Wyoming Firearm Protection Act
- Thread starter kraigwy
- Start date
HisDudeness
New member
Why is this getting zero play in the mainstream media? I guess they are still trying very hard to keep this argument as one sided as possible.
Alabama Shooter
New member
Wyoming is the least populous state in the US. Any media play would be negative so why bother?
If this bill makes it out of committee, and is passed on the floor of the Wyoming State House, I suspect it will make some news headlines.
I can see it now: "Wyoming Crazy for Assualt Weapons" - NewYork Times - written by a journalist who has never been to the Cowboy State!
Keep your fingers crossed that this one passes. I hope our Governor will sign it if passed, he most likely will, but his is an ex-federal prosecutor.
I can see it now: "Wyoming Crazy for Assualt Weapons" - NewYork Times - written by a journalist who has never been to the Cowboy State!
Keep your fingers crossed that this one passes. I hope our Governor will sign it if passed, he most likely will, but his is an ex-federal prosecutor.
Feds have no power
Frank,
You seem like you are all for State's rights but reading your post makes you sound like a "wolf in sheeps clothing". First, if this law is passed, and any federal agent were to be prossocuted for it, Wyoming does not have to turn said agent over to the federal courts. This would be a State issue, not a Constitutional issue. The supreme court is only supposed to hear cases that pertain to the constitution. As any "gun ban/magazine ban" would not ba an amendment to our Constitution, only an un-constitutional law against the 2nd Amendment, the supreme court would not apply.
Second, I would personally like to see our great State change this bill from a law to an amendment to the State Constitution, adding it to the Wyoming Freedom of Firearms amendment already passed.
People today do not realize that the States already have a trump on any and all federal laws that are not constitutional amendments or treaties with foriegn nations. It is called the 10th amendment! Yes, the Constitution and said treaties with foriegn nations, according to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. This is why the fed is trying to get the small arms treaty passed. They know an amendment to the constitution would fail to be ratified. This is were the States can pick apart federal law. The States just need to start standing up for themselves and our rights! "We the People" can do this!
Call your State representatives! Tell your family and friends to do the same!! Continue to call everyday! They need to hear from The People!!
Frank,
You seem like you are all for State's rights but reading your post makes you sound like a "wolf in sheeps clothing". First, if this law is passed, and any federal agent were to be prossocuted for it, Wyoming does not have to turn said agent over to the federal courts. This would be a State issue, not a Constitutional issue. The supreme court is only supposed to hear cases that pertain to the constitution. As any "gun ban/magazine ban" would not ba an amendment to our Constitution, only an un-constitutional law against the 2nd Amendment, the supreme court would not apply.
Second, I would personally like to see our great State change this bill from a law to an amendment to the State Constitution, adding it to the Wyoming Freedom of Firearms amendment already passed.
People today do not realize that the States already have a trump on any and all federal laws that are not constitutional amendments or treaties with foriegn nations. It is called the 10th amendment! Yes, the Constitution and said treaties with foriegn nations, according to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. This is why the fed is trying to get the small arms treaty passed. They know an amendment to the constitution would fail to be ratified. This is were the States can pick apart federal law. The States just need to start standing up for themselves and our rights! "We the People" can do this!
Call your State representatives! Tell your family and friends to do the same!! Continue to call everyday! They need to hear from The People!!
Frank Ettin
Administrator
No, I'm a lawyer who understands how all this works in the real world. You apparently don't.Raven1776 said:
How do you know? Do you have any actually evidence to support that contention?Raven1776 said:
You continue to display your ignorance. See the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2 (emphasis added):Raven1776 said:
Among other things, any act by a state agent against a federal officer enforcing federal law raises issue under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, quoted elsewhere in this tread). Any attempt by a State to supersede federal law also raises issues under the Supremacy Clause.
Wrong again. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).Raven1776 said:
What you need very badly to do is go back to school and get a basic education in law, civics and history in the real world.Raven1776 said:
Last edited:
So your a lawyer? What form of law do you practice?
Evidence: lets see, everything revolves around the supremacy clause which was basically over written by the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Therefore, all laws created by the federal government, not given authority by the Constitution, are, by default, un-constitutional. Therefore, each State has the obligation to refuse to enforce said law, as well as procecute any federal employee whom tries to enforce said law.
I will agree, there is a problem with this. The States have, for years, given in to the federal authority. To the point that there is a precedence created over the years. This is difficult, if not nearly impossible to erase. But not completely impossible. (More on this later)
What exactly does article II have to do with this? An explanation would be great here as I have my Constitution directly in front of me. Sorry for my ignorance, you must have ment article III. Either way, this power has not been given to the federal government. See the 10th amendment! (People easily forget that the first nine amendments are amendments the fed was banned from delegating and the 10th amendment reaffirmed that!) "See ratification debates" The supremacy clause can only be used if said authority is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. None of the first 10 amendments have been given to the fed through Constitutional amendment. Why do you think they are trying to pass the small arms treaty?
