Wyoming Lawmakers Propose ‘Gun Protection’ Legislation

[Bob33]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..."

Unfortunately, in the eyes of federal politicians there are scant few of those anymore.

[pianoman9701]

Well for one state's can't tell what the feds can do and not do when it comes to enforcing federal laws.

Ask anybody in Utah how they are trying to take law enforcement authority away from BLM, NPS, USFS, and USFWS......It ain't working!

Hundreds of bills are introduced into state legislatures every year. A couple years ago a WA senator wanted to make a law allowing his dog to buried with him. In 2011/12 a Klickitat Co rep wanted to strip LE authority from WDFW, DNR, and Parks and have the County Sheriff do all of that enforcement. Just because a bill gets introduced doesn't mean anything will happen with it.

I believe that's incorrect because of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, not that our federal government cares about the Constitution anymore.

"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 10th is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights which doesn't speak to individual rights. It speaks to the rights of the individual states and is the basis for our "republic". Unless the 2nd Amendment is removed AND an amendment is added which prohibits gun use, the individual states have every right to protect it fully.

What part do you think is incorrect?

Utah has been the main state to try and get rid of federal law enforcement, especially by land management agencies. However they have been yet to be successful

I can't speak to Federal LE on Federal lands and what's been done in the courts - I don't know.  But, I can speak to Federal LE on State lands or private property. The feds may be able to regulate gun use on federal lands in WY if this bill passes (although I think they'd have a lot of trouble with the citizenry of WY), but will not be able to anywhere else. And, I suggest that gun rights will be far more highly protected by the people and the WY state government then LE reach on federal lands.

[bigtex]

Well for one state's can't tell what the feds can do and not do when it comes to enforcing federal laws.

Ask anybody in Utah how they are trying to take law enforcement authority away from BLM, NPS, USFS, and USFWS......It ain't working!

Hundreds of bills are introduced into state legislatures every year. A couple years ago a WA senator wanted to make a law allowing his dog to buried with him. In 2011/12 a Klickitat Co rep wanted to strip LE authority from WDFW, DNR, and Parks and have the County Sheriff do all of that enforcement. Just because a bill gets introduced doesn't mean anything will happen with it.

I believe that's incorrect because of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, not that our federal government cares about the Constitution anymore.

"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 10th is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights which doesn't speak to individual rights. It speaks to the rights of the individual states and is the basis for our "republic". Unless the 2nd Amendment is removed AND an amendment is added which prohibits gun use, the individual states have every right to protect it fully.

What part do you think is incorrect?

Utah has been the main state to try and get rid of federal law enforcement, especially by land management agencies. However they have been yet to be successful

I can't speak to Federal LE on Federal lands and what's been done in the courts - I don't know.  But, I can speak to Federal LE on State lands or private property. The feds may be able to regulate gun use on federal lands in WY if this bill passes (although I think they'd have a lot of trouble with the citizenry of WY), but will not be able to anywhere else. And, I suggest that gun rights will be far more highly protected by the people and the WY state government then LE reach on federal lands.

Got it.

But how many other federal laws out there are already on the books that don't matter where the offense occured? Such as the assault weapons ban a couple years ago? There are a ton of federal laws which don't matter where the crime occured.

Could it be in violation of the constitution? Maybe

All I know is the Supreme Court keeps upholding these federal laws. 

[csaaphill]

ya big migrations to wyoming might be in order lol 
sounds good to me

[norsepeak]

what about the gov. of Idaho telling fed fish and wildlife to pound sand about enforcing wolf protections in Idaho?

[csaaphill]

lol looks like some of those petitions to secede might be comeing true? but ya  idaho might do the same.

[pianoman9701]

Well for one state's can't tell what the feds can do and not do when it comes to enforcing federal laws.

Ask anybody in Utah how they are trying to take law enforcement authority away from BLM, NPS, USFS, and USFWS......It ain't working!

Hundreds of bills are introduced into state legislatures every year. A couple years ago a WA senator wanted to make a law allowing his dog to buried with him. In 2011/12 a Klickitat Co rep wanted to strip LE authority from WDFW, DNR, and Parks and have the County Sheriff do all of that enforcement. Just because a bill gets introduced doesn't mean anything will happen with it.

I believe that's incorrect because of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, not that our federal government cares about the Constitution anymore.

"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 10th is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights which doesn't speak to individual rights. It speaks to the rights of the individual states and is the basis for our "republic". Unless the 2nd Amendment is removed AND an amendment is added which prohibits gun use, the individual states have every right to protect it fully.

What part do you think is incorrect?

Utah has been the main state to try and get rid of federal law enforcement, especially by land management agencies. However they have been yet to be successful

I can't speak to Federal LE on Federal lands and what's been done in the courts - I don't know.  But, I can speak to Federal LE on State lands or private property. The feds may be able to regulate gun use on federal lands in WY if this bill passes (although I think they'd have a lot of trouble with the citizenry of WY), but will not be able to anywhere else. And, I suggest that gun rights will be far more highly protected by the people and the WY state government then LE reach on federal lands.

Got it.

But how many other federal laws out there are already on the books that don't matter where the offense occured? Such as the assault weapons ban a couple years ago? There are a ton of federal laws which don't matter where the crime occured.

Could it be in violation of the constitution? Maybe

All I know is the Supreme Court keeps upholding these federal laws. 

Actually, I believe that the Supreme Court has stayed away from the 2nd Amendment completely - no rulings. That may change with challenges to any enacted gun legislation or executive orders. So far, challenges to gun legislation have come from the district courts. Correct me if I'm worng, but I rarely am.

[Bob33]

"Actually, I believe that the Supreme Court has stayed away from the 2nd Amendment completely - no rulings."

You need to look up DC v Heller.

[scout/sniper]

Actually, I believe that the Supreme Court has stayed away from the 2nd Amendment completely - no rulings. That may change with challenges to any enacted gun legislation or executive orders. So far, challenges to gun legislation have come from the district courts. Correct me if I'm worng, but I rarely am.

A few examples of the Supreme Court 2A.

Supreme Court Rulings.
Presser v. Illinois
   This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.

Miller v. Texas
   The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws.

Robertson v. Baldwin
   Ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Supreme Court is all over the place when dealing with 2A. I don't trust them.

[pianoman9701]

"Actually, I believe that the Supreme Court has stayed away from the 2nd Amendment completely - no rulings."

You need to look up DC v Heller.

The Supreme court only upheld the district court ruling. They made no comment and no change. DC v Heller was a District court ruling

[C-Money]

Hope the new law works out for Wyoming.  I hope to see similar bills in Idaho, Texas, and Arizona.

[Bob33]

"Actually, I believe that the Supreme Court has stayed away from the 2nd Amendment completely - no rulings."

You need to look up DC v Heller.

The Supreme court only upheld the district court ruling. They made no comment and no change. DC v Heller was a District court ruling

Wow. Really? I've attached Judge Scalia's opinion in DC v Heller. It is too long to include in its entirety but here is his concluding paragraph. "Second amendment" is referenced 126 times in his opinion.

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

[pianoman9701]

I couldn't find that. Thanks Bob.