Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

  1. #1
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

    It's a shame that Gov. Walker would not be open for enacting a Firearms Freedom Act in WI anyway, even if it might be struck down by a court. It would be another way to tell D.C. that Wisconsin does not approve.

    "Dear Concerned Citizen:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding enactment of a state law banning the enforcement of any federal law related to limits on semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.

    As Governor, I signed into law a conceal and carry law making Wisconsin the 49th state in the nation to allow for concealed carry. I also signed into law protections for homeowners who are responsibly protecting their families from assault. As Governor, I take public safety and the protection of Second Amendment rights seriously.

    Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state laws do not take precedence over federal laws. Therefore, states enacting laws to prohibit the enforcement of a federal law or calling for the arrest of individuals attempting to enforce federal law are passing laws likely to be struck down in court.

    There are federal laws I do not agree with just as I imagine there are state laws with which federally elected officials do not agree. However, as an elected official in the United States of America, I am confined to the Constitution of the state and nation as to what powers and limitations my office holds.

    Again, thank you for contacting me.

    Sincerely,

    Governor Scott Walker"

  2. #2
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    i just got the same letter
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Where Is The Value?

    To show that Wisconsin and/or her citizens don't like a particular federal law/policy? As the Governor pointed out, such a law would be without legal effect and would simply give a federal judge an opportunity for mischief. The better choice would be to fight undesirable federal laws in the courts and Congress. If all this windmill-tilting had been focused during the last election, perhaps none of this would be at issue.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Scott Walker simply missed the point. He is right about the supremacy clause, but only when it comes to laws that pass the constitutional test. However current gun control laws being proposed are an infringement, thus are unconstitutional. That he can stop. So someone smart out there point it out to him.

    Here is another position on this issue: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/al...onstitutional/

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The governor should understand why we have 3 branches of gov't...the legislatures can pass any laws they want but that does not mean that the executive branch must enforce them.

    So, such a law would be perfectly OK IMO.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Sent Walker an e mail: I have heard that some Wisconsinites have received an official reply regarding your view on the Firearm Freedom Act. You have stated that the supremacy clause prohibits your administration and Madison from enacting any laws blocking federal laws in this state.

    It would be true that the supremacy clause does apply to the enumerated powers in the US constitution if the laws created pass the constitutional test. However in the case of recent federal gun laws being proposed, they fail the constitutional test by the simple fact that they INFRINGE on our rights to keep and bear arms.

    I would encourage you to ask the WI DOJ to contact those states that are in the process of creating laws barring federal authorities from implementing any unconstitutional gun control laws, to learn from them. I would highly recommend that you pursue the Firearms Freedom Act.

  7. #7
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Sent Walker an e mail: I have heard that some Wisconsinites have received an official reply regarding your view on the Firearm Freedom Act. You have stated that the supremacy clause prohibits your administration and Madison from enacting any laws blocking federal laws in this state.

    It would be true that the supremacy clause does apply to the enumerated powers in the US constitution if the laws created pass the constitutional test. However in the case of recent federal gun laws being proposed, they fail the constitutional test by the simple fact that they INFRINGE on our rights to keep and bear arms.

    I would encourage you to ask the WI DOJ to contact those states that are in the process of creating laws barring federal authorities from implementing any unconstitutional gun control laws, to learn from them. I would highly recommend that you pursue the Firearms Freedom Act.
    Great response - I'm going to steal and modify that if you don't mind.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    Great response - I'm going to steal and modify that if you don't mind.
    I'm sorry but that is not a great response. Simply claiming infringement with out providing the Constitutional rationale behind such a statement is no more than chest beating that will be dismissed.

    The various state laws you hear being passed around the US are symbolic and amount to nothing more than a particular political leader(s) thumbing their nose(s) at the Feds. While I get all pie-eyed over the thought of my Sheriff arrested a jack-booted thug, reality inevitably steps in and b*tch slaps me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    I'm sorry but that is not a great response. Simply claiming infringement with out providing the Constitutional rationale behind such a statement is no more than chest beating that will be dismissed.

    The various state laws you hear being passed around the US are symbolic and amount to nothing more than a particular political leader(s) thumbing their nose(s) at the Feds. While I get all pie-eyed over the thought of my Sheriff arrested a jack-booted thug, reality inevitably steps in and b*tch slaps me.
    Okay - his response is better than your b1tching about his response and offering nothing else. Just say'n.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    I'm sorry but that is not a great response. Simply claiming infringement with out providing the Constitutional rationale behind such a statement is no more than chest beating that will be dismissed.