Good call on this case you gave me! This case shows a people content to be slave, as is the case with the California State legislature, as well as many, not all, people living in this State.
Case in point, the only reason the fed was involved was taxes. Had the persons in this case been buying the drug instead of growing it, none of this would have happened. As you see now, numerous States have legalized marijuana. The fed said they will not interfere. Why?
Also, this shows the gross misconseption of the commerce clause.
Article I Section 8, 2nd enumerated power; "To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The key word here being "among". If taken under original intent, this means between. Between the States! Not over the States as we see today.
Of course, my Constitutional studies are a bit rusty and typing is difficult with one arm. Feel free to reply back. I need a good debate.
As well, I did not mean to insult you. You seem like a knowledgeable person. In my humble opinion, most people have been mislead to believe the fed as the ultimate power in "These united States". This was far from the case. Early on anyway.
Evidence: lets see, everything revolves around the supremacy clause which was basically over written by the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Therefore, all laws created by the federal government, not given authority by the Constitution, are, by default, un-constitutional. Therefore, each State has the obligation to refuse to enforce said law, as well as procecute any federal employee whom tries to enforce said law.
I will agree, there is a problem with this. The States have, for years, given in to the federal authority. To the point that there is a precedence created over the years. This is difficult, if not nearly impossible to erase. But not completely impossible. (More on this later)
What exactly does article II have to do with this? An explanation would be great here as I have my Constitution directly in front of me. Sorry for my ignorance, you must have ment article III. Either way, this power has not been given to the federal government. See the 10th amendment! (People easily forget that the first nine amendments are amendments the fed was banned from delegating and the 10th amendment reaffirmed that!) "See ratification debates" The supremacy clause can only be used if said authority is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. None of the first 10 amendments have been given to the fed through Constitutional amendment. Why do you think they are trying to pass the small arms treaty?
Good call on this case you gave me! This case shows a people content to be slave, as is the case with the California State legislature, as well as many, not all, people living in this State.
Case in point, the only reason the fed was involved was taxes. Had the persons in this case been buying the drug instead of growing it, none of this would have happened. As you see now, numerous States have legalized marijuana. The fed said they will not interfere. Why?
Also, this shows the gross misconseption of the commerce clause.
Article I Section 8, 2nd enumerated power; "To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The key word here being "among". If taken under original intent, this means between. Between the States! Not over the States as we see today.
Of course, my Constitutional studies are a bit rusty and typing is difficult with one arm. Feel free to reply back. I need a good debate.
As well, I did not mean to insult you. You seem like a knowledgeable person. In my humble opinion, most people have been mislead to believe the fed as the ultimate power in "These united States". This was far from the case. Early on anyway.
The application of the commerce clause in Raich only makes logical sense to statist lawyers. No sane person would say that an outright prohibition through a tax that was then made impossible to pay and purported for public safety could be justified by the power to regulate commerce between the states. Pages upon pages of legalese to explain the reasoning of something that blatantly makes no sense whatsoever does not alter the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. The whole purpose of growing your own food, making your own medicine, manufacturing your own guns, etc is to remove yourself and seperate your acquisition of these items from commerce. The idea that Congress has the authority to regulate personally acquired items for personal use under the guise of regulating interstate commerce would definitely take several teams of lawyers to twist the English language into something that resembles logic but reeks of tyranny.
The following link takes one to an article dealing with this legislation.
http://www.infowars.com/wyoming-bill-would-nullify-obama-gun-control-jail-feds/
You might have to paste it into your browser, that's what I had to do, then dig through some "chaff" that comes up. Looks as if things might get rather interesting re this proposal.
In passing, I expect that a number of people, possibly a large number of people here have read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Think, that in this proposal, there are echoes of the situations depicted by Mr. Ross?
http://www.infowars.com/wyoming-bill-would-nullify-obama-gun-control-jail-feds/
You might have to paste it into your browser, that's what I had to do, then dig through some "chaff" that comes up. Looks as if things might get rather interesting re this proposal.
In passing, I expect that a number of people, possibly a large number of people here have read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Think, that in this proposal, there are echoes of the situations depicted by Mr. Ross?
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
"The application of the commerce clause in Raich only makes logical sense to statist lawyers."
Well, okay, fine, but you're still stuck with it. You can have total unanimity from everybody at this website, but so what? You can have 99% of the US population in agreement with you, but again, so what? Once SCOTUS rules, the hunt is over.
_____
Much of the opening commentary of the Inforwars essay is Pi in the Sky BS. States can pass whatever laws or resolutions they want, but the feds have the bigger hammer. The only hope any state has in this BS is to file suit in federal court and go on up to SCOTUS--gun stuff, marijuana, or the legalization of mopery with intent to gawk. Newman's pipedream ain't worth the paper it ain't written on.
