Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 12:24:46 PM
http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/ (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.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 10, 2013, 12:30:53 PM
Sadly, I think you are right though.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 12:37:48 PM
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.
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on January 10, 2013, 12:43:52 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 10, 2013, 12:47:44 PM
Just think how great the eastside could be, if our counties didn't have to bend knee to the mighty state.
Post by: Huntbear on January 10, 2013, 12:50:52 PM
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..
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 12:51:48 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 12:55:00 PM
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.
Post by: Huntbear on January 10, 2013, 12:57:46 PM
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????? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 01:00:36 PM
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 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,107912.msg1409795.html#msg1409795)
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 01:01:17 PM
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????? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
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.
Post by: Huntbear on January 10, 2013, 01:02:16 PM
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????? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
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..
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 01:11:26 PM
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????? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2013, 01:24:47 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 01:26:56 PM
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
Post by: Bob33 on January 10, 2013, 01:29:07 PM
Unfortunately, in the eyes of federal politicians there are scant few of those anymore.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2013, 01:37:14 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2013, 01:40:52 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: csaaphill on January 10, 2013, 08:17:22 PM
sounds good to me
Post by: norsepeak on January 10, 2013, 08:28:00 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 10, 2013, 08:33:42 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2013, 07:11:14 AM
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. :twocents:
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. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on January 11, 2013, 07:16:19 AM
You need to look up DC v Heller.
Post by: scout/sniper on January 11, 2013, 07:27:43 AM
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. :chuckle: :chuckle: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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
"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
Post by: C-Money on January 11, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 11, 2013, 09:42:34 AM
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."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
"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."
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2013, 10:07:03 AM