Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act with Teeth

I like it!

What kind of petty vindictiveness of any consequence could federal government retaliate with? Highway funds, educational funds, other?

Highway funds were what kept the 55 PMH national speed limit, The states finally got tired of being threatened with it, and 55MPH went bye bye. Sammy Hagar had to re write his famous anthem, "I can't drive 55!"
State nulllification WORKS - anyone remember the Real ID Act? AZ passed laws stating it will NOT be enforced in our borders, along with a lot of other staes, and it went quietly to irrelevant land. It is still on the Fed books, but I don't see anyone getting stopped boarding a plane, (once strip searched!), or going in a Fed buidling without a Real ID. Proof it does work. AZ Made Firearms Act is going through the legislative stages, but it has enough co sponsors that I doubt it will be a real issue. And with all the Obomoa blasting Governor Brewer did in her State of the State address, I don't think she'll have any issues with raising a middle finger to Washington by signing it.

“that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

It sends a rather strong political message however, and if more states do it the message gets to a point where it has to be listened to.

So in that regard, the more of these the better.

AZs bill has passed Committee of the Whole, and it just waits for its Third Read vote before going to the Senate.

Highway funds were what kept the 55 PMH national speed limit,

Not only that. Want your highway funds? 21 yr old drinking and .08 DWI were hooked to that.

used exclusively within Wyoming

If anything kills this proposal this will be it. You live in Wyoming and take your Wyoming made gun to Colorado will be construed as interstate commerce.

used exclusively within Wyoming

If anything kills this proposal this will be it. You live in Wyoming and take your Wyoming made gun to Colorado will be construed as interstate commerce.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the FFAs aren't perfect yet, but I think this will be resolved in round two. After all, transporting private property across state lines isn't commerce, or at least it shouldn't be...

Although, I'm not really sure anyone is going to actually manufacture anything - it's probably more that the case goes and gets decided before the SCOTUS and they come to their senses and curtail the interstate commerce act. That's crazy thinking, but so was Heller.

Hey maybe they will do away with fed income tax too. The only way is secession. Not that I'm advocating that. Last time we tried we got our a%$ kicked.

This has no legal significance. It doesn't matter how they word the statute. The state of Wyoming does not get to restrain the power of Congress by trying to redefine the Commerce Clause. As I said, if Wyoming actually wanted to do something they could order their own peace officers to cease all cooperation with the feds. That's within the power of the state legislature. Trying to write Commerce Clause jurisprudence is NOT.

This has no legal significance. It doesn't matter how they word the statute. The state of Wyoming does not get to restrain the power of Congress by trying to redefine the Commerce Clause.

Click to expand...

I think your logic is backward in that what Wyoming and other states are saying is that the Federal government has misinterpreted what is already on the books, or that they are acting outside of the law. Basically the FEDS are the ones redefining the law.

This has no legal significance. It doesn't matter how they word the statute. The state of Wyoming does not get to restrain the power of Congress by trying to redefine the Commerce Clause

Click to expand...

I believe there's a misconstruction of intent here. Wy is not at all attempting to "redefine" the commerce clause, but rather ensure it's enforcement remains within it's original definition, rather than straying blatantly across 10A lines as it so frequently has in the past.

Wyoming has no say over how the feds enforce their laws. As I said the most they could do is refuse to help.

Basically the FEDS are the ones redefining the law.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's THEIR LAW to define. Wyoming has no power over how the NFA or any other federal firearm law is interpreted in regulations or by the federal courts.

The laws like this are being passed in multiple states for two reasons. 1) political statement. 2) In order to incite a court challenge to the commerce clause.

Of course a state can not write a law that preempts federal law. Congress cannot pass a law that is outside the scope of their authority. These laws are predicated on the idea that they are doing the later. Under the standing SCOTUS decisions concerning the commerce clause, and their frighteningly broad interpretations of the power it grants, it seems fairly clear that congress has the power to regulate these items.

Just because you make a suppressor in WY, sell it in WY, and use it in WY that doesn't mean it does not affect interstate commerce. The people of WY will likely stop buying suppressors from gem tech in ID or ACC or other out of state companies. Thus there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce and purely intrastate activities that have such an effect are presently deemed to be within the purview of Congress. Further unless the material to make them is mined, refined, etc in WY there are interstate issues. Even if the material were there might be some interstate effect as described above.

Further the standard of review the court gives congress's decisions as to what has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, rational basis review, is very deferential.

That is where we stand right now. Saying these laws are of no significance is a taking it a step to far. They are by design written to challenge how things are right now. There is no potential to change it without a challenge. Further if many states pass this it sends a political message to the court. The court is not as politically insulated in reality as they are in theory. In fact it was arguably political pressure that caused the court to broaden their interpretation of commerce clause in the first place (google "the switch in time that saved nine").

In sum I am doubtful of these challenges, I certainly wouldn't go buy my WY only suppressor. I am also believe the 10th amendment has been abased and the commerce clause interpreted to mean something the founders assuredly did not intend so I support the challenge and hope the court continues on the path it has been on since the 90's of tightening the interpretation of the commerce clause (although this would be a much more significant tightening that what we have seen since about 1937).

These type laws and other defiance of Fed authority will evetually lead to a constitutional convention if the Feds continue to ignore the States political wishes.
The C.C. is the main gun to the head of the Federal Government that the States have left.

They may not be able to stop federal prosecution, but prosecuting federal officers who break WY law might give some officers pause to enforce those federal laws.

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

Click to expand...

May not fix things but if enough states follow suit then it could sure change the landscape.

