Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth

[Girodin]

I do not forcedly agree Wickard was touted as being more than it was. The facts may have been such that things were not as remote from fed control and interstate issues but the holding was essentially what you describe for Raich. Raich affirmed and strengthened it perhaps but Wickard was a very expansive holding even if it didn't need to be based on what the facts really were.

BTW I intiatially mention Wickard simply because it is the case those senators would have read in school. Raich came a good while latter. None of them practice con law so who knows what they are up on, but I am sure Wickard is in their minds as to the expansiveness of the CC.

They may well, but as has been pointed out on here by many, getting arrested, charged, etc isn't a whole lot of fun. A few Feds have to go through the trouble, and it very well may slow down some of the obvious nit picking cases.

I'm doubtful it would do anything more than incite a pissing match and at the end of the day the United States will be able to pee MUCH higher on the fence than WY.

 

[Cosmoline]

Nothing in this law is going to make it illegal for a federal officer to enforce the NFA or any other federal gun law. Ruby Ridge has no application here.

This is nothing but window dressing.

 

[mljdeckard]

Even if Obama won't do it, and someone else might do it later, WE STILL HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.

 

[Girodin]

The executive deciding whether to enforce federal law or not doesn't require a state bill.

I agree however for a court challenge, even a doubtful one, you have to start somewhere. I also like the message it sends to have many states doing it. It does make a statement that the states care about the fact the feds have wrested the C.C. and ignored the 10th amendment. I'd love to see this challenge won, however, I'm not hopeful.

In terms of getting results as they pertain to gun owners simply changing the NFA laws might be more realistic.

These challenges have huge implications far beyond guns.

 

[GRIZ22]

Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.


There is absolutely no teeth to this. The US Attorney's office can snatch any case out of a state court and take it to their level and do with it whatever they want. This is done when the Feds are arresting Bubba and Bubba's brother is sheriff and a state complaint is signed against the Feds.

Any state law can't take away the sovereignty of the Federal Government. This is a principle needed for the system to work.

 

[Bluehawk]

"This is done when the Feds are arresting Bubba and Bubba's brother is sheriff and a state complaint is signed against the Feds."

Why would a complaint be filed against the Feds in a case like that?
Can you cite one?
Certainly State laws can be made stricter than Federal law...why can't the reverse be true??

 

[TCB in TN]

I'm doubtful it would do anything more than incite a pissing match and at the end of the day the United States will be able to pee MUCH higher on the fence than WY

Perhaps they can, but again, a few arrests, where the Feds get the "federal treatment" (ran in front of the camera in cuffs etc). And the guts at the state level to keep fighting and then other states are likely to follow suit.

Wish in one hand and piss in the other........ At least WY is trying to do something!

 

[Bluehawk]

"I'm doubtful it would do anything more than incite a pissing match and at the end of the day the United States will be able to pee MUCH higher on the fence than WY "

Keeping thinking this way and NOTHING will ever change!!!!!
If our forefathers had felt the same way, we wouldn't have a United States!!!!!

 

[Girodin]

Keeping thinking this way and NOTHING will ever change!!!!!
If our forefathers had felt the same way, we wouldn't have a United States!!!!!

Not understanding how the legal system, federalism, or government in general works does even less.

 

[mboylan]

Perhaps they can, but again, a few arrests, where the Feds get the "federal treatment" (ran in front of the camera in cuffs etc). And the guts at the state level to keep fighting and then other states are likely to follow suit.

Wish in one hand and piss in the other........ At least WY is trying to do something!

No, you would have state officials in Federal Prison if this happened.

 

[rmmoore]

Many of the posters here make valid points. Living in Wyoming however, gives me a little different point of view. While personally, I'm NOT SURE of any absolute and/or significant changes. What I AM sure of however, is that as long as good men do nothing, evil WILL prevail. Now I'm not saying the Fed is evil, well, not entirely, but they certainly have done some VERY evil things. As long as we all sit on the sidelines pissing and moaning about unfair something was, and CHOOSE to do nothing, then nothing will EVER change.

Wyoming challenged the BATF in Federal court over NICS background checks for Wyoming CCW holders. And we WON, in Federal court!!!! As a result, in Wyoming and several other States, if you have a valid CCW permit in your home State, you can "cash and carry" a firearm without waiting for a NICS. Reality check: did this ability realistically change much in the way of firearms purchases and transactions other than inconvenient delays? No, not really. But, it DID send a message that we will NOT take the goon squad bullsh#t without standing up for our RIGHTS.

