Go Wyoming.!

[C-dub]

That's been happening more and more to me lately.

which part?

The higher plane thing? I hope.

[APynckel]

That's been happening more and more to me lately.

which part?

The higher plane thing? I hope.

Then welcome, sir.

[Jumping Frog]

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0104
Firearm Protection Act.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Kroeker, Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senator(s) Dockstader and Hicks

A BILL for
1 AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law
2 which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit
3 the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on
4 firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming;
<snip>

This is a ridiculous attempt at a statute, and Representative(s) Kroeker, et al. are either displaying their woeful ignorance, or they are cynically playing to a constituency. Personally, I would suspect cynical manipulation before woeful ignorance, since we are talking about politicians.

For all you people jumping on and saying "great idea", "let's do it in Texas", have you ever read the Constitution?

How about Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When it comes to deciding whether the "Laws of the United States" are constitutional or enforceable, the states have zero role in that decision. The Supreme Court has held that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

[APynckel]

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0104
Firearm Protection Act.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Kroeker, Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senator(s) Dockstader and Hicks

A BILL for
1 AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law
2 which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit
3 the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on
4 firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming;
<snip>

This is a ridiculous attempt at a statute, and Representative(s) Kroeker, et al. are either displaying their woeful ignorance, or they are cynically playing to a constituency. Personally, I would suspect cynical manipulation before woeful ignorance, since we are talking about politicians.

For all you people jumping on and saying "great idea", "let's do it in Texas", have you ever read the Constitution?

How about Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When it comes to deciding whether the "Laws of the United States" are constitutional or enforceable, the states have zero role in that decision. The Supreme Court has held that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

There still exists the statute of nullification. Which WAS supposed to be the end all of federal laws, until 1803.

[Jumping Frog]

There still exists the statute of nullification. Which WAS supposed to be the end all of federal laws, until 1803.

The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

The concept of state nullification of federal laws has never been in the Constitution. Every state has agreed to adhere to the Constitution when it decided to be a state.

[APynckel]

There still exists the statute of nullification. Which WAS supposed to be the end all of federal laws, until 1803.

The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

The concept of state nullification of federal laws has never been in the Constitution. Every state has agreed to adhere to the Constitution when it decided to be a state.

That is all based on them giving themselves supreme power. Logical fallacy. marbury v madison 1803

Neither has the premise that SCOTUS can declare constitutionality.

Nullification was implied. Unconstitutional law, is not law.

[brainman]

When it comes to deciding whether the "Laws of the United States" are constitutional or enforceable, the states have zero role in that decision. The Supreme Court has held that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

I have read the constitution, and specifically, the supremacy clause. Note the following portion of it: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

Any law that is not constitutional is not covered by the clause. Alexander Hamilton agreed: “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

Personally, I find it ridiculous that the supreme court has declared themselves to be the final arbiter and thus have given the power to determine if the federal government is right to the federal government. How has that worked out for us?

Practically speaking, because they have given themselves the power, and there's no one stopping them, the supremacy clause does rule us all. But, also practically speaking, if Wyoming told the feds to pound sand, it would require force to make them comply.

[C-dub]

Can't a law be unconstitutional and still be enforced until someone challenges it and it is then deemed to be unconstitutional?

As far as the SCOTUS goes, doesn't someone have to have the last word? If it weren't them, who would or could it be?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Practically speaking, because they have given themselves the power, and there's no one stopping them, the supremacy clause does rule us all. But, also practically speaking, if Wyoming told the feds to pound sand, it would require force to make them comply.

No, it does not require force against a state! Why do you keep saying that? Please, please, go to Wyoming, build a firearm without the proper FFL, then go into the closest BATFE office and show them your handiwork. You will be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sent to a federal prison (outside Wyoming) and you will lose your Second Amendment rights for life because you will be a felon.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Personally, I find it ridiculous that the supreme court has declared themselves to be the final arbiter and thus hav given the power to determine if the federal government is right to the federal government. How has that worked out for us?

While you are correct that the Constitution doesn't state that the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional, that's the only body that realistically can make that determination and provide any protection to Americans. There are only three choices, 1) Congress; 2) the President; or 3) the Supreme Court. I certainly don't want Congress and the President to have the authority.

Chas.

[brainman]

Practically speaking, because they have given themselves the power, and there's no one stopping them, the supremacy clause does rule us all. But, also practically speaking, if Wyoming told the feds to pound sand, it would require force to make them comply.

No, it does not require force against a state! Why do you keep saying that? Please, please, go to Wyoming, build a firearm without the proper FFL, then go into the closest BATFE office and show them your handiwork. You will be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sent to a federal prison (outside Wyoming) and you will lose your Second Amendment rights for life because you will be a felon.

