Originally Posted by rivergator
Isn't that unconstitutional?
It isn't "unconstitutional" for a state to pass a state law exempting itself from speculative federal action, it would be unconstitutional to try to enforce the provision as relates to federal agents carrying out federal law and invalid on its face as relates to general provisions that conflicted with federal law.
That is, of course, subject to any subsequent litigation over whatever federal action we would be talking about, most of those speculators being facially or in their application in violation of the second amendment. If the Supreme Court sticks to its guns, pun unintended but appropriate, on its recent cases, it would apply either heightened or preferably strict scrutiny to whatever comes, even his royal pompousness' issuing an executive order as legislation. Like it or not, the law in the federal courts is that the right to own a gun is akin to every other right in the Bill of Rights now and will only be impaired under the same tests that those are. I mean, whose to say the prior ban, if reinstated, would pass muster under the later-decided "Heller" precedent?