Every fight, and every change, HAS to begin somewhere with someone having the b#lls and willing to stand up and say NO MORE. This may be that opportunity. Maybe it won't change anything TODAY, but it very well could set the stage, or add to the show that's already begun with other players like Montana, and change things tomorrow, for my CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN. If noone stood up and did anything in 1776, instead choosing to whine and bitch about how things were and how they WISHED they could be, where would be today?

Small steps folks, small steps. They get you moving in the right direction, even if you don't realize it at the time, or until your journey has ended and you look back to see just how far you've come.

 

[Al Norris]

Setting the record straight:

With the help of a special prosecutor (Stephan Yagman), Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury charged Lon Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter. Horiuchi's attorney successfully removed the case to Federal District Court, where Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the case on qualified immunity (Supremacy clause of the US Constitution) grounds.

On appeal to the 9th Circuit (en banc appeal), the dismissal was reversed: Idaho v. Horiuchi, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001). Circuit Judge Kozinski wrote that if the State could prove that Lon Horiuchi acted with malicious intent or with disregard for the laws, as utilized in the rules of engagement or should have known the ROE to be unlawful, qualified immunity would not attach and the State was within its right to prosecute.

The newly elected prosecutor of Boundary County declined to prosecute at that point, despite protestations of the special prosecutor. To characterize this episode as one of federal supremacy over State reach is not justified.

To the topic of this thread:

I believe the ultimate purpose of such State laws would be to get Wickard back before the SCOTUS, in an attempt to overturn this decision (or at least narrow it to the point Raich no longer becomes controlling and invalidated).

If enough States jump onto this bandwagon, then the political impact to the Court would not go unnoticed.

What is really needed is for larger, more influential States (say, CA, TX?) to become involved in this. Small States have little if any influence upon the Court.

 

[bearmgc]

Norris, some excellent points there. +1.

 

[Zoogster]

Excellent points Norris.

I do agree the larger states need to be involved. The smaller states set good examples and may help encourage the larger states to act.

California is unlikely to act on behalf of firearm freedoms, but since currently the marijuana issue is dependent on the same case law it may unwittingly fight for those same freedoms gained through reduced commerce clause powers under that pretense.
Though as seen in Raich that issue may actually be detrimental to the reduction of the powers under the commerce clause on the national level.

Texas on the other hand may be able to be brought on board in support of firearm rights. However firearms are still a subject that can bring its own baggage of "reasonable restriction" type expansions of power.

Ideally some other agenda that has neither the polarity of opinions that firearms and drugs do, but still significant popular interest to gain great monetary support would be best to attack the commerce clause with.

I doubt Scalia would have looked long and hard for a way to expand federal powers and cement new all encompassing logic in place in Raich if the issue had not been drugs.

Partisan agendas shape the decisions in the highest level court and determine the outcome, but the precedent can overlap on both sides. Having drugs and firearms controlled under the same Supreme Court cases is often counterproductive. Both sides do their best to fight the other and add lots of room for restrictions when they partially concede.

Justice Kennedy is the only one that really seems to go out of his way to attempt to remove political agenda from questions of Constitutional authority.
This causes him to be considered a "swing vote" on many issues, but his decisions are often more predictable and in line with the Constitution than either liberals or conservatives would like.
But the rest of the justices can in general be expected to side with their respective political parties on an issue. Which means drugs and guns are at opposite ends of support, which when both are decided by the same case law greatly clouds the issue. Each side attempts to undermine the freedoms of the other, by keeping the case law that freely permits excessive restrictions strong.
So both sides work to keep federal commerce clause powers great.

As a result a third issue with popular support and financial backing would probably be ideal in attacking the commerce clause. Once the commerce clause is weakened either side can work to further freedoms on respective issues, and then have case law to support them. Or more importantly for us, firearm freedoms.

 

[mlr1m]

If your state is protecting your rights in this way and the Federal Government tries to do an end run around it by using federal laws then you should vote innocent at trial. The citizens of these states need to realize they power that they as jurors possess. When the State legislators do their part it is up to you to do yours. You have the power to limit the government.