    The various state laws you hear being passed around the US are symbolic and amount to nothing more than a particular political leader(s) thumbing their nose(s) at the Feds. While I get all pie-eyed over the thought of my Sheriff arrested a jack-booted thug, reality inevitably steps in and b*tch slaps me.
    Remember the Bill of Rights passed in 1791. The governor swore to uphold the Constitution, not bad laws passed by congress. 10th amendment says powers not specifically given to the federal government is out of their jurisdiction and the 2nd amendment says they will not infringe on our rights so restrictions on our rights to own and bear arms passed by congress do not meet the rule of law and I suspect the governor is well aware of that. He is playing politics with an eye to higher office and is weaseling out of a fight in order to curry support down the road from those same people trying to sandbag us.

    Law abider's letter was a good one, short, to the point and completely factual unlike the governors response.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    The link I have attached confirms what old grump has written and my e mail to the governor. The first part of the link deal with the issue of nullification, of federal laws that fail the constitutional test. I would never to agree that states should nilly willy apply the nullification doctrine. Only in cases where there is overt evidence that federal laws fail the constitutional test. I am sure that if we looked at all Federal laws we would find many that would fail the constitutional test. So it would behoove us to stop them from doing any further infringement on the second amendment.

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/...e-sovereignty/

    I did post another link on this subject where the speaker Prebius Hulda claims that any gun control laws are designed to infringe on the second amendment.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/al...onstitutional/

  12. #12
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Grump View Post
    He is playing politics with an eye to higher office and is weaseling out of a fight in order to curry support down the road from those same people trying to sandbag us.
    ^^^ THIS ^^^

    And it frustrates the living hell out of me. For a guy that had no problem at all stepping on toes as County Executive in Milwaukee, he has completely gone soft as Governor.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    WI Firearms Freedom Act

    Has such a bill even been introduced? Who are the sponsors? What do you expect the governor to do? Even if he were a strong proponent, he could not force such legislation. And what if such an act became law? Immediate filing in a federal district court, an injunction or summary decision against the law. Many taxpayer $ spent to give a few folks a small thrill. Ever if the act were limited to purely intrastate activity you would still have to get SCOTUS approval in the end. Shouldn't the governor/attorney general be smart with public funds? Without (maybe even with) SCOTUS approbation, any attempt to interfere with federal law enforcement or disregard federal law would just result in arrest and other bad things. In the end, only a sea change in public attitude could implement this theory. Now maybe some courageous folks could be the lunch counter sitters of the movement and in 15-20 years, this concept will become mainstream. Meanwhile, that's big bucks in legal fees, a lot of bloody heads and incarcerations. So who's up first?
    Last edited by apjonas; 03-12-2013 at 01:36 PM. Reason: grammar correction

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Has such a bill even been introduced? Who are the sponsors? What do you expect the governor to do? Even if he were a strong proponent, he could not force such legislation. And what if such an act became law? Immediate filing in a federal district court, an injunction or summary decision against the law. Many taxpayer $ spent to give a few folks a small thrill. Ever if the act were limited to purely intrastate activity you would still have to get SCOTUS approval in the end. Shouldn't the governor/attorney general be smart with public funds? Without (maybe even with) SCOTUS approbation, any attempt to interfere with federal law enforcement or disregard federal law would just result in arrest and other bad things. In the end, only a sea change in public attitude could implement this theory. Now maybe some courageous folks could be the lunch counter sitters of the movement and in 15-20 years, this concept will become mainstream. Meanwhile, that's big bucks in legal fees, a lot of bloody heads and incarcerations. So who's up first?
    I see. You would be happy when the Feinstien gun ban bill passes and is signed into law. You would be happy if the Feds told you that you can only grow so much wheat for yourself or that you can only earn so much money because you don't need to lead an extravagant life. The constitution be dammed. Yes?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527

    Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

    Straw man.
    Fail

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    Straw man.
    Fail
    Only in your opinion.

    You have not answered my questions and you haven't given a solution. I am sorry you were offended by amnut and old grump. I would like to 'hear' your solution.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527

    Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Only in your opinion.
    Your entire response to apjonas is full of straw man statements. This is not opinion. Look up the term and then look at your response. You assigned a number of positions/opinions to him -- none of which are his own -- in order to refute his statements.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    Your entire response to apjonas is full of straw man statements. This is not opinion. Look up the term and then look at your response. You assigned a number of positions/opinions to him -- none of which are his own -- in order to refute his statements.
    Enlighten me. I am willing to learn.