And to suggest that the romantic tale that's given in the second half of Ross' UC is anything other than a divertissment is foolish in the extreme--and tantamount to advocating breaking the law. Not real smart.
________
IANAL. But I've been around since before they hauled in dirt. Folks would do better to keep the pressure on their Congresscritters, in particular reminding any recalcitrant Representative that there's an election in two years. Nattering about nullification is about as useful as peeing in the whiskey.
Well, okay, fine, but you're still stuck with it. You can have total unanimity from everybody at this website, but so what? You can have 99% of the US population in agreement with you, but again, so what? Once SCOTUS rules, the hunt is over.
_____
Much of the opening commentary of the Inforwars essay is Pi in the Sky BS. States can pass whatever laws or resolutions they want, but the feds have the bigger hammer. The only hope any state has in this BS is to file suit in federal court and go on up to SCOTUS--gun stuff, marijuana, or the legalization of mopery with intent to gawk. Newman's pipedream ain't worth the paper it ain't written on.
And to suggest that the romantic tale that's given in the second half of Ross' UC is anything other than a divertissment is foolish in the extreme--and tantamount to advocating breaking the law. Not real smart.
________
IANAL. But I've been around since before they hauled in dirt. Folks would do better to keep the pressure on their Congresscritters, in particular reminding any recalcitrant Representative that there's an election in two years. Nattering about nullification is about as useful as peeing in the whiskey.
vranasaurus
New member
If a state tried to prosecute a federal agent for enforcing state law the agent could and would assert sovereign immunity. A state likely can't prosecute the federal government or it's agents(when acting within the scope of their duties) for a violation of state law. Idaho v. Horiuchi (ruby ridge case). (district court dismissed case, 9th circuit affirmed then reheard and reversed, and then was about to rehear the case again when Idaho dropped the charges)
I think in the case of a federal agent being arrested for simply enforcing federal law, it won't be as close of a call as Horiuchi.
The supremacy clause, sovereign immunity, and the supreme court's interpretation of the commerce clause in Raich renders this law nothing but symbolic.
The Constitution and Federal Law mean what the Supreme Court says they do. (Marbury v.s Madison) Until a federal law is held by a federal court to be unconstitutional it is the supreme law of the land.
I think in the case of a federal agent being arrested for simply enforcing federal law, it won't be as close of a call as Horiuchi.
The supremacy clause, sovereign immunity, and the supreme court's interpretation of the commerce clause in Raich renders this law nothing but symbolic.
The Constitution and Federal Law mean what the Supreme Court says they do. (Marbury v.s Madison) Until a federal law is held by a federal court to be unconstitutional it is the supreme law of the land.
Alabama Shooter
New member
Sure but the Federal government does not follow "that" law anymore. Must be nice to pick and choose which laws they are going to enforce today.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Cite a case in which the Supreme Court so ruled. Without a case on point, your opinion is just meaningless conjecture.Raven1776 said:
The word is "precedent."Raven1776 said:
Yes, I meant Article III. It was a typo. I've fixed it. I correctly referred to Article III in post 15.Raven1776 said:
Irrelevant twaddle. Gonzales says what it says and is the law.Raven1776 said:
The federal government has said that for now it will not interfere in those States with recreational use. It's call prosecutorial discretion and is a well established concept. It's basically a policy decision to not use resources in that way at this time.Raven1776 said:
On the other hand, see --
- "Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns, Raids..."
- "U.S. raids L.A. marijuana shops..."
- "Southern Oregon medical marijuana farm raided by federal drug agents..."
- "2 Anaheim pot shops raided,..."
- "Sacramento marijuana dispensary latest target of federal crackdown"
Again, that's up to the courts and not you.Raven1776 said:
Real life takes place in the real world, not in your alternate universe. And in any case, you don't have the final say on what the original intent of the Constitution was.Raven1776 said:
It's not about not following the law. The law doesn't say that a crime must be prosecuted. There is such a thing as "prosecutorial discretion." A prosecuting authority gets to decide when, where and how to enforce criminal laws. So a prosecuting authority, like the United States Justice Department may decide as a matter of policy to go easy on something like recreational or medical marijuana use in States that have legalized it, at least under some circumstances. However, I guess you haven't been keeping up on current events; for example see --Alabama Shooter said:
Last edited:
Frank,
What form of law do you practice? You seem to know all there is about Constitutional law. You also seem to have the time and resources to look up each case pertaining to the Constitution.
There is a little thing called original intent which has been used many times in the past for the Constitution. I do not have the time today to look up these cases. Sorry, I don't live for these forums.
Sorry, precedent. I stand corrected.
