Wyoming Firearm Protection Act

Watching a new poster try to take on Frank in a law debate was like watching the Discovery channel. You see the polar bear behind the happy little seal, but the seal doesn't.

Heck, I'm a second-year law student and I learn something from just about everything Frank posts. Al too, for that matter, who might not have formal legal education but puts an impressive amount of primary source research together, especially on court cases and pending legislation.

Humility matters. Understanding reality as it differs from ideology matters too.
 
Nobody wants flying pigs that self convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot?

Pity... :p


Frank and Al are definately our "go-to" guys for this stuff. A moment of thanks offered from old Willie before we resume our normally scheduled rant.


Best,

Willie


.
 
The next time I see one of those flyin'-pigs 'round these parts I'll have a shot and let you know. I'm headed out into the desert now with a loaded 1860 Army Colt, and hope springs eternal for both flyin' pigs and Wyoming succeeding in succession. Texas too while we're at it. Fur their size flyin'-pigs I'll load up the Walker Colt. Everythin's bigger in Texas.


Willie


.
 
Thanks, guys.

Al really knows his stuff, and I marvel that he has the patience to keep as current as he does.

And personally I prefer to keep my chocolate and bacon separate. And if anything is going to cover anything, I'd like my bacon covering a cheeseburger.

No flying pigs, but I got a few flying pheasants the week before last.
 
Having supreme court justices appointed by the executive branch seems to me to be the source of such skewed perspectives that are outside of the will of the people and a literal interpretation of the constitution. Why aren't federal judges elected? We elect the members of the other branches, why does the branch that most directly interacts with the citizens rely on appointment?
 
Nobody wants flying pigs that self convert to chocolate covered bacon when shot?
Click to expand...
Tell me more of these chocolate pigs, for I am intrigued.

Having supreme court justices appointed by the executive branch seems to me to be the source of such skewed perspectives that are outside of the will of the people and a literal interpretation of the constitution.
Click to expand...
Let's remember that Justices aren't appointed via rubber stamp. Article II states that they are appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." We do have a say, however indirectly, who gets on the Court.
 
So my understanding is, that if a federal AWB was enacted, Wyoming probably could not challenge it directly - because they'd have no standing correct?

But part of their law also includes defending a Wyoming citizen charged under any type of federal ban. So... wouldn't that amount to Wyoming challenging a federal ban, and couldn't or wouldn't they challenge it on 10th Amendment grounds? I'm not saying they'd win, I'm just trying to undertand the possible way it could play out.
 
Let's remember that Justices aren't appointed via rubber stamp. Article II states that they are appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." We do have a say, however indirectly, who gets on the Court.



Can you *imagine* popularly voted supreme court justices?

It's bad enough that "the people" get to vote on a President. At least *he* cannot destroy the constitution, at least not directly. But supreme court justices? Whoever promised more bacon (chocolate covered or plain) to the "masses" would win.... and where does anyone think *that* would get us?


And for you also, behold:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate-covered_bacon



Willie

.
 
Well, I'm certainly no lawyer, so I'm not taking on Frank.

I would ask his opinion on this analysis from the Cato institute regarding a state's capacity to resist federal intervention.

Note that this link has a further link to a PDF at the bottom of the page for the whole article.

http://www.cato.org/publications/po...ium=email&mc_cid=371487743b&mc_eid=b8816b9b58


While the original premiss is about Marijuana the author makes reference to the fact that this line of reasoning may hold for other areas as well. This was written well before the current national non-discussion on gun control started.
 
Whoever promised more bacon (chocolate covered or plain) to the "masses" would win
Click to expand...

Chocolate_covered_bacon_from_Minnesota_State_Fair.jpg


Ermagherd...shut up and take my guns! ;)

Can you *imagine* popularly voted supreme court justices?
Click to expand...
It would be a disaster. As it is, they're rightfully insulated from the electoral process, but not entirely immune to it.
 
Only one tiny point to interject, then we can get back to flying chocolate covered bacon...

Once SCOTUS rules, the hunt is over.
Click to expand...
Not totally correct, for the Court can reverse itself in later decisions, I believe, similar to Dredd Scott? I might be wrong.
 
Not totally correct, for the Court can reverse itself in later decisions, I believe, similar to Dredd Scott?.
Click to expand...
The major provisions of Dred Scott v. Sanford were effectively nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments (and the Taney Court was none too happy about that). While historians (and some later Justices) acknowledged the poor wisdom of the decision, it was not overturned.

The most famous reversal would be Brown v. Board of Education, but that took over five decades to happen. We don't want to be stuck with that sort of time scale with the 2nd Amendment.
 
Most state court judges are elected. Federal judges are not. It's a balancing act either way and a matter of tradeoffs.

mrbatchelor said:
Well, I'm certainly no lawyer, so I'm not taking on Frank.

I would ask his opinion on this analysis from the Cato institute regarding a state's capacity to resist federal intervention...
Click to expand...
Only had a chance to glance at it so far. I'll read it when I get some time and post my thoughts.
 
mrbatchelor said:
Note that this link has a further link to a PDF at the bottom of the page for the whole article.

http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...eid=b8816b9b58


While the original premiss is about Marijuana the author makes reference to the fact that this line of reasoning may hold for other areas as well. This was written well before the current national non-discussion on gun control started.
Click to expand...

I would take very little comfort from that article. Cato is generally an excellent source and I do not personally agree with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich.

The author's thesis is largely uncontroversial; the scope of marijuana use means that federal resources for enforcement against users can not result in a meaningful ban of marijuana use. Further, Congress does not have the authority to treat a state as a mere administrative unit and compel state resources to enforce the federal marijuana ban.

So what? Neither of these observations would serve as a defense against federal prosecution. By analogy, you would not stand under a tree during a lightning storm just because the risk was slim though appreciable.

Others may take another meaning from this article, but because I see not even an argument that there is protection from federal prosecution in permissive state law, I would draw no sense of security from such law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top