American Legal Layout

[s0laris]

Could someone explain to me, in clear, easy to understand terms how the legal system is organised in America with regards to defining what is (and is not) illegal?

Obviously using knives as an example, it seems that there are 'n' levels of law that people need to be aware of, starting from country-wide down to; what? individual towns/districts? What's got priority? What about cross-over (if any)?

Hope this makes a modicum of sense. I'm just curious, that's all.

Cheers

 

[shootist16]

I'll try.

Starting from smallest to largest we have cities then counties then states. Each has its own set of laws that are made by their respective legislatures. Cities can have more restrictive laws than counties and counties can have more restrictive laws than states.

Then of course you have federal law.

 

[s0laris]

Cheers that makes things a bit clearer. Are there limits to what laws each 'level' has access to?

Also, you mention 'restrictive laws', does this mean than anyone below a particular level can only set 'harder' laws, they can't 'soften' any from up above?

 

[Duffin444]

Yes there are limits to what each level has access to. For instance, only the feds can deal with inter-state movement of weapons. As for how the flow of restrictions go, the next smaller region can not relax the restrictions of any of its parents. This means that the county can not relax the state law and the city can not relax county law, they can only get more restrictive. This is all as I understand it, it's not gospel.

-Duffin

 

[Watchful]

As for restrictions, it's difficult for a smaller piece of government to enforce a law that contradicts a larger piece of government.

For example, if a county says "there shall be no carrying of balisongs," it'll be tough for a city or town to say "no, balisongs are fine to carry."

It can be done, and has been done, but often there are repercussions in the form of sanctions.*

If the county has no restrictions, the town *can* pass a restriction as tough and widespread as it wants. Here in my home state, Illinois has no prohibition on the average person owning a handgun... however, Chicago, Illinois, forbids any private ownership. That's a seriously major restriction.

The only way that can be refuted is if a higher authority states specifically otherwise: "No citizen shall be prohibited from..."

Hope this helps, but otherwise shootist has got it: federal, state, county, municipal (town or city) is the pecking order.

*The higher authority will deny funding for local projects, or will exclude the offending party inclusion in other benefits, etc., until they conform to the higher authority's position. Rare, but does happen.

 

[Argyll]

Watchful makes an important point, sometimes the entity lower down the chain can't impose greater restrictions. This involves a legal concept called "preemption." So occasionally you'll see an argument that a city can't prohibit conduct that's allowed under state law.

In terms of federal law, the highest law in the land is the Constitution, all federal and state laws must conform to it. (Of course the big arguments are about exactly what does the language of the Constitution mean.)

Best regards,

Argyll

 

[CRH]

Starting from smallest to largest we have cities then counties then states. Each has its own set of laws that are made by their respective legislatures. Cities can have more restrictive laws than counties and counties can have more

Here in Iowa we have a state law that says counties and municipalities can not trump state law, i.e. make a more restrictive law that the state. This makes knife laws, for example, consistant everywhere in the state.

 

[kaosu04]

And dont forget the ultimate law, that makes all of this possible and indisputable, the second amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This would be the highest law and authority.

 

[Ryan8]

Here in Iowa we have a state law that says counties and municipalities can not trump state law, i.e. make a more restrictive law that the state. This makes knife laws, for example, consistant everywhere in the state.

This is true of federal vs. state law. However it only comes into play when the state law is in direct conflict with the federal law - as we know, states may add their own restrictions. I don't think there are federal restrictions on knives except autos and on the carrying of knives into federal buildings.