State plan fines FEDS $2,000 over gun rules

But Wyoming's law goes further, stating, "Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both."

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

Originally posted by endisnighe
You know, I think I may be sending some resumes their way, the wild west seems to be calling.

Originally posted by vor78
Its about time that the states began to reassert the rights delegated to them by the constitution. With any luck, more states will adopt a similar position on this issue and a number of others.

I don't think the Federal government has a legal leg to stand on here, either. As the article indicates, most of the federal gun laws derive from the interstate commerce act. If they're not being sold across state lines and are intended for intrastate usage, however, it would seem that the federal government's entire argument falls to pieces.

Federalism and States rights

1. Three ways that the federal government has exclusive domain over an area
1. Expressly granted to federal government in constitution
2. Expressly denied to states in constitution
3. Something that "by its nature" the Federal government has to handle
2. States can tax the federal government if it is indirect, and non-discriminatory
1. States can tax so long as it doesn’t unduly interfere with interstate commerce
2. State regulations on federal property has to be with federal consent
3. Indirect taxes on the federal government are ok so long as they are nondiscriminatory
3. Federal government can’t tax a state’s property that is used in performance of its basic governmental functions
4. There are some things (such as education) that are historically in the domain of the states
(snip)
Preemption of federal laws over state laws by the supremacy clause and the commerce clause

1. Is there a direct conflict between the federal and state regulation (e.g., joint compliance isn't possible, or the objectives conflict)? If so, federal law automatically pre-empts. If there's no direct conflict — i.e., the federal and state statutes merely cover the same subject matter
1. local law, than congress prevails – else if there is room for the local law, than both laws are good
1. does the local law inhibit the federal government’s interests (Pacific Gas and Electric)
2. Was the federal law intended to occupy the entire field? (Pacific Gas and Electric Company)
1. If so — the federal law preempts the state law. If not — the state law stands.
3. Prudential factors that the federal courts look to in deciding whether to pre-empt -- if a federal law covers the whole area in question then the federal law applies
1. whether historically, the area has been regulated mainly by the states, or rather, mostly by the federal government;
2. the pervasiveness of the federal regulation (e.g., creating a federal agency with regulatory authority);
3. the similarity between state and federal law (the more they coincide, the more likely federal law intended to supersede state law);
4. the need for uniform federal regulation.