• 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.

Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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"
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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.
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
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.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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...eds-cities-show-the-way-of-state-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/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/
 

NoTolerance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
292
Location
Milwaukee, WI
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.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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?
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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.
 

NoTolerance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
292
Location
Milwaukee, WI
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.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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.
 
Top