Baltimore no longer prosecuting crime

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,600
14,992
1,743
#41
I wouldn't say it is commonplace but I bet it happens. Most of us are smart enough to make sure we are divorced before getting married again, but there are plenty of morons out there.

But as an offensive that deserves to be prosecuted? I agree with your sentiment. I'm sure there are a couple of people who tried to pull something but it's gotta be a really rare occurrence.
I laugh about some of those states where certain sexual acts were illegal even within the confines of a married couple's bedroom. I wanted to see someone explain to the other people in jail with him that he was in there because he tried to be particularly unselfish for his wife one night. <--(PG version)

Fun reading

https://mndaily.com/188025/uncategorized/archaic-sex-laws-are-no-laughing-matter/

In Alexandria, Minn., it is illegal for a man to have sex with his wife if he reeks of garlic, onions or sardines. Across the border in Connorsville, Wis., a law prohibits a man from shooting off a gun when his female partner reaches orgasm. And down in Ames, Iowa, no husband is allowed to have more than three gulps of beer while in bed or cuddling with his spouse.

pistols firing.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#42
Isn't it a crime when a prosecutor ignores crime?
This. I support criminal justice reform, but I hate it when elected officials ignore the separation of powers. Presidents shouldn't legislate through EO, judges shouldn't legislate from the bench, and prosecutors shouldn't pick and choose which crimes to prosecute. There's nothing wrong with this happening, but it should've originated from the legislative branch.
If a law becomes outdated, it's the responsibility of the legislative branch to amend or repeal it. It shouldn't be the executive branch's responsibility to decide which laws they should or shouldn't enforce.

I've never really understood why state legislators don't do their job by purging outdated laws from the books. My guess is that they're more interested in passing new legislation so that they can get re-elected.

Maybe I'm naive by expecting our government to function properly and maintain the proper separation of powers. I should probably expect dysfunction after seeing it for so long.
You're the one actually ignoring the separation of powers.

What laws to enforce and how to enforce them absolutely is the executive branch's responsibility and authority to decide. Always has been. That's what the executive branch is....the branch responsible for enforcing, interpreting, and executing the laws....as they deem appropriate as elected members of the executive branch. They aren't mindless automatons at the mercy of whatever the legislative branch tells them to do. It is within the executive authority/branch of government to enforce and interpret the laws (including constitutionality, legality, and responsible use of limited prosecutorial/enforcement resources).
Consequently, the executive branch has always had discretion to not charge particular violations of the law or even particular classes of crimes. If they abuse that discretion, they are subject to removal by a number of ways depending upon the state law.

In fact, enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature doesn't get the legislature sued, it gets the executive branch officer sued....personally and in his executive capacity.

Do you think the DEA should be out there arresting medical marijuana card holders and dispensaries in Oklahoma because possession of marijuana is still a crime under federal law?

Highway Patrol should never bump a ticket down from 10-20 over to under 10 over or God Forbid give them a warning and tell them to slow down?

I don't think you've really thought your position all the way through to it's inevitable result.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
4,754
3,871
1,743
#43
What laws to enforce and how to enforce them absolutely is the executive branch's responsibility and authority to decide.

It is within the executive authority/branch of government to enforce and interpret the laws (including constitutionality, legality, and responsible use of limited prosecutorial/enforcement resources).

Consequently, the executive branch has always had discretion to not chrage particular violations of the law or even particular classes of crimes.

In fact, enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature doesn't get the legislature sued, it gets the executive branch officer sued....personally and in his executive capacity.

Do you think the DEA should be out there arresting medical marijuana card holders and dispensaries in Oklahoma because possession of marijuana is still a crime under federal law?

Highway Patrol should never bump a ticket down from 10-20 over to under 10 over or God Forbid give them a warning and tell them to slow down?

I don't think you've really thought your position all the way through to it's inevitable result.
Doesn't the power of the interpreting the law lie with the judicial branch? Shouldn't they be the ones deciding questions of Constitutionality and legality?

Actually yes, I do believe that marijuana should be declassified as a schedule 1 drug prior to it being legalized at the state level. I don't like the fact that state and local governments completely ignore federal drug & immigration laws.

