• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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/wyomi...federal-gun-laws/article/2518133#.UPClNHfheSp
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
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.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
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).

10th Amendment said:
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...
Articles of Confederation said:
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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Confused

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
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 
Top