  19. #19
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297

    Re: Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Enlighten me. I am willing to learn.
    He just did. Your response to apjonas had nothing to do with what apjonas actually said. Trip did a nice job of summarizing what a straw man argument is, but you could always look it up on Wikipedia or Google.

    If you said, "I like Burger King's Whopper," and I retorted, "You must support clubbing baby seals, too," I would be making a straw man argument against you.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    He just did. Your response to apjonas had nothing to do with what apjonas actually said. Trip did a nice job of summarizing what a straw man argument is, but you could always look it up on Wikipedia or Google.

    If you said, "I like Burger King's Whopper," and I retorted, "You must support clubbing baby seals, too," I would be making a straw man argument against you.
    Yes the above would be a straw man argument. My point in the wheat argument has to do with federal control over everything, not just gun control via the nullification of the 10th amendment as they have already done in so many areas. Apjona's point is we need to shift public opinion first or the feds will block any attempt to nullify gun control at the state level and waste taxpayer dollars.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I see. You would be happy when the Feinstien gun ban bill passes and is signed into law. You would be happy if the Feds told you that you can only grow so much wheat for yourself or that you can only earn so much money because you don't need to lead an extravagant life. The constitution be dammed. Yes?
    And this exchange between comrade Feinstien and Ted Cruz on the assault weapons ban is the point I was trying to make:Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Thursday got into heated exchange while discussing the California congresswoman’s proposed ban on so-called “assault” weapons.

    “The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” Cruz said, referring to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

    “Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” he added.

    Apparently, Sen. Feinstein was not amused with the Texas senator’s line of questioning.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Has such a bill even been introduced? Who are the sponsors? What do you expect the governor to do? Even if he were a strong proponent, he could not force such legislation. And what if such an act became law? Immediate filing in a federal district court, an injunction or summary decision against the law. Many taxpayer $ spent to give a few folks a small thrill. Ever if the act were limited to purely intrastate activity you would still have to get SCOTUS approval in the end. Shouldn't the governor/attorney general be smart with public funds? Without (maybe even with) SCOTUS approbation, any attempt to interfere with federal law enforcement or disregard federal law would just result in arrest and other bad things. In the end, only a sea change in public attitude could implement this theory. Now maybe some courageous folks could be the lunch counter sitters of the movement and in 15-20 years, this concept will become mainstream. Meanwhile, that's big bucks in legal fees, a lot of bloody heads and incarcerations. So who's up first?
    You do know that Federal law is not Holy Writ. If it is bad law we have an obligation to contest it and failure to do so is another nail in the coffin holding our freedoms. To blindly follow the law just because a congress and a president made it law does not make it legal if it isn't constitutional. If you don't fight it you lend weight to it by adhering to the dictates of a congress run amok. I believe congress needs to be held on a short leash and the tools are in the 7 articles and 27 amendments of the constitution. We need gutsy people at the local and state level knowing what is right and to have the guts to say this wrong and we will not comply. It's the brain dead liberals who drive up the cost of litigation defending bad laws because they are their laws they wanted in order to control the citizens and this citizen objects strenuously to being controlled.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Grump View Post
    You do know that Federal law is not Holy Writ. If it is bad law we have an obligation to contest it and failure to do so is another nail in the coffin holding our freedoms. To blindly follow the law just because a congress and a president made it law does not make it legal if it isn't constitutional. If you don't fight it you lend weight to it by adhering to the dictates of a congress run amok. I believe congress needs to be held on a short leash and the tools are in the 7 articles and 27 amendments of the constitution. We need gutsy people at the local and state level knowing what is right and to have the guts to say this wrong and we will not comply. It's the brain dead liberals who drive up the cost of litigation defending bad laws because they are their laws they wanted in order to control the citizens and this citizen objects strenuously to being controlled.
    AMEN!!!! Thank you brother!
    Guns and wheat have only one thing in common unconstitutional federal laws denying you both!!
    Last edited by Law abider; 03-14-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    30

    Dear Governor Walker,

    The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	walkerclause.jpg 
Views:	89 
Size:	64.5 KB 
ID:	10211  

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Devil in the Details

    Quote Originally Posted by rickrich View Post
    The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers
    1. Who determines what is or is not a "constitutionally authorized power"?

    2. Who determines if Congress is or is not acting in pursuit of a CAP?

    Hint: It is neither you nor I.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •