Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 121

Thread: Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

    Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a new bill that, if passed, would nullify any federal restrictions on guns, threatening to jail federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, ammunition magazines or ammunition.

    The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

    The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

    In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyomin...3#.UPClNHfheSp
    Last edited by zack991; 01-11-2013 at 06:52 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    how's the job market in Wyoming? cost of living? I'm considering moving there now lol

  3. #3
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Would this law work?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin Hutchison View Post
    Federal triumphs state.
    constitutional trumps unconstitutional. I do agree that this law won't change anything though, since the FED would just threaten to cut off funding and the State will fold like an origami swan.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Devin Hutchison View Post
    Federal triumphs state.
    Our federal system is not a hierarchy. Federal only is supposed to trump State in those specific areas that the States empowered the federal government when THEY created it. The States and the People are supposed to be sovereign in all other respects.

    I like this approach. It is as close to what the Framer's intended as I've seen in a long time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Our federal system is not a hierarchy. Federal only is supposed to trump State in those specific areas that the States empowered the federal government when THEY created it. The States and the People are supposed to be sovereign in all other respects.

    I like this approach. It is as close to what the Framer's intended as I've seen in a long time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I agree, but , unfortunately, the previous poster is right; as soon as the free money is threatened, this will disappear like a fart in the wind.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    I think the real plan of action should be re-drawing the borders. We don't need to secede; those who refuse the Constitution have already seceded. We need to separate them from us. Let the urban centers have their neo-communist irresponsibility. We need to stop giving them control over our lives and wallets. These urban centers use their unsustainable population to exert dominance over vast stretches of Red Land. Simply ignore them, draw a new map, and keep on respecting and supporting the Constitution. Let the blue island states collapse in their own arrogance while we move on without the burden of carrying them with us.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    The federal government either has this authority or it doesn't, What WY law says doesn't really matter.

    But it's a statement. And a good one.

    And it would likely mean a lot to WY LEO's who, while still federally authorized to enforce federal laws, hopefully wouldn't if this was a state law.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    While I think this is a brilliant idea -- and I think Montana is considering something similar -- I am not sure it would actually be put into force in Wyoming. No law, no matter how brilliant or asinine doesn't mean anything unless the enforcement arm of government actually responds.

  10. #10
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by unreconstructed1 View Post
    constitutional trumps unconstitutional. I do agree that this law won't change anything though, since the FED would just threaten to cut off funding and the State will fold like an origami swan.
    Simple solution......companion legislation that forbids any and all Wyoming employers from submitting wage taxes directly to the fed. The Fed comes to the state for their money.....AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED until the illigitimate 16th amendment was "ratified". There is substantial evidence that the 16th amendment was NOT properly ratified. The fed of course didn't care and just acted like all was good.

    While the 16th says the Congress can lay and collect taxes on incomes, it does NOT state that they must be collected from the individual wage earner. The states could tie it up in the courts for years, causing the fed to have to come to some "understanding" with the several soverign states.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The federal government either has this authority or it doesn't, What WY law says doesn't really matter.

    But it's a statement. And a good one.

    And it would likely mean a lot to WY LEO's who, while still federally authorized to enforce federal laws, hopefully wouldn't if this was a state law.
    If the federal government cannot enforce this authority, then the WY law matters very much. If the law passes, and a fed tries to enforce its law, getting arrested in the process by a WY officer, then this sets up a constitutional challenge. The courts can well decide that both jurisdictions acted within their authorities, in which case the fed is still in jail. Other feds will be unwilling the enforce the federal law if it means that they will be breaking WY law!

    If this works, States may be able to reassert their proper constitutional role without having to resort to revolution. That could be good.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    ...The courts can well decide that both jurisdictions acted within their authorities, in which case the fed is still in jail...
    Ha. I hadn't considered that... I like it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  13. #13
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin Hutchison View Post
    Federal triumphs state.

    Tell that to Colorado and Washington state; those pot-smoking dens of iniquity. :-)

    Trump only happens if enforced.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    I was under the impression that this had been passed a couple years back...

  15. #15
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Our federal system is not a hierarchy. Federal only is supposed to trump State in those specific areas that the States empowered the federal government when THEY created it. The States and the People are supposed to be sovereign in all other respects.

    I like this approach. It is as close to what the Framer's intended as I've seen in a long time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    i agree as well, nice to see some forward progress to keep the fedgov in check.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Montana has draft bill LC1783, similar to the Wyoming bill. If either state can pass the bill's then I think it will setup a states rights lawsuit under the 10th Amendment. Technically, MT already has a law to address this with penalty (see lower).

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Then there is this also...
    Quote Originally Posted by Articles of Confederation
    Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
    Additionally, there is firearm freedom legislation which has had an uptick in some states, especially Montana over the last several years such as HB381 from 2011 (adds penalty) and bill HB246 which passed in MT in 2009.


    Excerpt from HB246 from MT which was enacted back in 2009...
    Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
    (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
    (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
    (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
    (4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
    (5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 01-14-2013 at 07:03 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Our federal system is not a hierarchy. Federal only is supposed to trump State in those specific areas that the States empowered the federal government when THEY created it. The States and the People are supposed to be sovereign in all other respects.

    I like this approach. It is as close to what the Framer's intended as I've seen in a long time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    What the Federal Government is "only supposed to trump" is convenient wording. First, there must be an agreement on whether there is an actual limit to the reach of the Federal Government, by the Constitution.

    To other posts:

    I would love to see Wyoming pass this law, and then see whatever person has the stones to attempt to arrest any Federal Agent carrying out the good work of the Federal Government--I could be wrong, but I would imagine the Federal Agent will be justified in using lethal forced if pushed; not to mention that most States wouldn't be able to afford a law like this, since, well, they are addicted to Federal money, particularly Republican States.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-14-2013 at 08:03 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Confused

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    What the Federal Government is "only supposed to trump" is convenient wording. First, there must be an agreement on whether there is an actual limit to the reach of the Federal Government, by the Constitution.

    To other posts:

    I would love to see Wyoming pass this law, and then see whatever person has the stones to attempt to arrest any Federal Agent carrying out the good work of the Federal Government--I could be wrong, but I would imagine the Federal Agent will be justified in using lethal forced if pushed; not to mention that most States wouldn't be able to afford a law like this, since, well, they are addicted to Federal money, particularly Republican States.
    How is a Federal agent justified in lethal force if he/she is simply being arrested in this particular scenario?

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    As for the money for the FEDs going after states, good luck with that, when China cuts those crack addicts off in DC which many expects say is soon. They will be hard pressed to afford to flush their toilets in the WH much less go after states.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  20. #20
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    How is a Federal agent justified in lethal force if he/she is simply being arrested in this particular scenario?

    ~Whitney
    I said, "if pushed." Meaning: If the agent is met, at gun point, while carrying out Federal work.

    I'm sure there is someone out there, interested in becoming a test case post arresting a Federal Agent.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    As for the money for the FEDs going after states, good luck with that, when China cuts those crack addicts off in DC which many expects say is soon. They will be hard pressed to afford to flush their toilets in the WH much less go after states.
    Seriously, 16,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars is a lot of cheddar, relatively, it's not a lot of cheddar, though.

    China won't cut the U.S. off, any time soon. Let's get real here, please.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    What the Federal Government is "only supposed to trump" is convenient wording. First, there must be an agreement on whether there is an actual limit to the reach of the Federal Government, by the Constitution.

    To other posts:

    I would love to see Wyoming pass this law, and then see whatever person has the stones to attempt to arrest any Federal Agent carrying out the good work of the Federal Government--I could be wrong, but I would imagine the Federal Agent will be justified in using lethal forced if pushed; not to mention that most States wouldn't be able to afford a law like this, since, well, they are addicted to Federal money, particularly Republican States.
    The constitution was the agreement, and they numbered the powers granted to the feds. So your solution is the the federal government gets to decide what it's limits are? Wow what a great idea?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

    barettagirl...

    thanks yet again...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1358229180.615425.jpg 
Views:	136 
Size:	18.5 KB 
ID:	9836
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  24. #24
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The constitution was the agreement, and they numbered the powers granted to the feds. So your solution is the the federal government gets to decide what it's limits are? Wow what a great idea?
    Unfortunately, with a federal court, appointed by the federal government, deciding what is and isn't constitutional, that's pretty much what we have. Not that I agree with it, not that it's actually constiutional, but it is what it is.

    It all started to go downhil with Wickard v Filburn in the 1930's (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59) when the federal government decided it could regulate what a farmer grew on his own land, for consumption on his own land, under the interstate commerce clause. It's gotten progressively worse since then with their latest interstate commerce fiasco being what is commonly known as ObamaCare.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Unfortunately, with a federal court, appointed by the federal government, deciding what is and isn't constitutional, that's pretty much what we have. Not that I agree with it, not that it's actually constiutional, but it is what it is.

    It all started to go downhil with Wickard v Filburn in the 1930's (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59) when the federal government decided it could regulate what a farmer grew on his own land, for consumption on his own land, under the interstate commerce clause. It's gotten progressively worse since then with their latest interstate commerce fiasco being what is commonly known as ObamaCare.
    It is what we have, in the past they at least pretended their powers were limited.

    I think it started going downhill right at the beginning, When the courts took the power upon themselves to define constitutionality.

    They also made it very hard to impeach them, which would be a check on their power.

    Gutzman goes into great deal on the bad history of the courts from the very beginning, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •