Wyoming takes stand against Federal Gov't
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
Silent Bob
Member.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has said he will go to the courts to block any federal gun control in Texas:
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10672432#ixzz2HXtvw5AM
Though I gotta say I really like what Wyoming is proposing and I hope it passes and see versions of it passing in other states.
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10672432#ixzz2HXtvw5AM
Though I gotta say I really like what Wyoming is proposing and I hope it passes and see versions of it passing in other states.
JohnM
Member
We're an independent bunch out here and we really don't like being pushed around by the Federal Government.
Phatty
Member
If Wyoming passed the proposed legislation it would be purely symbolic because a state cannot nullify a federal law.
If Wyoming was really serious about fighting any kind of weapon ban by the federal government, it would be much more successful if it set up an official Wyoming militia in which all citizens are members and expected to own and maintain suitable "assault" weapons for the defense of the state. Then Wyoming could sue the federal government and claim that the federal ban is preventing it from maintaining a state militia.
Even better would be a law that allowed any qualifying (i.e. age, no criminal background, etc.) person to take an oath and be made deputies in some kind of state citizen police force. That way they would immediately qualify in the "exceptions" portion of a federal gun ban.
If Wyoming was really serious about fighting any kind of weapon ban by the federal government, it would be much more successful if it set up an official Wyoming militia in which all citizens are members and expected to own and maintain suitable "assault" weapons for the defense of the state. Then Wyoming could sue the federal government and claim that the federal ban is preventing it from maintaining a state militia.
Even better would be a law that allowed any qualifying (i.e. age, no criminal background, etc.) person to take an oath and be made deputies in some kind of state citizen police force. That way they would immediately qualify in the "exceptions" portion of a federal gun ban.
Ed N.
Member
It could be even easier than that. Treat it like the unorganized militia. The state passes a law, or an amendment to the state constitution, that says that every citizen of the state is a law enforcement deputy in the unorganized division of the state police and can be summoned to temporary duty by the governor.
Don't hold your breath...
CoRoMo
Member
While our neighbor to the north is operating with independent maturity, my state is about to drown at the rate that it is gulping down the federal koolaid! :banghead:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...leading-charge-on-state-gun-control-measures/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...leading-charge-on-state-gun-control-measures/
JohnM
Member
We always love it when a bunch of outsiders tell us hicks how we should do things.
revolution claptrap
"If Wyoming passed the proposed legislation it would be purely symbolic because a state cannot nullify a federal law."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the United States Constitution was not designed to be a one way street. High ranking Federal Officials routinely decide what their powers are and what their jurisdiction is regardless of what the Constitution demands and the courts rubber stamp their overreach. When individual citizens or State governments protest they're told to sit down and shut up or face a loss of federal funding with the unstated threat of being subject to armed intervention always looming in the background. Our Republic was based on the idea that there would be a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and that the Federal government would have a very limited role while the States carried out the lion's share of day to day governing. That concept has been turned on its head.
What's likely going to happen in States like Wyoming is that when and if the Federal government decides to implement a new ban or restrictions on so-called assault weapons or handguns it will receive no help from local authorities. Sheriff's Deputies and Police Officers won't share intelligence, participate in raids or so much as open the door for Federal Agents. That will make enforcing the law very difficult. If you combine that with a civilian population hostile to the law enforcement of said law will become nearly impossible. If people refuse to serve Federal Agents in restaurants, to lodge them in hotels, to sell them equipment or repair their vehicles the Feds will have a very hard time simply operating on a day to day basis. Basically think of the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law in many northern states prior to the Civil War when U.S. Marshals trying to return black Americans to a condition of bondage had absolutely no support and often faced violent mobs.
Wyoming's proposed law is far from symbolic if the People of Wyoming and their elected Representatives are serious about resisting these proposed laws.
"If Wyoming passed the proposed legislation it would be purely symbolic because a state cannot nullify a federal law."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the United States Constitution was not designed to be a one way street. High ranking Federal Officials routinely decide what their powers are and what their jurisdiction is regardless of what the Constitution demands and the courts rubber stamp their overreach. When individual citizens or State governments protest they're told to sit down and shut up or face a loss of federal funding with the unstated threat of being subject to armed intervention always looming in the background. Our Republic was based on the idea that there would be a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and that the Federal government would have a very limited role while the States carried out the lion's share of day to day governing. That concept has been turned on its head.