I'm okay with highway patrolmen making discretionary decisions, but I wouldn't be okay with them deciding unilaterally that they weren't going to enforce traffic laws altogether.

Here's an interesting twist to this subject. The state of Texas has introduced a bill that would stop them from enforcing any new federal gun laws that are passed. Are you okay with that proposal? How would you feel if they decided to ignore federal gun laws altogether?

 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#44
Do you think the DEA should be out there arresting medical marijuana card holders and dispensaries in Oklahoma because possession of marijuana is still a crime under federal law?
No. However, something needs to be done about the C-I status, especially now that we have an FDA-approved derivative on the market and "no valid medical use" is no longer true. This is also entirely within the power of the executive branch, as delegated by the legislative branch (I know you know this, I'm saying this for @LS1 Z28 's benefit).
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,600
14,992
1,743
#45
Which reminds me, could we get a few more CBD places to start up? The other day I needed some CBD products and there were only 8 to choose from within a half mile of me.
 
Aug 11, 2004
1,706
85
1,678
42
Enid, OK
www.faulklawfirm.com
#46
So you are saying it is commonplace to marry another person in a ceremony while already married? Data please and locales this is occurring in Oklahoma.
OK, I was a little off with Bigamy. Adultery is still illegal. Here are some others that are commonplace:

43 OS 123: Living with someone within 6 months of being divorced, even if married in another state
21 OS 371: Using the US Flag to make a profit, such as printing on clothing
21 OS 95: Swearing
21 OS 1281: Manufacture, sale or transfer of a slingshot
21 OS 871: Adultery
21 OS 399: Illegal to offer a gift in exchange to amateur player for a sporting contest (i.e. no promise of ice cream if my kid scores a goal)
21 OS 1685: Animal abuse includes killing bugs. We are all guilty of that.

So you see, if the DA did not use prosecutorial discretion, we would all be in prison.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#47
1. Doesn't the power of the interpreting the law lie with the judicial branch? Shouldn't they be the ones deciding questions of Constitutionality and legality?

2. Actually yes, I do believe that marijuana should be declassified as a schedule 1 drug prior to it being legalized at the state level. I don't like the fact that state and local governments completely ignore federal drug & immigration laws.

3. I'm okay with highway patrolmen making discretionary decisions, but I wouldn't be okay with them deciding unilaterally that they weren't going to enforce traffic laws altogether.

4. Here's an interesting twist to this subject. The state of Texas has introduced a bill that would stop them from enforcing any new federal gun laws that are passed. Are you okay with that proposal? How would you feel if they decided to ignore federal gun laws altogether?

1. No the power of interpreting the law lies with the executive branch. That interpretation includes court decisions and rulings that have defined what the law is. How could it be any other way? How would they "follow" the laws without interpreting them and what they mean beforehand? The only time the courts issue an opinion or get involved is if a defendant or other party appeals an executive interpretation or execution of the law. They specifically do not issue advisory opinions or interpretations of the law.

2. You kind of side stepped my question. Which was would you want DEA agents out there arresting medical marijuana possessors and dispensaries instead of what they are presently doing.

3. So you're okay with a little discretion....just not as much as is being exercised in this particular case.

4. It's not really that interesting. We have a thing called the Supremacy Clause. Texas as a state, cannot prohibit FEDERAL officials from enforcing FEDERAL law in their state because of the Supremacy clause.

From a legal and constitutional perspective, I'm perfectly fine with the State of Texas prohibiting STATE officials from enforcing federal law. I'm perfectly fine with that proposal. That's federalism in action. What they CAN'T constitutionally due is keep or prohibit FEDERAL OFFICIALS from enforcing FEDERAL law within their jurisdiction.

From a policy perspective, I am perfectly fine with that proposal as well. It feel is always important to differentiate between whether something shouldn't and can't legally be done because it is unconstitutional or illegal AND whether something shouldn't be done because it's bad policy. I'm good both legally and policy-wise with that gun proposal, a city or state's decision to become a so-called immigration sanctuary city, a city or state's decision not to enforce federal drug laws, and the executive branch officials decision to not dedicate their limited resources to the mindless prosecution of low value/low level type classes of crime in order to focus on the "real", serious crimes that absolutely affect the public safety. "Protect and serve", and all that.

