state vs federal: precedence

1st question: without going into great detail(as the BATFE is probably listening and watching), if a state specifically lists APCP as a regulated/controlled explosive, and requires a person to have a state permit to purchase/store/transport said APCP.....then would APCP rocket motors be considered explosives and a state explosives permit be required for purchase and use?
2nd question: the BATFE currently say they have a 62.5 g exemption for APCP rocket motors....If a state says APCP is a regulated explosive and has no such exemption, then does the State law trump Federal law? Its my understanding that a State law can be more strict but not more liberal than Federal Law? I guess I'm asking if teh state law has no such 62.5g exmeption for the explosive material, then is the State law the law in that state or is the Federal law ,law in that state?
shockie B)

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, we're trying for the latter in CA by passing Prop. 215... The Feds are fighting back... but the Supreme Court is at least curbing their worst excesses.
(The statements coming from the "Office of National Drug Policy" remind me of those from Saddam's Minister of Information during the war: "that's what they're paid to say"...)
-dave w

  Quoted Text Here  
Precisely.

  Quoted Text Here  
There may be no examples of that unless you call a CA MR or HPR permit (the only state that has them at all) an explosives license.
  Quoted Text Here  
BUT they cannot point to it.
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, the more restrictive law trumps.
  Quoted Text Here  
But in the case of APCP as used in rocket motors and reloads it is federally exempt and not state controlled except perhaps in CA.
Jerry