Wyoming Firearm Protection Act

Alabama Shooter said:
When you get "bad" decisions the legal recourse is Article 5.
Click to expand...
Of course one question will always be whether it was a bad decision insofar as it really didn't comport with the law and precedent or a bad decision insofar as that law as thus properly applied did not achieve a satisfactory result.

In any case, amendment of the Constitution is not the only recourse. Sometimes when the law as applied by a court doesn't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work.

One fairly recent example that comes immediately to mind involves 18 USC 922(q), the federal Gun Free School Zone Act. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the law as originally enacted was unconstitutional (United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). Thereafter, Congress reenacted the law revised in a manner intended to overcome the objections of the Supreme Court.

More recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a matter of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.
 
Last edited:
Luger_carbine said:
...I'm not wondering about Wyoming arresting federal agents. I am wondering if Wyoming because of this act, can get a case before the courts that challenges federal firearms law.
Click to expand...
Why would Wyoming even want to bother. Such court challenges can be, and are regularly, pursued by private litigants. Both Heller and McDonald were brought by private litigants.

There are currently over 70 major RKBA cases brought by private litigants pending at various stages in various federal courts around the country. Many of these cases are part of an organized litigation strategy designed to begin to add clarity and dimension to the ruling in Heller and McDonald.
 
An individual has a case under the Second Amendment, but what I am asking is - couldn't Wyoming defend any Wyoming citizen charged under some new federal AWB, under the 10th Amendment? Defend based on the claim that the complaint against the defendant violates State's Powers ?
 
Last edited:
It appears that this bill is stalled at introduction. It hasn't been assigned to a commitee as of today.

I just wrote the Speaker of the Wyoming House, Represenative Lubnau, and pressed my suport for getting this bill moving. His email address is tom.lubnau@wyoleg.gov if anyone else from Wyoming would like to rattle his chain a bit. BTW he is the rep for Wyoming House District 31 in Gillette.
 
Luger_carbine said:
An individual has a case under the Second Amendment, but what I am asking is - couldn't Wyoming defend any Wyoming citizen charged under some new federal AWB, under the 10th Amendment? Defend based on the claim that the complaint against the defendant violates State's Powers ?
Click to expand...
No. As I pointed out early on, federal law trumps Wyoming law.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
The process is impeachment, and it has been done with federal judges.
Click to expand...

Huh... then who presides when the Chief Justice is the one being impeached? Isn't he supposed to preside over impeachment proceedings?
 
JimDandy said:
Huh... then who presides when the Chief Justice is the one being impeached? Isn't he supposed to preside over impeachment proceedings?
Click to expand...

I suspect that if it ever actually happens they'll figure something out.

Oh, and no the Chief Justice doesn't preside over the impeachment. He presides over the trial on the articles of impeachment (the charges).
 
Missouri is following suit

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...il-time-for-feds-violating-the-2nd-amendment/
Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.
Click to expand...
 
And the Missouri law will have no real effect, as already discussed in connection with Wyoming. It can have, however, some symbolic benefit.
 
IF

Barack Obama and John McCain(just to cover both parties as this is a theoretical/philosophical question, not party bashing) are arrested by the FBI and/or ATF on their way to a rifle range in Wyoming, for having 30 round magazines....

And IF

Wyoming had their own laws on the books that said possessing these 30 round magazines was a misdemeanor punshable by 5 seconds of community service... OR alternately demand such a standard of proof in their state courts that noone could ever be found guilty..

THEN
Couldn't the state of Wyoming demand they be tried in a Wyoming state court as it was their jurisdiction, double jeopardy attaches, end result slap on the wrist obviously aimed at nullifying Federal Law?
 
Really? That logic would imply that if Mother Theresa were to succumb to road rage and plow right over the top of Yitshak Rabin on I-90 in the Seattle City limits, Seattle/WA could try her, and if they failed, the Feds could then try her as it was a federal road?!
 
Jim, both the State and the Feds could try her at the same time. Theoretically. But... (just using your supposed lawbreaker) Have you really ever seen anyone try to prosecute a ghost? ;)
 
I like the idea and am not going to get wrapped up in it with Mr. Ettin... Who has proven himself genuinely worthy of the title "Lawyer" in my book.
 
When discussing someone's field that has an immediate and profound affect on your continued living or quality of life, you don't have to like him, but you better damn well listen to him. And don't look a gift horse in the mouth either. You're getting free legal advice. But like everything else you get what you pay for too.

He's not saying it's not great, he's saying don't take this to mean you go strolling down mainstreet in Cheyenne with Ma Duece and a LAWS rocket. Its a black eye, not an amputation.
 
Thanks guys

Allow me to say I have seen people serve state time and federal time for the same crimes.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank our professionals for offering advice. I find their words calming, and an anchor to reality.
 
Jim,

Let me just confirm that vranasaurus and Al Norris are correct about double jeopardy. One can be tried both for a state criminal charge and a federal criminal charge without violation double jeopardy, even if each charge is based on the same facts.

You might remember the Rodney King incident in the early 1990s. The four police officers who were involved in his beating were charged under state law with various "excessive force" crimes, tried in state court and acquitted (well, one drew a hung jury as to one charge). They were subsequently tired in federal court on federal charges involving the same incident and facts, and two of the officers were convicted and sent to federal prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top