Wyoming Firearm Protection Act

K

kraigwy

New member
"Firearm Protection Act" HR 0104

Wyoming is going to make it illegal to enforce any more federal gun laws.


1 AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law
2 which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit
3 the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on
4 firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming;
5 providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.

(d) Any federal law, rule, regulation or order
3 created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be
4 unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law,
5 rule, regulation or order attempts to:
6
7 (i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi8
automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
9
10 (ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other
11 firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
12
13 Section 2. This act is effective immediately upon
14 completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law
15 as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming
16 Constitution.
17
18 (END)
Click to expand...

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

I love this part:

19 (c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of
20 Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government
21 for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture,
22 sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm
23 accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained
24 exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
Click to expand...
 
So, why is this different than the States that legalized marijuana? Mr. Obama has stated that the DEA would not enforce the Federal Marijuana laws in those States, so would the same theory apply here?
 
yeah but who is going to enforce it? Not the local police and sherrif's dept, not the state police. There is no Federal Police force, only investigative and regulatory enforcement agencies. The FBI and BATF will have a hard time enforcing anything without the cooperation of the state and local police.

I think it is wonderful
 
Kraig I may come join you in Wyoming, New York has lost it's mind. Here's an excerpt from NYS bill S01422 (edited for content and length):

S 5. Section 265.02 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 764 of the
9 laws of 2005, is amended to read as follows:
10 S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
11 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third
12 degree when:
23 (5) (i)Such person possesses three or more firearms; or (ii) such
24 person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
25 or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
26 immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
27 did not take place in the person's home or place of business; or
31 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felo-
32 ny.

By the way a class D felony carries a penalty of 2-7yrs in state prison.

Oh yeah and let's not forget this little gem:

33 S 6. Section 265.04 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 764 of the
34 laws of 2005, is amended to read as follows:
35 S 265.04 Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree.
36 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the first
37 degree when such person:

40 (2) possesses ten or more firearms; OR
41 (3) POSSESSES AN ASSAULT WEAPON; OR 42 (4) POSSESSES A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE. 43 Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree is a class B felo-.
44 ny

Class B felonies carry a penalty of 5-25yrs in a state prison
These would be considered violent felonies also. If this bill passes I'm packing my stuff and bailing out of this state, retirement be damned.

Anyone interested can read the full text athttp://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01422&term=&Summary=Y&Text=Y
Stu
 
Obama will most likely issue an EO to enforce this law on Wyoming creating a legal battle
Click to expand...
Assuming such laws take place on the federal level, it should make things very interesting from a 10th Amendment standpoint.

I've little doubt the Supreme Court would find in favor of the federal government in such a situation. Enforcement? Remains to be seen.
 
The several States that have passed these Firearms Protection Acts (by that or any other name) are States that are challenging the Commerce Clause legislation of the Feds.

In a nutshell, these States are saying that the Courts have gone too far in what it has allowed the Congress to legislate, in the name of "Interstate Commerce."
 
The several States that have passed these Firearms Protection Acts (by that or any other name) are States that are challenging the Commerce Clause legislation of the Feds.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Wyoming was one of them. I've yet to see a court challenge, though.

Interestingly enough, H.R. 21, the first gun control bill of this session, cites the Commerce Clause as its authority.
 
I feel rather dumb for having made the previous comment.

Having now read the bill, if it passes, it puts some teeth into the previously passed Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and it serves as a warning to all of the Congress that should it pass legislation purporting to ban firearms or ammunition or that provides for registration, all federal law enforcement personnel who attempt to enforce these purported federal laws may be prosecuted under State law for a felony.

Now I have to see if my Idaho legislature is following suit!....
 
Having now read the bill, if it passes, it puts some teeth into the previously passed Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and it serves as a warning to all of the Congress that should it pass legislation purporting to ban firearms or ammunition or that provides for registration, all federal law enforcement personnel who attempt to enforce these purported federal laws may be prosecuted under State law for a felony.
Click to expand...
Didn't we do this 150 years ago?

Do these politicians not learn?

Edit: I'm on Wyoming's side
 
Now I have to see if my Idaho legislature is following suit!....
Click to expand...
I've been sending emails, to get the same thing going in Utah, since December 18th. Unfortunately, the new session doesn't start until the end of January, and they only have about 8 days to get new bills introduced. (Sounds like a lot... but the legislature seems to waste about 7.9 of them. :rolleyes:)
 
When I was looking for an organization to join to fulfill a CMP requirement,I chose a lifetime membership in the Wyoming State Shooting Association.

I live in Colorado,but I chose the WSSA because I recognise and respect the work they have done in regard to handgun carry in the state of Wyoming.

I still do not live in Wyoming,but I feel real good about joining the WSSA.
 
Before we all get too excited, it's extremely doubtful that this would get anywhere in federal court.

Remember that the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers also provided in the Constitution (Article III):
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
Click to expand...

And with regard to the reach of the Commerce Clause, see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
 
Frank, I agree with what you wrote. I would also point out that should a Federal Agent be prosecuted, that trial would be removed to Federal Court and qualified immunity would then be attached. However....

All of these State laws are aimed at restricting the reach of Raich, in that the regulation of interstate commerce has gone too far when it explicitly interferes with a States police power.

Let's all remember that the Federal Government has no inherent police power and that it has only been through the commerce clause that such power has attached and eroded the 10th amendment.
 
Al Norris said:
...All of these State laws are aimed at restricting the reach of Raich, in that the regulation of interstate commerce has gone too far when it explicitly interferes with a States police power...
Click to expand...
Al, I agree, and symbolically these laws contain a powerful political message.

But legally, the only way the reach of Raich can be restricted is by the federal courts or by federal statutes limiting their preemptive effect. In effect either the federal courts will need to find bases upon which to retreat from their expansive application of the Commerce Clause, or Congress will need to decide that excessive encroachment on state prerogatives is bad public policy.

And of course there are tradeoffs, and we in the gun community have our own ambivalence. On one hand we complain about the expansion of the Commerce Clause and applaud state laws like this one in Wyoming purporting to restrict that expansion. On the other hand, in other contexts we rail at the confusion created by a hodgepodge of state gun laws.

And of course the 10th Amendment tension goes far beyond firearm laws. Do we want to see "states' rights" again surface as a justification for discrimination against blacks, Asians, Jews, or guys named Al or Frank?
 
The way I see it, if it passes, the worse case is at least the feds wont have any help from the County & Statel LE officers.

It ain't like the feds will be able to go door to door..........the doors are too far apart and they'd probably get lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top