Just because you make a suppressor in WY, sell it in WY, and use it in WY that doesn't mean it does not affect interstate commerce. The people of WY will likely stop buying suppressors from gem tech in ID or ACC or other out of state companies. Thus there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce and purely intrastate activities that have such an effect are presently deemed to be within the purview of Congress. Further unless the material to make them is mined, refined, etc in WY there are interstate issues. Even if the material were there might be some interstate effect as described above.

Click to expand...

Which is just a bunch of far reaching BS well beyond the intent of the founders.
Gaining jurisdiction because of what someone is not purchasing or using that is within jurisdiction is the most far reaching of all. By not operating or using a product within their jurisdiction you are affecting their jurisdiction, and therefor within their jurisdiction.


Let me us a similar logic. Most water in Southern California comes from the Colorado River. So it crosses state lines to reach California.
Now lets say I started collecting rain water in Southern California to reduce how much water I needed from the faucet.
By the logic above the feds could tell me that collecting any water falling from the sky on my own property was illegal, as it would reduce how much water I would need from the Colorado river, affecting interstate commerce of the water purchased from out of state.

The logic applies to anything. Which was not the intent of the founders.
Jurisdiction is created for things or items that are used, not for those which are not used and thus indirectly affected.

Utah's bill is on the floor.

Don't be so sure that this kind of law holds no clout. Obama just announced that he will not seek prosecution of federal pot laws that are in conflict with state laws. It has as much clout as we are willing to give it.

Obama just announced that he will not seek prosecution of federal pot laws that are in conflict with state laws. It has as much clout as we are willing to give it.

Click to expand...

He announced they will not use resources to find people violating the law while violating no state law for medical marijuana.

He changed no laws however, and the feds are still free at any time to prosecute any person or business on an individual level.

The law never changed, just uniform enforcement of it. Now it is discretionary enforcement. Or enforcement when they stumble across something rather than actively use resources to find it.

So no law is changed, no precedent is set, and the violations they said they will not use resources to go after are still just as illegal as before.
It is just his personal unofficial policy, backed by nothing. Likely to swiftly change without any requirement for the passage of any laws as soon as a new president is elected.
As a result it is hardly anything that they can be held to when it comes to firearms because there is no precedent or laws that have changed.

But the conflict won't exist unless we create it. We have to start somewhere.

Obama just announced that he will not seek prosecution of federal pot laws that are in conflict with state laws. It has as much clout as we are willing to give it.

Click to expand...

Obama likes drugs, not guns.

No it does not have as much clout as we are willing to give it (unless you are talking about people being totally unwilling to enforce the law). Your example is not illustrative of a law having as much clout as the people are willing to give it. Rather it is illustactive of a law having as much clout as the executive branch is willing to give it. The executive enforces the law. If they simply refuse to do so then the law isn't worth a lot.

Obama essentially nullified fed law by saying the executive would not enforce it. I do not think he will do that here. Furthermore Mr. Obama could have a change of heart tomorrow and those people could end up being prosecuted.

These laws will have an effect to the extent the executive says it will not enforce the fed law (or if the court changes the way they view the commerce clause), are you really going to risk ten years in prison on whether they feel like enforcing it? You go buy that unregistered suppressor. The feds will arrest you. You assert state law. They assert the supremacy clause and federal law. The you fate rests on the court overturning 70 years of commerce clause precedent. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.

De segregation was much more hated in the south than NFA laws are in any state. Yet the courts upheld large sections of the civil rights act via the commerce clause and the Federal govt. was committed to enforcing those laws. (BTW I have no problem with desegregation, although I'm not fond of the way the courts interpreted the commerce clause in respect to the civil rights act, I'm merely citing it as a historical example of how these things can work out)

In sum I like that states are doing this but I wouldn't make any plans to buy your UT/MT/WY/Etc only suppressor just yet.

You'll note that the two republican members of the UT senate that voted against the bill were attorneys and probably remember reading Wickard v Filburn. I think they were wrong to vote against it even if I think it is a long shot the bill would be upheld by the court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

They may not be able to stop federal prosecution, but prosecuting federal officers who break WY law might give some officers pause to enforce those federal laws.

Click to expand...

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.

They may not be able to stop federal prosecution, but prosecuting federal officers who break WY law might give some officers pause to enforce those federal laws.

Click to expand...

I am reminded of the case of infamous Ruby Ridge and Waco sniper Lon Horiuchi. When charged in state court for manslaughter he petitioned to have it moved to federal court. Once it got to federal court the federal judge dismissed it.
I have no doubt the same tactic would be almost universal in permitting federal agents to enforce federal law while remaining outside the boundaries of opposing state laws.

You'll note that the two republican members of the UT senate that voted against the bill were attorneys and probably remember reading Wickard v Filburn.

Click to expand...

Wickard v Filburn is touted by all including the SCOTUS as being much more than it was. Gonzales v Raich is far more reaching and current, even if they pretend Wickard v Filburn created the authority.
Filburn received massive federal funds as a subsidy, where most of his income came from. He was essentially in a contract with the federal government to keep prices high, grow only a certain amount of crop, and receive significantly more cash than the crop was worth from the Federal Government for doing it.
He chose to break that contract.
It was not simply a private individual told what he could and could not grow on his own land. Which is what those seeking expansion of power say it was to set precedent to allow such a thing in the future.

Raich on the other hand has none of those contractual elements and as a result is far more reaching and expansive of federal powers than Wickard v Filburn ever was. It says the Federal Government can regulate absolutely anything, including even something which never is intended to enter any level of commerce whether intrastate or interstate. Which as it affects guns means everything, even homemade things or state made things that are not part of commerce or only part of state commerce are still within the feds new absolute power.
(However a new precedent and case law could always result from challenges.)

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.