Chas.

It seems I didn't make my point clearly enough. I'm not talking about a person that violates a federal gun law in Wyoming. Yes, they would send him to a federal prison. Wyoming can't make the federal law disappear simply by saying it. But, Wyoming LEO aren't the ones that will be enforcing the federal law. And when a federal agent arrests that poor sap, Wyoming LEO can then arrest that federal agent for violating state law. This is where the crisis is provoked. Obama tells them to let the agent go and if they decide they like they're law and don't want to let him go, what is Obama going to do? If Wyoming decides they don't care what Obama says or what the supreme court says, then to get the agent back, Obama would have to force their hand. That does not necessarily mean physical, violent force. There are other ways to force something. Cutting federal funding might be enough to force Wyoming to back off.

You'll also note that while I like Wyoming's idea, I'd prefer it if the states simply declared they would not help the feds enforce the federal law. I want our state government to tell the feds (much like the marijuana heads in CA and CO) that they can come look for gun owners if they want, but you won't be borrowing our SWAT teams or our logistics when you do it. Oh, and make sure you don't break any state laws while you're here. I don't see that running afoul of the supremacy clause. And it wouldn't help the guy that has a banned gun if he gets caught by the ATF, but if that same guy was pulled over for speeding and a TX LEO saw his gun, they wouldn't have to worry about it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Practically speaking, because they have given themselves the power, and there's no one stopping them, the supremacy clause does rule us all. But, also practically speaking, if Wyoming told the feds to pound sand, it would require force to make them comply.

No, it does not require force against a state! Why do you keep saying that? Please, please, go to Wyoming, build a firearm without the proper FFL, then go into the closest BATFE office and show them your handiwork. You will be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sent to a federal prison (outside Wyoming) and you will lose your Second Amendment rights for life because you will be a felon.

Chas.

It seems I didn't make my point clearly enough. I'm not talking about a person that violates a federal gun law in Wyoming. Yes, they would send him to a federal prison. Wyoming can't make the federal law disappear simply by saying it. But, Wyoming LEO aren't the ones that will be enforcing the federal law. And when a federal agent arrests that poor sap, Wyoming LEO can then arrest that federal agent for violating state law. This is where the crisis is provoked. Obama tells them to let the agent go and if they decide they like they're law and don't want to let him go, what is Obama going to do? If Wyoming decides they don't care what Obama says or what the supreme court says, then to get the agent back, Obama would have to force their hand. That does not necessarily mean physical, violent force. There are other ways to force something. Cutting federal funding might be enough to force Wyoming to back off.

You'll also note that while I like Wyoming's idea, I'd prefer it if the states simply declared they would not help the feds enforce the federal law. I want our state government to tell the feds (much like the marijuana heads in CA and CO) that they can come look for gun owners if they want, but you won't be borrowing our SWAT teams or our logistics when you do it. Oh, and make sure you don't break any state laws while you're here. I don't see that running afoul of the supremacy clause. And it wouldn't help the guy that has a banned gun if he gets caught by the ATF, but if that same guy was pulled over for speeding and a TX LEO saw his gun, they wouldn't have to worry about it.

At the end of the day, the guy who manufactures a firearm without an FFL is going to be convicted. If it's someone who knows the risk going in then fine, but I'd hate to see someone who really believed the Wyoming law was valid ruining their life because some politician wanted to make a statement. I seriously doubt the scenario you describe would ever happen; i.e. a state LEO arresting a federal officer for arresting someone who violated a federal statute. If he did, then that LEO's career would be ruined when he is convicted of obstruction of justice, all because that same politician wanted to make a point.

I understand the sentiment behind such a law, but passing something that can get one or more of your innocent constituents convicted is wrong. If a politician feels that strongly, then pass the law and be the first to test it by manufacturing a firearm without an FFL. Fighting to the last drop of one's own blood is brave; fighting to the last drop of another person's blood is cowardly.

Chas.

[brainman]

I understand the sentiment behind such a law, but passing something that can get one or more of your innocent constituents convicted is wrong. If a politician feels that strongly, then pass the law and be the first to test it by manufacturing a firearm without an FFL. Fighting to the last drop of one's own blood is brave; fighting to the last drop of another person's blood is cowardly.

Chas.

Point taken. How do you feel about what I've suggested in terms of asserting that the state won't assist the feds?

[RPB]

Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RPB]

47 states revolt against Obama gun control
Fed-up Americans: 'We're not going to accept this. We're against it'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/47-states-re ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;