>>”This is incorrect. Federal law does NOT trump State law...”
>
>Yes, Federal Law DOES trump State Law when its Constitutionally Sound Law.
You put the emphasis on the wrong spot: it should be on the *WHEN*; many, in fact it is likely most, federal laws are not Constitutional.
Even those that “have been held to be Constitutional” like the ATF’s “legitimacy” or regulation of intra-state commerce under the ‘commerce clause.’
>Too many liberals use this tactic to subvert the Constitution.
>Example: Gun Laws by states infringing the 2nd Amendment.
And if you had bothered to read past that to the example I gave concerning my State and ITS Constitution you would see that there are State Laws which subvert the State Constitution; this is not merely a National Constitution issue: it is that the governments at all levels see free to ignore the Constitutions which bind them.
Furthermore, as I’ve said, I would have multiple/redundant guarantees on my freedoms/rights than one single point which can be compromised.
Its called the "slippery slope" for a reason.
Once you legally give standing to an entity to write Constitutional Law ( say a State Reaffirming the Right to keep and Bear Arms) then you allow lawyers leeway to widen that legal scope and all of the Sudden State Law overrides the Constitution. This is exactly how we ended up where we are with libtards making places like NYC a haven for armed criminals while citizens who wish to stay out of jail must not protect themselves with firearms.