Gotta love Wyoming

Antipitas, I read the WY suit as a State rights issue, which is what the Stuart decision boiled down to. WY passed a law that the BATFE contested concerning expunging certain misdemeanor convictions in order to restore lost firearms rights.

The Federal Government (BATFE) has its own interpretation of the word "expunge" that disagreed with the WY definition, and the Fed is claiming authority and issued an ultimatum to WY.

The Stuart case involved Utah State law and Federal law definitions of "emergency" in which the Federal Government claimed authority.

I find these cases similar in that regard and see little chance of success for WY in lieu of the recent Stuart decision.
 
Hate to disagree with your analysis, but the Utah case stems from the differences between the federal 4th amendment and the Utah equivalent.

In the instant case at hand, there are no BOR issues. What's involved are mere statutory issues and interpretation. Ostensively, the 10th may be involved, but only as a peripheral matter.

Go back and reread the actual article, here, and you won't find a reference to the 10th amendment as was made by the OP. What you will find are mentions of statutory law, and only a peripheral mention of states rights (third to the last paragraph of the article) as it relates to the states ability to interpret the 1986 FOPA.

Having written this, I could be entirely wrong. I would like to read the brief. So far, I haven't found it online.
 
From the Casper StarTribune article:

"Besides the disputes about the meaning of "expunge" and the Carrying Concealed Weapon permits, Wyoming wants the court to declare the BATF violated the 10th Amendment's mandate that reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government."

It was quoted in the OP just as it was quoted in the article just as it was quoted above. I'm confused how this is not a BOR issue?
 
Because the major issue is the definition of "expunge" and who gets to decide upon that definition. The 10th amendment issue is peripheral to the major issue. If the Court decides that the BATF gets to define the word, then the minor issue will not be decided, as it will be moot. The court may also decide with Wyoming and still consider the minor issue moot.
 
“However, such policy decisions are reserved for Wyoming’s legislature,” Crank wrote. “The BATF’s actions are an illegal attempt to force BATF’s will upon the Wyoming attorney general and Wyoming’s duly elected legislature.
Crank says the ATF’s actions are arbitrary and capricious. He says they violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reserves to the states those powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government."

http://www.uintacountyherald.com/main.php?story_id=3039&page=23
 
I agree that it would be prudent to read the actual text of the complaint filed by AG Crank.

As I understand it the lawsuit revolves around who (State or Federal) has the power to define "expunge".

edit:

Oops I think I am posting too fast!

Ok, so if the major issue is who defines "expunge", State or Federal, how can that not be a primary argument involving the 10th Amendment?
 
A response from The Casper StarTribune Legal Editor to a readers question is printed here.
The lawsuit answers your questions. The paragraph numbers are those in the lawsuit. The case number is 06-cv-0111J if you want to look it up yourself. (Alas, I don't have a key on the keypad to make the little squiggle that means section before 921 and 922.) Regarding the federal law about firearm possession and domestic violence: 14. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), persons who have "been convicted in any court of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" are precluded from possessing firearms. 15. In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, 100 Stat.449, which amended 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)'s definition of predicate offenses. 16. That amendment is the current version of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) today, and it demonstrates Congress unequivocally intended that states get to decide who may possess firearms (or who are disqualified). The lawsuit in fact does say 1986, not 1996. Regarding CCW permits: This is in fact one of the major sticking points of the lawsuit. As you write, states -- not the federal government -- have the authority to issue CCWs. But the rub comes in with the BATF's view (as the Wyoming Attorney General sees it) relationship between the CCWs, Federal Firearms License dealers, and National Instant Criminal Searches. The lawsuit states: 8. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), FFL dealers must perform a National Instant Criminal Search (NICS) check on firearms purchasers before consummating the sale or transfer. 9. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3)(A), FFL dealers may forego the NICS check if the firearms purchaser possesses a qualifiying carrying concealed weapon (CCW) permit. 10. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3)(A), a CCW permit qualifies as an exception to the NICS check if the CCW "permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by [the CCW applicant] would be in violation of law." 11. In Wyoming, the authorized government official is the Wyoming Attorney General. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-8-104. ... 24. In July 2005, the BATF sent a letter to Wyoming's Attorney General threatening to "alert Federally licensed firearms dealers in [Wyoming] that they can no longer accept the [CCW] permits as a NICS check alternative" unless agreed to refrain from issuing CCW permits to persons who received an expungement under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-1501. See Ex. 3 at 2. So, as I understand the lawsuit, the BATF is not directly invalidating CCW permit. It's telling FFL dealers that they can't accept CCWs of certain people, namely those who have had their misdemeanor domestic violence crimes expunged. Thanks again for writing and your interest in the subject. Tom Morton
Click to expand...

Now we have a better idea of what is going on. No 10th amendment issue, as I surmised. Strictly statutory interpretation. We also have a case number: 06-cv-0111J filed in the US District Court for Wyoming. Unfortunately, this Court, like so many District courts, relies on PACER (Public Access to Electronic Court Records) accounts to furnish the documents. I don't have a PACER account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top