searching someone’s car as a private citizen smacks of serious illegal intrusion, unless the evidence - actual pot - is in plain sight. Then we get into the issue of whose it is, if there is a passenger there.
(Two people and one personal stash - what’s a proactive citizen to do? Especially if one walks away with the evidence while he’s corralling the other. So many ways this can go South.)
Remember, the charge is possession not “I think you’ve been near some recently”. You have to have actual evidence (not inference) to make a citizen’s arrest. And the state police cannot I assume search a car regarding a citizen’s arrest on a federal charge. It would be an interesting case to have the state’s inventory suppressed in the federal trial, should it happen that way.
Assuming you are a police officer can the government use your grabbing the gun as a cause to fire you? (assuming we are in WV and WV forbids this action)
I will say that I think it can make for a weird world if the states can thumb their nose at federal crimes.
And I say that thinking marijuana should be legal and I cheered some states reluctance to enforce ICE rules (while others embraced it).
That is IMHO though.
I think the answer is a better delineation between what laws the feds can impose and what the states can impose. But the states need to abide by federal law. After all, those federal laws are kinda passed by the states anyway via congress.
I assume this means that they cannot disobey them, not that they are required to enforce them on their own citizens.
if for example, some state decided sawed-off shotguns are legal (who in their right mind would do that?) they are not obliged to enforce federal prohibitions, but again they are not allowed to interfere with federal officers enforcing that law. But the feds cannot force state officials to enforce the federal ban.
And… it’s up to SCotUS to decide if the feds have the legal right to pass and enforce their law, since federal powers are enumerated. Or decide whether the state law violates some constitutional provision.
Which seems to point to a huge problem with your “citizen’s arrest” theory. The idea of a citizen’s arrest is that you can briefly detain a criminal until the police can be summoned to take him into custody. Seems to me that you’d open yourself up to massive liability if you tried to citizens-arrest someone for conduct that you know damn well no cop is going to take him into custody for, even if that conduct is technically illegal.
Most states have a citizen’s arrest law (as cited above) and it protects the person making the arrest from liability (assault, battery, etc.).
So…what if they get it wrong? Are they only allowed to arrest if they know for certain a crime has been committed? Never mind state or federal…just any crime whatsoever? If they get it wrong are they then liable for false arrest or assault or battery or whatever else applies when you capture someone and hold them against their will?
The Supreme Court said police can stop people for crimes that don’t exist. Is Joe Citizen held to a higher standard than the police when making an arrest?
That’s my point. No. Each state law is different, but in my state I can arrest someone for a felony crime or a misdemeanor breach of the peace committed in my presence.
The question that I have posited is pretty simple. The Printz case, cited above, holds over several dissenting opinions, one by Justice Stevens, a favorite of this board I’m sure, that the feds may not require a state to enforce federal law. Fair enough. But can they do one better? Can a state forbid enforcement of a validly enacted federal law by anyone but federal agents? I think not.
That is exactly the law that WV has. And as much as I disagree that the feds have any power at all to pass any gun law, save perhaps, the carry on federal property, or D.C., the Supreme Court disagrees with me. And I think both sides have skin in this game with right wing states thwarting guns laws and left wing states thwarting immigration law. We did sign a constitution, and those laws, while not required to be enforced, should not be forbidden from being enforced.
And I bring up citizens arrest not because I would advise anyone doing such a thing except in the most extreme circumstance, but I do so simply to get around the idea that “state employees” are involved.
Interesting. The article contains two different characterizations of what the law does.
It forbids state law enforcement agencies from cooperating – being deputized to enforce federal law – in enforcing certain federal gun laws.
It declares certain federal gun laws invalid or unenforceable in the state.
Number one is what we’ve been discussing here. It is clearly legal to do.
Number two is clearly not within the state’s power. The feds can enforce any federal law they choose within any state, and there’s nothing the state itself can do about it.*
I’d like to see the text of the law in question.
*Note that state court systems can independently construe federal statutory and constitutional law, so a state court could declare a federal law unconstitutional under the federal constitution, unless there is a Supreme Court case to the contrary. Such a decision, however, is appealable to the US Supreme Court.
I found the law. I’ll link it at the end. It begins with a bunch of prefatory legislative “facts” which are the legislators’ theories of how Second Amendment law should work, and the relationship between the states and the federal government. They are wrong, but generally unchallengeable because they don’t actually do anything.
The substance of the law, however, is clearly unconstitutional under at least the supremacy clause, but probably also other provisions of the constitution.
Here’s part of that section:
This doesn’t just tell law enforcement officers not to cooperate, it purports to allow any person, including state and federal law enforcement, to be sued for enforcing federal gun laws that are considered within the law to be 2nd Amendment violations.
Here’s the link to the Bill text – Warning: .pdf download.
But the rights and privileges of the US constitution have been enumerated/clarified in more detail by assorted SCotUS decisions, haven’t they? So basically this phrase is meaningless if its intent is to declare the original text of the constitution to give more rights to the citizen than SCotUS says they have from A2?
So I guess it falls to the state constitution to illuminate the way.
OTOH, a federal officer enforcing federal law, when sued, will claim qualified immunity since this is exactly the sort of case immunity is intended for - that an official properly carrying out his/her duties cannot be sued over that federal lawful action.
Which brings up the follow-on question. the fed would be sued in state court. Presumably then the appeals work their way into federal court, which will enforce qualified immunity?
And a judge being assessed a penalty under 470-1 (…gives material aid and support…) can hold in contempt anyone who tries to sanction said judge for rendering a decision that affirms the federal officer’s rights?
[quote=“UltraVires, post:242, topic:959024, full:true”]But I believe as a part of our federal system, no state can say that its employees may not enforce federal law. A step too far whether that is immigration or gun laws.
[/quote]
You are not hearing me banging my head against the wall.
We never enforce federal law. Never. We never enforce federal law. Never ever never. Has never will never happen. There isn’t even a way we can except picking up the phone to the FBI and asking “You interested?” ( By the way they almost never are). We don’t enforce federal laws. Is that clear enough for you? If my boss told me to charge someone with a federal crime I would have no way of doing it. We don’t have access to the federal system or courts. It simply doesn’t work that way. And it doesn’t matter because we have our own laws that cover everything we need.
As to saying no state can say it’s employees may not enforce federal laws is wrong. Because we never enforced federal laws. There are state laws now that say certain things that are illegal on a federal level are legal at the state level. There is nothing preventing that.
Are local forces ever involved in an arrest or other action that is led by those who DO enforce federal law?
Various articles suggest that is a thing and is the thing that is being prevented by these laws that say “no helping ICE” or “no helping with gun laws”.
I would guess that if you are arrested at an airport because you are on a probable-cause watchlist, for instance, it would probably be airport police guys arresting you, not federal marshals.
Speaking of which, if someone were arrested on probable cause alone, how long do the feds have to indict him? I know a warrant can be obtained within hours, but is there a legal deadline for the indictment or do they have to release him by, say, 72 hours?