States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-nullify-new-federal-gun-laws/article/2518133?custom_click=rss#.UO8yOXdhiHW

Edit for clarification: Bill has been proposed, but is fully expected to pass.

The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.

That loud "clunk" noise is the gauntlet that was just thrown hitting the deck.

This is actual one of several state gun laws that challenges federal restrictions on firearms at the local level. For example Arizona, Montana and I believe a few other states have all passed laws to the effect of "If you make it here, and sell it here (in state) it's not subject to federal law. Interesting stuff. Between this and the legalization of weed in Colorado and Washington seems the feds are gonna be kinda busy on a legal front.

For an explanation of the Montana firearms laws: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30482736/ns/us_news-life/t/montana-fires-warning-shot-over-states-rights/#.UO8zJndhiHU

**Mattman154**

Good to see states standing up for their rights.

**hotsauceman1**

Um, Federal Laws supercede any state laws. If they try this it will get shot down by the federal government immediately.

**d-usa**

Supremacy clause trumps these fancy little attempts of gun rattling from the states.

To clarify: states cannot regulate the federal government or its agents. So they cannot pass laws saying what a federal employee can and cannot do. Imagine them making a law that punished IRS employees with prison for enforcing tax laws...

**KalashnikovMarine**

10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.

For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.

For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, Federal Laws supercede any state laws. If they try this it will get shot down by the federal government immediately.

Technically constitutional federal laws are supreme over state laws. Its always fun vs. the 10th Amendment. Heard of it? Neither has the US judiciary...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.

For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.

For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.

The gov uses the Interestate Commerce Clause. The 10th is pretty much irrelevant as the ICC has been expanded to literally include everything now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

Printz v. United States is relevant case law

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

In short they ruled the Sheriff's can tell them to shove off. (This was re: the Brady act).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, Federal Laws supercede any state laws. If they try this it will get shot down by the federal government immediately.

Technically constitutional federal laws are supreme over state laws. Its always fun vs. the 10th Amendment. Heard of it? Neither has the US judiciary...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

I'd say that alone means they have a decent case.

For the arrests there's proven case law on a law enforcement level, that every LEO in a given county is subject to the Sheriff of that county, since he's the most senior elected LEO his stick's bigger then the FBI's, or any one else's within his jurisdiction. Actually I believe in Wyoming a couple times Sheriffs have told the feds to get packing.

For the Montana style legislation it works because it's not leaving the state, the reason the feds can regulate firearms at all is the oft abused commerce clause. Which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Details in the second link.

The gov uses the Interestate Commerce Clause. The 10th is pretty much irrelevant as the ICC has been expanded to literally include everything now.

I know I said that, No one's tested the Montana, AZ, Alaska and apparently Texas laws on state firearms production for state sales in court.

**d-usa**

Nothing in Printz v. United States would allow a state to stop a federal agent from enforcing federal law.

**Kilkrazy**

Sometimes it looks as if some states don't want to be part of the United.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Sometimes it looks as if some states don't want to be part of the United.

We prefer the term "Loose association"

**d-usa**

They want to be more like Europe...

**pretre**

Let Wyoming secede. They'll starve themselves out in a couple months.

**whembly**

Not sure how the commerce clause comes into play here... those guns owners are usually not crossing state lines.

But, alas... I doubt the SC would take up the case.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Nothing in Printz v. United States would allow a state to stop a federal agent from enforcing federal law.

If I am reading all this correctly. All it means is the Feds ca'tn force the States to enforce Federal law. Thats the job of the Feds themselves.

So if a Federal agent shows up and says we need to nab this guy he violated federal law X the local law is free to say no and not offer help.

**Frazzled**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sometimes it looks as if some states don't want to be part of the United.

We prefer the term "Loose association"

Almost a confederacy as it were.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Not sure how the commerce clause comes into play here... those guns owners are usually not crossing state lines.

But, alas... I doubt the SC would take up the case.

Because they can cross state lines they are subject. Additionally, even if you make one soley in State X for sale in State X, the argument is that, that manufacture would displace a gun that would have been bought in another state, and is therefor subject (yes actual, winning argument). After the ACW and Roosevelt's threat to pad the SC, there is no 10th Amendment, and there is effectively no limit on federal lawmaking power outside of that thar first 9 Amendments, and those just barely.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Nothing in Printz v. United States would allow a state to stop a federal agent from enforcing federal law.

If I am reading all this correctly. All it means is the Feds ca'tn force the States to enforce Federal law. Thats the job of the Feds themselves.

So if a Federal agent shows up and says we need to nab this guy he violated federal law X the local law is free to say no and not offer help.

This can extend to the local CLEO throwing feds out of his jurisdiction. Which has happened before.

**Dreadwinter**

Wyoming is still a state?

**Ulven**

This is why I love living here

**Relapse**

Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/small-utah-town-makes-gun-in-every-home-top-priority/

**KalashnikovMarine**

Relapse wrote:
Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/small-utah-town-makes-gun-in-every-home-top-priority/

Renamed. Spring City motivates me XD

**Breotan**

Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Nothing in Printz v. United States would allow a state to stop a federal agent from enforcing federal law.
If I am reading all this correctly. All it means is the Feds ca'tn force the States to enforce Federal law. Thats the job of the Feds themselves.

So if a Federal agent shows up and says we need to nab this guy he violated federal law X the local law is free to say no and not offer help.

It has to be because they'd run afoul of primacy otherwise and the law would be overturned. It still may be, depending on how the courts interpret the language of the law.

**Relapse**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/small-utah-town-makes-gun-in-every-home-top-priority/

Renamed. Spring City motivates me XD

Could be a good place for you to set up shop.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Relapse wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Maybe this thread could be retitled States and Towns fight back at anti gun proposals.
This news item about a town south of here could be entertaining on it's own, but I think it fits well in this thread:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/small-utah-town-makes-gun-in-every-home-top-priority/

Renamed. Spring City motivates me XD

Could be a good place for you to set up shop.

If it wasn't population 1000 yeah, for a rural area like that you want to pitch your tent and put out your shingle in and around the county seat.

**d-usa**

Just move to the Citadel.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/21/178147/survivalist-group-the-citidal.html

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Which is better to move to, California or Colorado?...

**KalashnikovMarine**

Colorado in general. Better air, lower taxes, less jerks, legal pot, great gun laws (if you care), lots of outdoors and city type activities to be had.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Just move to the Citadel.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/21/178147/survivalist-group-the-citidal.html

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

Holy what the hell IS this?

**Peregrine**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Just move to the Citadel.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/21/178147/survivalist-group-the-citidal.html

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

Holy what the hell IS this?

It's a playground for rich libertarians who love castles, built by a developer who figured out that idiot libertarians are a profitable market? I mean, it's either that or think that someone is honestly stupid enough to think their little castle is a real fortress...

**Relapse**

The last place I would want to be in a national emergency would be somewhere that every desperate person and militia knows has food and medicine.

**Coolyo294**

d-usa wrote:
Just move to the Citadel.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/21/178147/survivalist-group-the-citidal.html

http://www.iiicitadel.com/

Kinda sounds like Rapture from Bioshock to me.

**Grey Templar**

Now think about it. A real castle, defended by people with guns, is really going to be a pretty darn good defense unless the attacker has high explosives, RPGs, or tanks. The fortress has a height advantage and is pretty much bullet proof. So unless you have Tanks or artillery its going to be pretty tough to take on.