I do find it amusing that Abbott thinks that so-called immigration sanctuary cities are acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully by not enforcing those regulations, but will sign on to exactly the same thing when it comes to guns. I'm long past expecting consistently of reasoning from politicians though.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
4,754
3,871
1,743
#48
1. Now the power of interpreting the law lies with the executive branch. That interpretation includes court decisions and rulings that have defined what the law is. How could it be any other way? How would they "follow" the laws without interpreting them and what they mean beforehand? The only time the courts issue and opinion or get involved is if there is a defendant or other party appeals and executive interpretation or execution of the law. They specifically do not issue advisory opinions or interpretations of the law.

2. You kind of side stepped my question. Which was would you want DEA agents out there arresting medical marijuana possessors and dispensaries instead of what they are presently doing.

3. So you're okay with a little discretion....just not as much as is being exercised in this particular case.

4. It's not really that interesting. We have a thing called the Supremacy Clause. Texas as a state, cannot prohibit FEDERAL officials from enforcing FEDERAL law in their state because of the Supremacy clause.

From a legal and constitutional perspective, I'm perfectly fine with the State of Texas prohibiting STATE officials from enforcing federal law. I'm perfectly fine with that proposal. That's federalism in action. What they CAN'T constitutionally due is keep or prohibit FEDERAL OFFICIALS from enforcing FEDERAL law within their jurisdiction.

From a policy perspective, I am fine with that proposal as well. I do find it amusing that Abbott thinks that so-called immigration sanctuary cities are acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully by not enforcing those regulations, but will sign on to exactly the same thing when it comes to guns. I'm long past expecting consistently of reasoning from politicians though.
1. To clarify, what I meant is that the power to interpret, define, and determine the constitutionality of a law falls to the judicial branch. Obviously the executive branch has to interpret laws in order to enforce them.

2. I don't really want to see either of those things to happen. What I want is for the federal government to reschedule it. If I had to choose between your 2 scenarios, I would prefer to see the DEA enforce the laws, because that would actually force the federal government to act on this issue.

3. Yes. Some level of prudent discretion is a necessary evil for a functional government. But there's a big difference between between using prudent discretion and choosing to ignore laws altogether. (At least from my perspective.)

4. Do you believe the federal government should step in to enforce gun laws in Texas if they stop enforcing them?
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2008
656
178
1,593
#49
2. I don't really want to see either of those things happen. What I want is for the federal government to reschedule it. If I had to choose between your 2 scenarios, I would prefer to see the DEA enforce the laws, because that would actually force the federal government to act on this issue.
I wonder how much of the DEA funding is allocated toward Marijuana enforcement and what their incentive would be reschedule it.

It needs to be done, but I don't see them doing it. The potential tax revenue could be huge.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#50
1. To clarify, what I meant is that the power to interpret, define, and determine the constitutionality of a law falls to the judicial branch. Obviously the executive branch has to interpret laws in order to enforce them.

2. I don't really want to see either of those things happen. What I want is for the federal government to reschedule it. If I had to choose between your 2 scenarios, I would prefer to see the DEA enforce the laws, because that would actually force the federal government to act on this issue.

3. Yes. Some level of prudent discretion is a necessary evil for a functional government. But there's a big difference between between using prudent discretion and choosing to ignore laws altogether. (At least from my perspective.)

4. Do you believe the federal government should step in to enforce gun laws in Texas if they stop enforcing them?
1. To clarify, the executive branch is also tasked and prohibited from taking executive action that is unconstitutional. In order to do that, they have to determine whether or not laws passed by the legislature are in fact constitutional. The judicial branch only gets involved when there is an actual matter in controversy...a disagreement as to the legality and constitutionality of executive actions (sometime inaction) between two parties with standing. They do not issue advisory opinions as to what the law is.

