THIS. I want to know if a statement could be made that the state would not provide any resources to aid the Feds in enforcing any NEW gun control laws that would seek to deprive the citizens of that state of previously legally acquired property. It takes manpower to kick in doors and handcuff folks. Yes, I completely understand that there are Federal agents to do this...but are there enough when, as we all know, there are an unknown number of magazines with greater than ten round capacity in private hands that likely numbers in the TENS of millions or more and who knows how many semi-automatic firearms? I simply don't think the Feds could EFFECTIVELY enforce a ban without state and local assistance...I'm not saying they couldn't enforce such laws, I'm saying EFFECTIVELY enforce.brainman wrote:Point taken. How do you feel about what I've suggested in terms of asserting that the state won't assist the feds?Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
Go Wyoming.!
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
- Location: Vernon, Texas
Re: Go Wyoming.!
Re: Go Wyoming.!
As a result of another post on the forum regarding the 3D printing of magazines, it brought up a question for me about the ATF definition of manufacturing. I searched the ATF site and I cannot find anything that addresses this technology specifically. The ability to 3D print has been around for decades but it hasn't been affordable to the average consumer. Costs have come down drastically in the last few years and conceivably this trend will continue until it becomes affordable. The quality of the print media has vastly improved as well. It is conceivable that all Americans, in the near future, will have the ability to obtain the technology to print their own firearm. Does this have the potential to make the requirement to have an FFL no longer applicable?Charles L. Cotton wrote:At the end of the day, the guy who manufactures a firearm without an FFL is going to be convicted.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.
U R Noodle
CHL since 1/26/2012 - 41 days mailbox to mailbox
CHL since 1/26/2012 - 41 days mailbox to mailbox