Michael

 

[Cosmoline]

Not understanding how the legal system, federalism, or government in general works does even less.

Spot on. It's sad to see so much effort wasted on a totally pointless law, when so much more could be done. I have no doubt that the politicians behind the law are using it as a vent to release some of the pressure. A *SAFE* vent because it poses exactly ZERO threat to any federal law enforcement or federal law.

 

[Hacker15E]

It's nice that there's at least a real discussion to remind the Federal Government that, ultimately, this is a collection of individual states -- some of which existed as sovereign entities before the Federal Gov't did.

Even if the Acts themselves end up a flash in the pan, it is a step in the right direction toward reigning in the "servants" in DC.

 

[GRIZ22]

Why would a complaint be filed against the Feds in a case like that?
Can you cite one?


I can't give you specific cites for a few reasons. In one case, the federal agent was arrested for interfering and issued a summons for blocking traffic. The case was removed to a Federal Court where all charges were dismissed. In another, the feds were arresting a guy and his friends called the local sheriff and said the feds had threatened them with their firearms and they wanted to swear out complaints on the feds. I can't remember all the details but it was removed to federal court where all charges were dismissed.

States can't make the feds carry car insurance, there is no reason to believe the federal government is going to let states get away with arresting their agents in the lawful (federal) scope of their duties.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Let us not forget that the Union exists at the pleasure of We the People and We the People of the several states. If those people working for the Union wish to keep their jobs, maybe they should start abiding the Constitution we wrote that created those jobs they hold at our pleasure. We put them in power, we can take them out.

Of the many ways we can send a message to them, this is but just one. Do not think of such state laws as frivolous or force-less bluster. There is nothing like a good case based upon something in the Constitution like the Second Amendment backed up by the Tenth Amendment. A state creating such law is a state creating standing.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Remember the Supremacy Clause? The most Wyoming could do would be to order all of its own peace officers to refuse cooperation with federal agencies when it comes to enforcing federal gun laws. But since the federal laws in question are enforced by federal LEO's and the US Atty there's nothing Wyoming can do to stop the federal prosecution of its citizens for violation of the laws in question. It's no different than a state making pot or other drugs legal. That doesn't change federal drug laws.

Point One: The only power the Union has to execute it's laws is with the militia. There are no constitutional federal law enforcement agencies.

Point Two: If the federal laws being enforced are unconstitutional, those being harassed by unconstitutional federal officers have the right to be protected by their state officials. Wyoming can prosecute those federal miscreants. If the federal government sends in more unconstitutional federal agents, those agents can be held as well.

I'm one who is all for the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Court and Congress to protect We the People from errant state legislative and enforcement action just as much as I am for the legislatures and courts in the several states to protect We the People in the several states by holding the federal government within its bounds. It's what the Tenth Amendment is all about. While there is no power granted to the several states to hinder federal officials operating outside the bounds of the Constitution, there is no prohibition either. It would then be a power reserved to the states or to the people as mentioned in that afore mentioned Tenth Amendment.

Not really the precedent is on the side of the feds. They try to prosecute a federal agent for enforcing a federal law that preempts a state law and that will likely get the supreme court smacking down their state law real fast.

That only holds water when the federal law is constitutional.

Nothing in this law is going to make it illegal for a federal officer to enforce the NFA or any other federal gun law. Ruby Ridge has no application here.

This is nothing but window dressing.

While I can't say anything about all other federal law, the NFA is unconstitutional along with any agency created to enforce it. If a state wishes to pass law contrary to the NFA, the Supremacy Clause would give that unconstitutional federal law no force and effect over and above that state law. As for Ruby Ridge, it serves as an example of what can happen when the several states don't stand up to the federal government.

Any state law can't take away the sovereignty of the Federal Government. This is a principle needed for the system to work.

Just as much as it is for the system to work that the federal government can't take away the sovereignty of the several states.

Woody

 

[DMF]

Point One: The only power the Union has to execute it's laws is with the militia. There are no constitutional federal law enforcement agencies.

