On guns, Federal Law trumps State Law?

[Skip]

[snip]

In short, all of the states that have legalized MMJ (and I think it's over half of them now) are, in essence, in open (if rather mild) rebellion against the Federal government. It's a "peaceful" rebellion, but it's still a rebuke to the Federal government's authority.

A rebellion that stops short of gun rights, which is the topic at hand. When was the last time you saw a state sue the Feds for denying a citizen of that state RKBA because he used MJ (MMJ or no)?

Any use of MJ/MMJ is expressly illegal at the Fed level. With the current scheduling, there is no provision for MMJ. There is no gray area here and anyone who says there is doesn't understand the law but it can change (schedule).

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

This scheduling makes it illegal use no matter what the state law says.

This is also the problem with giving away the 10th Amendment. The decision just isn't up to a state which can "rebel" for only as long as FedGov tolerates it. If Obama pulled highway or education funding from Colorado (our tax dollars anyway), weed wouldn't be legal here for long.