Irrelavent twaddle? Try quoting the rest of what I said on that issue! Typical lawyer, only using what you deem relevant.
You have a serious misconception! If you think that what you see today, not only from the State but the people as well will not effect what happens in congress or the supreme court, you are sadly mistaken! "We the People" have made changes in the past! See the 17th, 18th, and 21rst amendments! If you honestly believe we cannot effect change today, you are the one living in a fantasy world! Also see the sagebrush rebellion. Everyday citizens effected change!
What form of law do you practice? You seem to know all there is about Constitutional law. You also seem to have the time and resources to look up each case pertaining to the Constitution.
There is a little thing called original intent which has been used many times in the past for the Constitution. I do not have the time today to look up these cases. Sorry, I don't live for these forums.
Sorry, precedent. I stand corrected.
Irrelavent twaddle? Try quoting the rest of what I said on that issue! Typical lawyer, only using what you deem relevant.
You have a serious misconception! If you think that what you see today, not only from the State but the people as well will not effect what happens in congress or the supreme court, you are sadly mistaken! "We the People" have made changes in the past! See the 17th, 18th, and 21rst amendments! If you honestly believe we cannot effect change today, you are the one living in a fantasy world! Also see the sagebrush rebellion. Everyday citizens effected change!
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Sutton
Moderator
^^^^ Raven:
Frank is a well known and well respected expert here. He is thoughtful, insightful, understands the difference between "the way things are" and "the way things would be if we were able to have it the way we want it".
He's described things the way they are and are likely to stay.
You're describing a fantasy view of the way you (and probably a lot of us) *wish* they would be.
Failing a "second american revolution" over this (which, frankly, is about as likely as having flying pigs that self-convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot), you're barking at the moon.
Really... with four posts to your, er... "credit"... sit back and watch and enjoy the forum here for a while before further embarassing yourself.
Willie
.
Frank is a well known and well respected expert here. He is thoughtful, insightful, understands the difference between "the way things are" and "the way things would be if we were able to have it the way we want it".
He's described things the way they are and are likely to stay.
You're describing a fantasy view of the way you (and probably a lot of us) *wish* they would be.
Failing a "second american revolution" over this (which, frankly, is about as likely as having flying pigs that self-convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot), you're barking at the moon.
Really... with four posts to your, er... "credit"... sit back and watch and enjoy the forum here for a while before further embarassing yourself.
Willie
.
Alabama Shooter
New member
From your Rolling Stone article:
And
The case cited was about medical MJ. Medical MJ is no longer being pursued.
Raven, you really should heed the advice from Mr. Sutton.
I think that Frank will be the first to admit that he doesn't know all[/i] there is to know, in the field of Constitutional Law. However, there are certain subjects about the law that apply in general about all judicial procedures.
One of those is that the Supreme Court is the last word on what is deemed constitutional and what is not. We may not like it, but this is the real world that we live and work in.
As much as it might rankle you, it is the real world we deal with, here at TFL.
I am not an attorney, of any kind. I have not formally studied the law. Yet through the years, I have learned a thing or two. Which is why you won't see too many disagreements with how I report on the various cases.
What Frank has written, in this thread, is general interpretation of the rules and statutes that govern the applicable law. He is not wrong, here.
What Wyoming is doing, is really a symbolic act. It has no real consequence if ever applied to federal agents. The only game changer would be if 38 States all passed the same type of statutes. I'll let you figure out why.
I think that Frank will be the first to admit that he doesn't know all[/i] there is to know, in the field of Constitutional Law. However, there are certain subjects about the law that apply in general about all judicial procedures.
One of those is that the Supreme Court is the last word on what is deemed constitutional and what is not. We may not like it, but this is the real world that we live and work in.
As much as it might rankle you, it is the real world we deal with, here at TFL.
I am not an attorney, of any kind. I have not formally studied the law. Yet through the years, I have learned a thing or two. Which is why you won't see too many disagreements with how I report on the various cases.
What Frank has written, in this thread, is general interpretation of the rules and statutes that govern the applicable law. He is not wrong, here.
What Wyoming is doing, is really a symbolic act. It has no real consequence if ever applied to federal agents. The only game changer would be if 38 States all passed the same type of statutes. I'll let you figure out why.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Users are apparently not currently being prosecuted for their use. However, Reich was decided in 2005, and the various articles I linked to in post 34 relate to federal law enforcement actions against medical marijuana dispensaries and a farm during the period June, 2012 to September, 2012.Alabama Shooter said:
No, I don't know all there is about constitutional law, but this is all real basic stuff. In any case, I sure seem to know a good deal more about the constitutional law, and law in general, than you do.Raven1776 said:
Then you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously.Raven1776 said:
And it looks like you didn't read post 18:Raven1776 said:
Frank Ettin said:
Last edited:
