Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

zack991 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

barettagirl...

thanks yet again...

sudden valley gunner said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

We-the-People said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

We-the-People said:

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.

Click to expand...

IIRC, Obamacare was not upheld under the Interstate Commerce Clause. In fact, the Court said it couldn't be. The fed's ability to use the ICC as a justification for just about anything was seriously emasculated. Unfortunately, the Court pointed out a much more powerful justification: the 16A. The individual mandate, a critical piece without which the system crumbles, ruled unconstitutional under the ICC, was also ruled to be a tax under the 16A, and therefore constitutional through that back door. The feds can do all they want by making you pay more income tax if you own certain firearms.

Repeal the 16A!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

The feds can do all they want by making you pay more income tax if you own certain firearms.

Click to expand...

Somewhat off-topic, but this statement reminded me that here in CT, lawmakers are trying to make gun owners take out liability insurance for their guns. I'm guessing this would be much like automobile insurance, with each additional gun costing more. It'd be a real stretch for the Feds to impose that requirement, but it's possible. And obviously it's entirely possible for States to do it, as CT is trying. Just another way to financially disincentivize gun ownership.

sudden valley gunner said:

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?

Click to expand...

I didn't come up with the idea...thank the Founding Fathers.

We-the-People said:

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.
*snippers*

Click to expand...

That's a bingo.

Wait, the Constitution doesn't outline how Justices are placed on the Bench?

unreconstructed1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

ixtow said:

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.

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

zack991 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Think again re Wyoming "needing" federal money.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/05/070205fa_fact_fuller
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec06/gas_08-22.html

Nope, Wyoming is swimming in money,

Beretta92FSLady said:

I didn't come up with the idea...thank the Founding Fathers.

Click to expand...

Are you purposefully being obtuse?

sudden valley gunner said:

Are you purposefully being obtuse?

Click to expand...

You haven't seen Beretta92FSLady post have you...

slapmonkay said:

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).



Then there is this also...


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...

Click to expand...

Section 2:Article 4

So, a question....as I read this, I wonder how it is that local cities and towns have determined to place certain restrictions on where people have the right to "bear" their arms....

Devin Hutchison said:

Federal triumphs state.

Click to expand...

Federal law does NOT trump state law unless the US Constitution specifically says so. The Constitution declares the states and the people as the supreme power, as does the Bill of Rights in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The states could arrest federal employees for trying to enforce legislation that violates their constitution and/or laws.

The Federal Government was CREATED by the STATES!

Any further legislation that would inringe on our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional at the federal level as well as the state level in Montana and the Federal Government has NO right to pass and enforce unconstitutional legislation.

The Federal Government can refuse to give them the money they are owed if they please, but Montana can stop giving the Federal Government the federal tax that Montana collects for them as well.

The bottom line is the Federal Government has become unconstitutionally large and needs to be stopped!

slapmonkay said:

You haven't seen Beretta92FSLady post have you...

Click to expand...

I have, I have met her in person a few times. Usually she'll at least give my argument some validity, now she is totally ignoring the points made as if they weren't made.

sudden valley gunner said:

Are you purposefully being obtuse?

Click to expand...

I will leave that to you to decide.

sudden valley gunner said:

I have, I have met her in person a few times. Usually she'll at least give my argument some validity, now she is totally ignoring the points made as if they weren't made.

Click to expand...

I'm not intentionally ignoring your arguments. Did I miss something? Seriously...I'll scroll back up, and look.

sudden valley gunner said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Constitution WAS the agreement, and they numbered the Powers granted to the Federal Government.

The Founding Fathers are the ones who put the Constitution together; and the Constitution they put together gives the Federal Government, as a concept, limited Power, but in application, the Federal Government has unlimited Power.

Seriously, I'm going to utter his name again, with my finger tips--not saying I agree with him completely, just pointing out a person that individuals ought to read-up on, not him personally, but his ideas: Noam Chomsky.

The Founding Fathers seemed to have been lost in the heat of the moment when they put together the structure of our Government, and the Constitution. It's was definitely one of those situations--I have had many in my life--where you put something together, it sounds fantastic, it sounds like it reached down into the pit of some fundamental Thing...then you wake up the next day, you start digging through the details, and you discover, what is typically the case, the first few lines started with a premise that isn't necessarily Truth: DOI: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident."--a taste of what they were actually stating.

They were acknowledging that the only Truth that is self-evident, must be held to be--a notion, a concept of what is, and is not fundamental. Then they go on to state that Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are merely bestowed upon us, by some Creator. Rights DO NOT EXIST.

ODS of the highest order. They are stating that they won't follow laws that haven't even been passed yet, sight unseen. Unbelievable!