2. That's an issue of preference for you. This discussion started as one of separation of powers and whether the executive branch HAD to legally enforce all things to the letter of the law. I mentioned the importance of drawing a distinction between preferred policy AND legal discussions. Going to do it again. I'm not saying your preferred policy position and what you would prefer to do with them is wrong. I may disagree with that opinion, but I'm not going to spend time attempting to convince someone that their opinion is wrong just because I have a different one. I will point out....as I have here....incorrect assertions of FACT...particularly when it comes to assertions of what the law is, says, or does. I only do that because it's an area of which I am trained, experience, and well-versed. You'll never see me arguing COVID facts (particularly with a medical professional) because I'm not an epidemioligist.....unless they are way wackadoodle level statements, and even then I'm probably just going to roll my eyes and move on.

3. See #2. It seems to me that your issue is with the level of discretion being utilized...not the notion that they properly and legally have that discretion. Policy v. facts/law.

4. They're already there enforcing federal gun laws. ATF and FBI have field offices throughout the state. And it's going to be US Attorneys, not local District Attorneys prosecuting those cases in Federal District Court, not state court. I guess I didn't make my self clear, but that is the very essence of federalism. Feds are responsible for prosecutions of violation of federal law, and that occurs in federal court. States are responsible for prosecutions of violations of state law, and that occurs in state court. If federal law enforcement authorities and state law enforcement authorities want to work together and assist each other in doing that....great. If they don't....fine by me. There is certainly no law or legal principle that compels them to do so.

In a VERY real sense, that proposed bill is nothing more than political showboating. I'd go so far as to say that Texas Rangers, Dallas PD, Ector County sheriffs, etc. are not doing much enforcing of federal law right now (if any). If one of them picks up someone with an illegal gun....they're getting charged for violations of state law only even if the acts also technically violate federal law.

I hesitate to open up this can of worms because it's likely going to lead to more explanations, but if someone commits an act that is a violation of federal law and state law (main areas would be possession of firearms after former felony conviction and drug possession/dealing), the technically can be convicted of violating BOTH statutes....once in federal court and once in state court...same facts, two prosecutions....two convictions. It's pretty rare that any state/local agency arrests and submits charges to the feds....to enforce federal law. There's presently no requirement for them to do so. So a law that says they can't really doesn't change much...if at all....what is going on or the present state of the law.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#52
Again, I know you know this, I'm saying this for the benefit of others. This is unlike Attorneys General who do issue advisory opinions as to what the law is. Attorneys General who are executive branch, that is.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,754
3,871
1,743
#53
1. To clarify, the executive branch is also tasked and prohibited from taking executive action that is unconstitutional. In order to do that, they have to determine whether or not laws passed by the legislature are in fact constitutional. The judicial branch only gets involved when there is an actual matter in controversy...a disagreement as to the legality and constitutionality of executive actions (sometime inaction) between two parties with standing. They do not issue advisory opinions as to what the law is.

2. That's an issue of preference for you. This discussion started as one of separation of powers and whether the executive branch HAD to legally enforce all things to the letter of the law. I mentioned the importance of drawing a distinction between preferred policy AND legal discussions. Going to do it again. I'm not saying your preferred policy position and what you would prefer to do with them is wrong. I may disagree with that opinion, but I'm not going to spend time attempting to convince someone that their opinion is wrong just because I have a different one. I will point out....as I have here....incorrect assertions of FACT...particularly when it comes to assertions of what the law is, says, or does. I only do that because it's an area of which I am trained, experience, and well-versed. You'll never see me arguing COVID facts (particularly with a medical professional) because I'm not an epidemioligist.....unless they are way wackadoodle level statements, and even then I'm probably just going to roll my eyes and move on.

3. See #2. It seems to me that your issue is with the level of discretion being utilized...not the notion that they properly and legally have that discretion. Policy v. facts/law.

4. They're already there enforcing federal gun laws. ATF and FBI have field offices throughout the state. And it's going to be US Attorneys, not local District Attorneys prosecuting those cases in Federal District Court, not state court. I guess I didn't make my self clear, but that is the very essence of federalism. Feds are responsible for prosecutions of violation of federal law, and that occurs in federal court. States are responsible for prosecutions of violations of state law, and that occurs in state court. If federal law enforcement authorities and state law enforcement authorities want to work together and assist each other in doing that....great. If they don't....fine by me. There is certainly no law or legal principle that compels them to do so.

In a VERY real sense, that proposed bill is nothing more than political showboating. I'd go so far as to say that Texas Rangers, Dallas PD, Ector County sheriffs, etc. are doing much enforcing of federal law right now. If one of them picks up someone with an illegal gun....they're getting charged for violations of state law only even if the acts also technically violate federal law.

I hesitate to open up this can of worms because it's likely going to lead to more explanations, but if someone commits an act that is a violation of federal law and state law (main areas would be possession of firearms after former felony conviction and drug possession/dealing), the technically can be convicted of violating BOTH statutes....once in federal court and once in state court...same facts, two prosecutions....two convictions. It's pretty rare that any state/local agency arrests and submits charges to the feds....to enforce federal law. There's presently no requirement for them to do so. So a law that says they can't really doesn't change much...if at all....what is going on or the present state of the law.
Everyone in our country has to interpret laws to some extent, but the power to settle any disputes rests with the judicial branch, so their interpretation (at least on disputes) is preeminent. AG's can issue opinions all they want, but those opinions are nullified if the court system disagrees with them.

Teach me something, if a prosecutor disputes the constitutionality of a law, what is the process for settling this dispute? Can they file a lawsuit themselves, or does it have to be filed by someone else?

It's important to note that much of what I've posted in this thread is opinion. I've never argued that the prosecutor from Baltimore broke the law. My argument is that she abused her power. She doesn't dispute the constitutionality of these laws, she simply wants to further her political views on social justice reform by refusing to prosecute them. I consider this to be an abuse of power, because those are decisions that should be made by the legislative branch. Once again, this is only my opinion.

It's also my opinion that antiquated laws should be amended or repealed as opposed to simply failing to enforce them. I'm a big believer in the rule of law, and I don't like the idea that legal outcomes are largely dependent upon discretion. I know that they are many times, but I wish that they weren't.

Your opinion on these issues may vary significantly from mine, but there's nothing wrong with that. I appreciate your expertise.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#54
Everyone in our country has to interpret laws to some extent, but the power to settle any disputes rests with the judicial branch, so their interpretation (at least on disputes) is preeminent. AG's can issue opinions all they want, but those opinions are nullified if the court system disagrees with them.

Teach me something, if a prosecutor disputes the constitutionality of a law, what is the process for settling this dispute? Can they file a lawsuit themselves, or does it have to be filed by someone else?

It's important to note that much of what I've posted in this thread is opinion. I've never argued that the prosecutor from Baltimore broke the law. My argument is that she abused her power. She doesn't dispute the constitutionality of these laws, she simply wants to further her political views on social justice reform by refusing to prosecute them. I consider this to be an abuse of power, because those are decisions that should be made by the legislative branch. Once again, this is only my opinion.

It's also my opinion that antiquated laws should be amended or repealed as opposed to simply failing to enforce them. I'm a big believer in the rule of law, and I don't like the idea that legal outcomes are largely dependent upon discretion. I know that they are many times, but I wish that they weren't.

Your opinion on these issues may vary significantly from mine, but there's nothing wrong with that. I appreciate your expertise.
There is certainly nothing wrong with varying opinions.

I mostly jumped in with your statements regarding separation of powers doctrine.

Reasonable minds certainly can disagree on whether a particular exercise of discretion is fair or appropriate.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#55
"This country is by design a union of different states with their own structure and planning which allows ideas to be tried locally without really affecting others. It amazes me that people can sit and complain about a different place trying something that might make their local situation better (or maybe worse) when it will have absolutely no effect on the complainer whatsoever. People simply fear the idea that what they believe in may not be true so bad mouth any test of their pre-conceived notions."

Like, who (in Oklahoma) cares if Tennessee (not the federal govt) outlaws abortion (tries something different) , or Montana (not the federal govt) makes heroin legal (tries something different) or WV (not the federal govt) expands capital punishment (tries something different) to all sorts of crimes? Afterall, such efforts should have absolutely no effect whatsoever on anyone in Oklahoma.

