1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wyoming takes stand against Federal Gov't

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Trent, Jan 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy


  2. Silent Bob

    Silent Bob Well-Known Member

  3. JohnM

    JohnM Well-Known Member

    We're an independent bunch out here and we really don't like being pushed around by the Federal Government.
  4. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    Marijuana, guns, gay marriage... it's certainly going to be an interesting time we live in.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  5. Phatty

    Phatty Well-Known 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.
  6. JohnnyK

    JohnnyK Well-Known Member

    don't mess with Texas! or Wyoming!
  7. Ed N.

    Ed N. Well-Known 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...
  8. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

  9. JohnM

    JohnM Well-Known Member

    We always love it when a bunch of outsiders tell us hicks how we should do things.
  10. P.O.2010

    P.O.2010 Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2013
  11. robertn

    robertn Active Member

    Basically CO and WA did with their dope smoking rules... so in my eyes, states are already doing it.
  12. Razor_J

    Razor_J Well-Known 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?
  13. tulsamal

    tulsamal Well-Known 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.

  14. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    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: Jan 10, 2013
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):

    The Founding Fathers also provided in the Constitution (Article III):
  16. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    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

  17. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    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.

    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.
  18. Grmlin

    Grmlin Well-Known Member

    Any room for a retired Marine and his wife in Wyoming?
  19. P.O.2010

    P.O.2010 Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    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.

    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: Jan 11, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page