Wyoming Lawmakers Propose ‘Gun Protection’ Legislation

[Bob33]

For some reason, I don't envision Olympia following suit.

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/

Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries.

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal. It also includes a provision allowing the Wyoming Attorney General’s office to defend any state resident against any federal firearm ban.

[scout/sniper]

WA State needs to follow suit and enforce our rights.
Sadly, I think you are right though.

[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.

[Heredoggydoggy]

You think "Governor Inslee" is going to go against anything the Obama regime pushes through?  HAH!  I heard the phony "poll" he conducted in the Wenatchee area back when he was in his first (and last) term as the 12th District Representative so he could vote FOR the Clinton Gun Ban.  I think the only reason he wasn't the one that got caught under Clinton's desk is Monica got there first!

[DOUBLELUNG]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

[Huntbear]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...


Montana is currently fighting with the ATF over states rights and firearms...     It may be time to consider relocating to a state that will actually stand up to the feds..

[bigtex]

cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

In regards to cities in depends on how the law is written. Many county laws actually just apply to unincorporated areas, not areas within city limits. However like I said, it just depends on the law.

[bigtex]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

Actually that is kind of false.

The president has said his admin will not go after the recreational users, essentially the DEA is not going to start walking streets looking for pot smokers. HOWEVER he said they will continue to go after the producers, sellers, etc. Just like they have with medical marijuana suppliers.

Both the US Attorney's offices in Western WA, Eastern WA, and Colorado have directed their federal natural resource officers (BLM, USFS, USFWS, NPS) to continue to enforce the federal drug laws on federal lands. So while the DEA will not cite a pot smoker in downtown Seattle, a USFS Officer will in a National Forest.

[Huntbear]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

Actually that is kind of false.

The president has said his admin will not go after the recreational users, essentially the DEA is not going to start walking streets looking for pot smokers. HOWEVER he said they will continue to go after the producers, sellers, etc. Just like they have with medical marijuana suppliers.

Both the US Attorney's offices in Western WA, Eastern WA, and Colorado have directed their federal natural resource officers (BLM, USFS, USFWS, NPS) to continue to enforce the federal drug laws on federal lands. So while the DEA will not cite a pot smoker in downtown Seattle, a USFS Officer will in a National Forest.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, as long as I am using my federally banned firearms on state land, I am ok?  just as long as I am not using them on federal land like USFS??   

[Bob33]

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,107912.msg1409795.html#msg1409795

[bigtex]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

Actually that is kind of false.

The president has said his admin will not go after the recreational users, essentially the DEA is not going to start walking streets looking for pot smokers. HOWEVER he said they will continue to go after the producers, sellers, etc. Just like they have with medical marijuana suppliers.

Both the US Attorney's offices in Western WA, Eastern WA, and Colorado have directed their federal natural resource officers (BLM, USFS, USFWS, NPS) to continue to enforce the federal drug laws on federal lands. So while the DEA will not cite a pot smoker in downtown Seattle, a USFS Officer will in a National Forest.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, as long as I am using my federally banned firearms on state land, I am ok?  just as long as I am not using them on federal land like USFS??   

Where did I say that?
There is a big difference here. If the feds outlaw a gun, I highly doubt that WA will go against it. And even if they do make a law, I am willing to bet the Obama admin will sue a state over a gun law then a pot law.

[Huntbear]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

Actually that is kind of false.

The president has said his admin will not go after the recreational users, essentially the DEA is not going to start walking streets looking for pot smokers. HOWEVER he said they will continue to go after the producers, sellers, etc. Just like they have with medical marijuana suppliers.

Both the US Attorney's offices in Western WA, Eastern WA, and Colorado have directed their federal natural resource officers (BLM, USFS, USFWS, NPS) to continue to enforce the federal drug laws on federal lands. So while the DEA will not cite a pot smoker in downtown Seattle, a USFS Officer will in a National Forest.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, as long as I am using my federally banned firearms on state land, I am ok?  just as long as I am not using them on federal land like USFS??   

Where did I say that?
There is a big difference here. If the feds outlaw a gun, I highly doubt that WA will go against it. And even if they do make a law, I am willing to bet the Obama admin will sue a state over a gun law then a pot law.

Never said you said that....

However, the logic is the same.. 

[bigtex]

States can't pre-empt federal law, counties can't pre-empt state law, cities can't pre-empt county ... I support the sentiment but the the efficacy is zero.

Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.

Ummmmmmmmmmm then Washington's "Pot law" is against federal law.. but you do not see the feds doing anything...

Actually that is kind of false.

The president has said his admin will not go after the recreational users, essentially the DEA is not going to start walking streets looking for pot smokers. HOWEVER he said they will continue to go after the producers, sellers, etc. Just like they have with medical marijuana suppliers.

Both the US Attorney's offices in Western WA, Eastern WA, and Colorado have directed their federal natural resource officers (BLM, USFS, USFWS, NPS) to continue to enforce the federal drug laws on federal lands. So while the DEA will not cite a pot smoker in downtown Seattle, a USFS Officer will in a National Forest.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, as long as I am using my federally banned firearms on state land, I am ok?  just as long as I am not using them on federal land like USFS??   

Where did I say that?
There is a big difference here. If the feds outlaw a gun, I highly doubt that WA will go against it. And even if they do make a law, I am willing to bet the Obama admin will sue a state over a gun law then a pot law.

Never said you said that....

However, the logic is the same..

No it's not.

Because it would take a state law to essentially "challenge" the federal law. If the feds come out tomorrow saying a certain gun is illegal then it would affect state, tribal, federal, and private lands. Doesn't matter if it isn't illegal under state law. And like I said, the Obama admin will definitely sue any state that tries to conflict with federal gun laws.

If the feds really wanted to they could go arrest every pot smoker in WA, but there aren't the resources for them to do that. And honestly the federal agencies (in this case the DEA) has never worried about a recreational user, they care about the suppliers. This is why the feds are still going after the suppliers of the marijuana. But the federal land management agencies which are really the only patrol officers in the federal govt (other then Border Patrol) do have the resources to enforce federal drug laws on their lands.

[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.

[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