I would think someone stating a concise opinion (you) would understand a theoretical circumstance that directly addresses that opinion.
Doubling down on your lack of understanding of the federal/state relationship with an even longer post saying the same thing didn't really change anything.
Whatever. You know my post was on point and right back at ya, but instead want everyone to think there was some deeper meaning to your post. Again, whatever.
Regardless, you never change. Always telling people they’re either not qualified in some way to express an opinion or shouldn’t have an opinion at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,853
32,239
1,743
oklahoma city
#56
Whatever. You know my post was on point and right back at ya, but instead want everyone to think there was some deeper meaning to your post. Again, whatever.
Regardless, you never change. Always telling people they’re either not qualified in some way to express an opinion or shouldn’t have an opinion at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry, obviously your feelings are hurt. But, you made a stupid post. I, and others, laughed at your repeated attempts to defend it. And now you lash out making up nonsense that I said anything at all about qualifications or somehow took your right to an opinion away in the the exchange. Your post made no sense because it ignores the fact that there is a federal government (but you have all the right in the world to make a senseless point). Your attack makes no sense because neither of us are legal scholars so I didn't and wouldn't call you unqualifed.

You never change. You attacked my point as you like to do in your commonly misguided manner. You were made to look silly in the back and forth, but can't just give up so you resort to your standard ad hominem attacks. Even when it is a blatant lie.
 
Aug 11, 2004
1,706
85
1,678
42
Enid, OK
www.faulklawfirm.com
#57
1. To clarify, the executive branch is also tasked and prohibited from taking executive action that is unconstitutional. In order to do that, they have to determine whether or not laws passed by the legislature are in fact constitutional. The judicial branch only gets involved when there is an actual matter in controversy...a disagreement as to the legality and constitutionality of executive actions (sometime inaction) between two parties with standing. They do not issue advisory opinions as to what the law is.

2. That's an issue of preference for you. This discussion started as one of separation of powers and whether the executive branch HAD to legally enforce all things to the letter of the law. I mentioned the importance of drawing a distinction between preferred policy AND legal discussions. Going to do it again. I'm not saying your preferred policy position and what you would prefer to do with them is wrong. I may disagree with that opinion, but I'm not going to spend time attempting to convince someone that their opinion is wrong just because I have a different one. I will point out....as I have here....incorrect assertions of FACT...particularly when it comes to assertions of what the law is, says, or does. I only do that because it's an area of which I am trained, experience, and well-versed. You'll never see me arguing COVID facts (particularly with a medical professional) because I'm not an epidemioligist.....unless they are way wackadoodle level statements, and even then I'm probably just going to roll my eyes and move on.

3. See #2. It seems to me that your issue is with the level of discretion being utilized...not the notion that they properly and legally have that discretion. Policy v. facts/law.

4. They're already there enforcing federal gun laws. ATF and FBI have field offices throughout the state. And it's going to be US Attorneys, not local District Attorneys prosecuting those cases in Federal District Court, not state court. I guess I didn't make my self clear, but that is the very essence of federalism. Feds are responsible for prosecutions of violation of federal law, and that occurs in federal court. States are responsible for prosecutions of violations of state law, and that occurs in state court. If federal law enforcement authorities and state law enforcement authorities want to work together and assist each other in doing that....great. If they don't....fine by me. There is certainly no law or legal principle that compels them to do so.

In a VERY real sense, that proposed bill is nothing more than political showboating. I'd go so far as to say that Texas Rangers, Dallas PD, Ector County sheriffs, etc. are not doing much enforcing of federal law right now (if any). If one of them picks up someone with an illegal gun....they're getting charged for violations of state law only even if the acts also technically violate federal law.

I hesitate to open up this can of worms because it's likely going to lead to more explanations, but if someone commits an act that is a violation of federal law and state law (main areas would be possession of firearms after former felony conviction and drug possession/dealing), the technically can be convicted of violating BOTH statutes....once in federal court and once in state court...same facts, two prosecutions....two convictions. It's pretty rare that any state/local agency arrests and submits charges to the feds....to enforce federal law. There's presently no requirement for them to do so. So a law that says they can't really doesn't change much...if at all....what is going on or the present state of the law.
On the same vein: we have had many sheriffs come out and say they are a “second amendment sanctuary city” but I can’t get any of them to actually say what this means. Are they saying they are going to ignore gun laws? I know you probably don’t either, just an interesting correlate to “discretion”