[hoosierskypilot]

So the libertarian chooses state law sometimes (pot) and constitutional law other times (gun ownership).

Seems messy.

[tpaine]

hoosierskypilot:
"What if, hypothetically speaking, there were a conflict between a CA state law and the constitution. Where would a libertarian stand on this? Is the state law supreme, or the constitution?"

Good question. There is a conflict between California State law and the constitution. Its California's assault weapons bans and registering laws.
They violate the Constitution. All libertarians I know do not support California's usurptation of the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential to the natural right of self-sefense.

There are compartively few instances where State laws violated the Constitution as compared to federal laws that violate the constitution/states rights.
29 FreeTally


So the libertarian chooses state law sometimes (pot) and constitutional law other times (gun ownership).
Seems messy.
-hsp-

Not 'messy' at all; - the choice is always pro-constitution.
If a state 'pot' law violates individual rights, it is unconstitutional, just as if it violated the individuals RKBA's.


It's simple common sense reasoning, - based on the fact that our US Constitutions main function is to protect the citizen from ALL levels of government, and these governments abilities to infringe upon on our liberties, unless held in check.

This is the problem, -- 'checks & balances' have disappeared in the political fog.