What's likely going to happen in States like Wyoming is that when and if the Federal government decides to implement a new ban or restrictions on so-called assault weapons or handguns it will receive no help from local authorities. Sheriff's Deputies and Police Officers won't share intelligence, participate in raids or so much as open the door for Federal Agents. That will make enforcing the law very difficult. If you combine that with a civilian population hostile to the law enforcement of said law will become nearly impossible. If people refuse to serve Federal Agents in restaurants, to lodge them in hotels, to sell them equipment or repair their vehicles the Feds will have a very hard time simply operating on a day to day basis. Basically think of the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law in many northern states prior to the Civil War when U.S. Marshals trying to return black Americans to a condition of bondage had absolutely no support and often faced violent mobs.
Wyoming's proposed law is far from symbolic if the People of Wyoming and their elected Representatives are serious about resisting these proposed laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
Basically CO and WA did with their dope smoking rules... so in my eyes, states are already doing it.
Razor_J
Member
If push comes to shove, I guess I know what state I'm moving too. Hey Wyoming do you have room for a liscensed, clean record sporting, organic chemistry degree holding, prospective medical school student?
tulsamal
Member
So far it is just a proposed bill. Like all the other things that get proposed all the time. Most don't go anywhere. If they actually pass it and the Gov signs it... that would be great!
Okies are libertarians. If Wyoming really does go that route... I would expect to see something like that here.
Gregg
Okies are libertarians. If Wyoming really does go that route... I would expect to see something like that here.
Gregg
It it just a bunch of hicks, or is there a call for high end server architecture stuff in Wyoming? I build ultra-high available server architecture (think hot-hot datacenters, not active/passive).
Wouldn't mind a change of scenery if I could find work.
Last edited:
Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):P.O.2010 said:
The Founding Fathers also provided in the Constitution (Article III):
The Federalist papers also talk (at GREAT length) about States Rights, and the Right of the States to tell the Federal government to go fly a kite. Those papers were about this very thing; Federal control, vs. a Confederacy of X number of sovereign states working together as allies.
Backed by the Constitution of the United States, itself:
This all works quite well in conjunction with this little excerpt, where Madison makes one of the few references in the Federalist papers to the right to keep and bear arms:
Clearly it was never meant as a right that even the States themselves could restrict, let alone the Federal government.
The Federal government has no right (according to the Constitution) to restrict high capacity magazines, or assault weapons, or any other arm; EXCEPTING their trade in Interstate Commerce. It is up to the individual STATES to decide that matter, as long as it doesn't conflict with Amendment 2.
Which again has been affirmed in US Vs. Miller
Backed by the Constitution of the United States, itself:
This all works quite well in conjunction with this little excerpt, where Madison makes one of the few references in the Federalist papers to the right to keep and bear arms:
Clearly it was never meant as a right that even the States themselves could restrict, let alone the Federal government.
The Federal government has no right (according to the Constitution) to restrict high capacity magazines, or assault weapons, or any other arm; EXCEPTING their trade in Interstate Commerce. It is up to the individual STATES to decide that matter, as long as it doesn't conflict with Amendment 2.
Which again has been affirmed in US Vs. Miller
The Federalist Papers aren't law. They were essays written by several authors for the express purpose of encouraging ratification of the Constitution and should be read and understood in that context.Trent said:
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243) that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And in 1876 the Supreme Court ruled (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)) specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. Cruikshank remained the law until McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the States through the 14th Amendment.Trent said:
Grmlin
Member
Any room for a retired Marine and his wife in Wyoming?
I understand your point, however my point is this:
Before the laws of the United States can be "the supreme Law of the Land" they must be made in pursuance to the Constitution. The laws of the United States cannot be contrary to the Constitution or in spite of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and is superior to the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and all other Federal laws, rules, statutes, ordinances and regulations. The President, the Congress and the Supreme Court are only permitted to exercise a set number of powers under a set number of circumstances. What we have today is the exact opposite, the tail wagging the dog so to speak. The Federal government is exercising dominion in a number of areas where it has no legal right whatsoever to act. The basis of this dominion is the threat, both express and implied, that any State or locality which resists will be ruined economically or physically destroyed. That's the basis of the Federal government's powers, not moral persuasion, not law, but rather naked, illegitimate force. The danger here is that the more power the Federal government seizes the harder it becomes to stop the progression.
