wrote in message
...
Your sole objective in posting here seems to be of a trolling nature,

I don't think The Dude is a troll, but Dude, answer this

Under Federal law, a state can NOT make food from another state
illegal, and if the person with the
food is travelling interstate, it falls under Federal law and not
state law.

Can you site that federal law. I've never heard of it.

yet you on a family vacation can go to a regular grocery store in
Appalachia, buy cans of food there, and when you get
into California, if a California cop catches you with those cans of
food you bought in Appalachia, you are now in very
very very serious legal trouble since California made a law declaring
that Appalachian food is illegal drugs, which
states can prohibit and make illegal under state law since Federal law
also prohibits and makes illegal drugs illegal.

Are you sure? I've never heard of food being classified as illegal drugs by
a state. I know California will dissallow food being brought into the state
due to bugs that cause crop blights. They just tell you you can't bring it
in. They don't charge you with a crime. I know this from personal
experience.


You are now in very very very serious legal trouble for using illegal
drugs, and being a drug dealer, and being a drug
dealer who gave minors (your kids) illegal drugs. And contributing to
the delinquency of minors.

And now the Feds can arrest you for using illegal drugs since
California police records "prove" you did.
Did you break the law or not?


Not true. The feds can only arrest and charge you under specific federal
laws that they must site when charging you. California can make milk
illegal and classify it as a narcotic. But unless there is a federal law
that also classifies it as a narcotic, the feds can't charge you with a
crime. It would be a state matter.

And heaven help the poor Appalachian family who actually eats some of
those cans of food in the next state right
before they get into California and then a California cop also gets
them on "traces of illegal drugs were found in
their blood".

Did that family break the law or not?

No.


remember, under Federal law, states are NOT allowed to make food from
other states illegal.

But under Federal law, states ARE allowed to arrest people for using,
distributing, and even simply just having illegal
drugs.

That's not really accurate, either. State laws are what allows a state to
arrest someone. A state cannot charge someone under a federal law just as a
federal prosecutor can't charge someone under a state law. It's a little
thing called jurisdiction. A state can only charge a person for having or
distributing drugs under a state law. The federal laws against possession
are only enforceable on federal property where the federal government has
"exclusive federal jurisdiction." I know this from my training in federal
law enforcement. This is only given by a state legislature and approved by
the Attorney General except in territories and on reservations where no
state has authority.

Sorry. Your argument sounds plausible; but the basic premise is inaccurate.

Are you sure? *I've never heard of food being classified as illegal drugs by
a state.

California is the ONLY state in the entire U.S. that does it.

Go to a regular grocery store in Appalachia, buy some cans of "poke
salat"
or "poke salad" and just try bringing it into California, making sure
that a
bunch of California cops see you with it and see how long it takes
before you end up in the poke. (pun intended).

Did that family break the law or not?

No.

While I agree they didn't, California disagrees.

Just like someone in a state where a blood alcohol content not
considered
drunk in that state drinks legal in that state then crosses over into
the next
state where that level of blood alcohol content is considered drunk
and over
the legal limit even thoug he never drank any alcohol in that latter
state.

He still legally gets arrested for DUI (driving under the influence
of alcohol)

In the same way, California can legally arrest someone for driving
under the
influence of illegal drugs )



remember, under Federal law, states are NOT allowed to make food from
other states illegal.

s. *A state cannot charge someone under a federal law just as a
federal prosecutor can't charge someone under a state law. *It's a little
thing called jurisdiction.

Interesting. I recently read claims that since the FCC no longer
investigates
complaints of ham radio interference that all complaints about ham
radios
interfering with someone automatically fall under local police
jurisdiction.

That is separate from and in addition to the law giving local police
the authority
to regulate CB radio.


,


*A. *The federal laws against possession
are only enforceable on federal property where the federal government has
"exclusive federal jurisdiction." *I

Now that can't be correct because if it is correct, then the FCC laws
against
posession (of 10 metermateur radios and certain FCC-approved CB radios
and
10 meter power amplifiers) are only enforcable on federal property
where the
federal government has exclusive federal jurisdiction and not
enforcable on
non-federal government property like Pilot truckstop stores or
private homes
and the FCC is committing a very serious crime by doing so.

I'm not talking about using them illegally. I'm talking about the
mere posession
of them. Since such devices could be and were used legally (or so
they
thought) by some people before the FCC declared that they were always
illegal
even back then.

And the FCC rule against operating certain types of FCC-approved CB
radios
ON the legal 40 CB channels makes the majority of , if not all of the
CB
radios sold from the mid 70's to the present day against the law to
use on
the legal 40 CB channels.!!!!

They tried moving it up to the more localized UHF band (frs) but John
Wilkerson did his best to make sure the opposite happened. Much to
the
delight of many 11 meter CB operators who don't want to move off the
11 meter band.

11 meter CB is here to stay. I hope. Because most of us poor people
can't
afford a bunch of new radios.

And yet the radio cops will turn in someone who is using a early to
mid 70's
FCC-approved Mr. Microphone for "illegally broadcastng with 1 watt of
power on
the FM broadcast band".

Well, from what I learned in public school, by law the FCC is supposed
to grandfather those devices.

However, that's not what's been happening lately from FCC notices I
read on
the internet.

The oposite seems to be happening and that they're fining anyone
using
any device over the current limits even if that device was made years
ago.

Some peole can't afford a new Mr. Microphone. Or a new CB.

And even some that can, see buying a new one as wasteful. Especially
if their
old one still works as well as it ever did.

Since current FCC rules prohibt using the majority of, if not all of,
the FCC-approved CB radios sold since the mid 1970's to the current
day on the regular legal 40 CB channels, look out!!!!

Because they've really been enforcing it lately, thanks to some of
the
self-appointed radio cops.

The self-appointed radio cops messed up MURS, and CB, and ham radio.

But even when pointed out to them how they messed it up, they still
couldn't
see the forest for the trees until it came back to bite them in the
butt.

And now the self-appointed radio cops are complaining about the very
rules
that they theirselves wanted to force into existence and that they
theirselves did get forced into existence.