Really, and where does it say that in the Constitution of the United States? That's rhetorical, because that statement from you is FALSE.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws. Do you honestly mean to tell me the framers of the Constitution intended for the government to have no way to enforce those laws. Don't give me this nonsense about "the militia," because that is NOT what the Constitution says. Further, the same people who created the Constitution were in our government, in the executive branch and legislature, when the very first Congress created the first federal law enforcement agencies, the Marshals Service, Customs (now ICE) and the Postal Inspectors. The people who actually created the Constitution also passed the laws creating the first fed LE agencies that are NOT the "militia," and therefore they felt fed LE agencies are "Constitutional."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws. Do you honestly mean to tell me the framers of the Constitution intended for the government to have no way to enforce those laws.

They did. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

Don't give me this nonsense about "the militia," because that is NOT what the Constitution says.

Check Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

Further, the same people who created the Constitution were in our government, in the executive branch and legislature, when the very first Congress created the first federal law enforcement agencies, the Marshals Service, Customs (now ICE) and the Postal Inspectors.

Marshals were empowered to serve up warrants and transport prisoners to trial. (See the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 27) The Marshals were not a separate agency in the beginning.

More tonight on this.

Additionally, that early Congress passed a law expecting the Court to execute a power the Constitution did not give to the Court and the Court refused. See Marbury v. Madison. That first Congress passed unconstitutional law. It should also be noted that there were quite a few more other people in that early government than the number of Founding Fathers.

Woody

 

[4sooth]

There are other ways to keep the Federal Government out of state/county business. A sheriff of a county or parish is the SOLE law enforcement authority . There are numerous instances of sheriffs filing suit in federal courts to keep the fed from performing ANY law enforcement function without the permission of the local sheriff. Here in St. Tammany Parish this was done by former sheriff Pat Canulette. In Bighorn County, Wyoming former sheriff Dave Mattis filed suit in federal district court in Billings, Montana explaining that as sheriff he was the only law enforcement authority there and that the fed needed his permission to operate there. The federal court agreed and issued an injunction preventing federal operations in Bighorn, County without his permission.

This has been done in other areas but it does not get press.Be very careful who you elect sheriff!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Further, the same people who created the Constitution were in our government, in the executive branch and legislature, when the very first Congress created the first federal law enforcement agencies, the Marshals Service, Customs (now ICE) and the Postal Inspectors.

Marshals were empowered to serve up warrants and transport prisoners to trial. (See the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 27) The Marshals were not a separate agency in the beginning.

I don't know when "Postal Inspectors" came to be, but it wasn't by any of the early Congresses. The first act establishing a permanent postal system was by the Third Congress, May 8, 1794. As for "enforcement", Section 24 of that Act stated:

Sec 24. And be it further enacted, That if any deputy postmaster, or other person authorized to receive the postage of letters and packets, shall neglect or refuse to render his accounts, and pay over to the Postmaster General, the balance by him due, at the end of every three months, it shall be the duty of the Postmaster General to cause a suit to be commenced against the person or persons so neglecting or refusing: and if the Postmaster General shall not cause such suit to be commenced within six months from the end of every such three months, the balances due from every such delinquent, shall be charged to, and recoverable from, the Postmaster General.

Sec. 25. And be it further enacted, That all pecuniary penalties and forfeitures incurred under this act, shall be, one half for the use of the person or persons informing and prosecuting for the same, and the other half to the use of the United States.​

{ Link }

You can see that back then they relied upon informants and no "inspectors" as such.

The Customs service is not provided for in the Constitution. As for what ICE now does, the first act of Congress establishing an uniform rule of naturalization left it up to the courts and did not establish any agency.

The people who actually created the Constitution also passed the laws creating the first fed LE agencies that are NOT the "militia," and therefore they felt fed LE agencies are "Constitutional."

Just to show that the First Congress understood the limits of their power, here is a link to their first act proscribing the punishments for crimes against the United States. There is nothing in that Act contrary to the powers Congress has been granted in the Constitution nor anything beyond those powers. I certainly can't say the same for the powers that have been usurped since then!

Woody

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

This Bill has no teeth at all. It is a ham handed effort to pass a law that its sponsors ought to know will fail, in an effort to rile up the voters.

If Rep. Jaggi really wants to make a pro-gun statement he should enact some sort of Militia/Volunteer Law Enforcement program whereby the state of Wyoming supplies volunteers a full auto M4 or any other weapon deemed necessary. Take the dissent in Heller and send it right back at them - they say the states rights to bear arms cannot be infringed so long as it is connected to militia service- connect it to militia service!