The argument made by those in Congress, the White House and the Federal Judiciary that want to prohibit the civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and handguns is not that they have the authority under the Constitution to do so but rather than they have the power to do so. Legitimate authority and power are not always one in the same and they are in fact not the same in this case. The argument in this case is "We have the power, therefore we have the right to do as we please." In other words, "Turn in your guns or we will imprison you. Resist imprisonment and you will be killed." That type of behavior is not consistent with our Constitution. Congress has no more right to order me to turn in or register a semi-automatic rifle than I have to physically discipline my neighbor's child. I have no authority over my neighbor's child and Congress has no authority to require the registration or confiscation of my privately owned firearms. If I go across the hall and smack my neighbors child across the face I've usurped the right to discipline him but the fact that I've successfully assaulted him and cowed his parents doesn't make my actions legitimate.
Gangsterism under the guise of government is still gangsterism no matter how one chooses to dress it up. Too many people confuse what the Federal government has the power to do with what it has the right to do.
Before the laws of the United States can be "the supreme Law of the Land" they must be made in pursuance to the Constitution. The laws of the United States cannot be contrary to the Constitution or in spite of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and is superior to the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and all other Federal laws, rules, statutes, ordinances and regulations. The President, the Congress and the Supreme Court are only permitted to exercise a set number of powers under a set number of circumstances. What we have today is the exact opposite, the tail wagging the dog so to speak. The Federal government is exercising dominion in a number of areas where it has no legal right whatsoever to act. The basis of this dominion is the threat, both express and implied, that any State or locality which resists will be ruined economically or physically destroyed. That's the basis of the Federal government's powers, not moral persuasion, not law, but rather naked, illegitimate force. The danger here is that the more power the Federal government seizes the harder it becomes to stop the progression.
The argument made by those in Congress, the White House and the Federal Judiciary that want to prohibit the civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and handguns is not that they have the authority under the Constitution to do so but rather than they have the power to do so. Legitimate authority and power are not always one in the same and they are in fact not the same in this case. The argument in this case is "We have the power, therefore we have the right to do as we please." In other words, "Turn in your guns or we will imprison you. Resist imprisonment and you will be killed." That type of behavior is not consistent with our Constitution. Congress has no more right to order me to turn in or register a semi-automatic rifle than I have to physically discipline my neighbor's child. I have no authority over my neighbor's child and Congress has no authority to require the registration or confiscation of my privately owned firearms. If I go across the hall and smack my neighbors child across the face I've usurped the right to discipline him but the fact that I've successfully assaulted him and cowed his parents doesn't make my actions legitimate.
Gangsterism under the guise of government is still gangsterism no matter how one chooses to dress it up. Too many people confuse what the Federal government has the power to do with what it has the right to do.
But who do you think decides whether a law is "pursuant" to the Constitution? You do not. That is, as the Constitution itself has provided and as the law in this nation has evolved, the province of the federal courts.P.O.2010 said:
Your views may define your political actions, and legislative bodies, to the extent they have sufficient political support, may act within the limits of their authority. But when there is finally a disagreement regarding whether or not something is constitutional, that disagreement will be resolved by the federal courts.
Last edited:
zxcvbob
Member
Ultimately it is decided by the states. The 10th Amendment modifies both the Supremacy Clause and Article 3 (just as the 2nd Amendment modifies the Commerce Clause, whether the USSC likes it or not)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Can you cite competent legal authority (i. e., a U. S. Supreme Court ruling to that effect) for that balderdash? If not, your opinion means nothing.zxcvbob said:
zxcvbob
Member
You know that it's true; as a lawyer you are just not allowed to admit it.
And it looks like it might be tested in Wyoming soon, since the feds haven't taken the 10th Amendment bait with medical marihuana*, or Montana or Tennessee's firearm freedom laws. So Colorado and Wyoming are upping the ante with marihuana and firearms, respectively.
(*I'm spelling it this way for a historical reference)
And it looks like it might be tested in Wyoming soon, since the feds haven't taken the 10th Amendment bait with medical marihuana*, or Montana or Tennessee's firearm freedom laws. So Colorado and Wyoming are upping the ante with marihuana and firearms, respectively.
(*I'm spelling it this way for a historical reference)
As a lawyer I know absolutely that it is not true. It's your claim and therefore your burden of proof. If you can not properly support it, it's not worth anyone's consideration.zxcvbob said:
And since you don't appear to be very familiar with actual law (as opposed to your fantasies), the core marijuana issue has already been resolved in the courts against the States and in favor or the federal government's authority to regulate marijuana. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).zxcvbob said:
What are you babbling about? Judicial power is certainly delegated to the US by the Constitution.
Article III:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . .
. . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. . ."
The 10th Amendment does nothing to change Article III.
- Status
