State plan fines FEDS $2,000 over gun rules

State plan fines FEDS $2,000 over gun rules

www.wnd.com

Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules...

...a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Go Wyoming!

How about THAT for turning the tables on Big Brother!??

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."

Can a state actually make a law enforceable against federal agents?

"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.

I'll be curious to see where this one goes... Cool story!

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on Sat Mar 13th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

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.

reply to post by vor78


Even IF the Federal Government holds precent on the Interstate Commerce Laws - their jurisdiction ends upon the successful private sale to an individual in the state. Their jurisdiction on the matter in ONLY reclaimed if the the individual owning the gun attempts to sell it over state lines. That is where their jurisdiction on the mater begins and ends - with the COMMERCE across state lines. Once said commerce has been conumated, they no longer possess any legal authority to govern on the matter. This is only 1 example where the federal government abuses its authority via the Interstate oOmmerce Clause.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


C'mon, I wanna see a Fed go to Wyoming and try to enforce Fed laws there.

S&F OP.

Wyoming, I believe put forth one of the strongest 10th amendment assertions last year.

Wyoming Governor Signs Sovereignty Resolution

Here is the bill-HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. HJ0002

Here is a nice one I found-County Sheriff announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......


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

Go Wyoming!

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

I hear ya there, brother!

But, umm, just don't forget about the monster there that lurks in the northwest. Silent but deadly if it ever awakes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I could just imagine the endisnighe in Yellowstone, it would probably look something like this-Oooooohhhh baby, I wish you were all here with me.




I have let my beard grow this winter.

Stay outta Wyoming!!! lol. I've lived in this state for 22 years now. Best state in the Union in my opinion. It's definitely not a "city" state. Largest town is around 60,000. State population is figured to be roughly less than 1/2 mill. Heck, the pronghorn antelope outnumber the residents.

But back to the law enacted. This is interesting. With the verbage of gun manufactured and sold...What I wonder is how many new gun factories might be constructed in Wyoming. It's too bad it isn't more of an industrial resource factory sort of thing. Wyoming has almost zero taxes on the mineral industry, to influence more development in the state. This has been going like that for close to a century. Wyoming currently has the largest or 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world. Trona (aka Soda Ash-->Glass--->laundry detergent) is mined in Wyoming and also is the largest reserve in the world. The coal mined here in state is said to be the cleanest and purest form in the United States. With all the mineral and energy development, the state over the last decade with low taxes and whatnot has managed to put close to a trillion dollars into their mineral trust fund. Basically a fund that is almost untouchable.

As for Energy development in the state. Since it's got to be one of the windiest states in the Union, it has recently been bombarded with the Wind Energy business. Farms are everywhere. The are also in the development/building phase of a super-computer near the capital of the state.

Gun rights in this state are very open. In just about every town, you can walk down the streets, into shops, converse with law, all the while carrying a firearm. The one thing residents here value is their firearms. Recent legislation was passed also that enforced the Private Property Self-Defense mantra. You come on my property without permission, you're gonna have a couple extra "holes" to breathe through.

this is a positive step in the right direction. The only language the fed understands is money. I think we should all do this, if the fed violates our rights, we ought to fine them like they do to us.

reply to post by saabster5


Alright, you convinced me!

Oh, I ain't from any of those Metro states.

Now only if you have some deer to shoot at, oh you do. How bout some fishing? Well, it looks like you have a couple lakes. Not like the state next door or my state, but to be able to flip off the Feds.

Hell for that, a cold windy winter would feel just like home.

I'm a cheesehead, so I would probably fit in!

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.

I agree with you, I don't think they (Feds) can legally do anything about it either. The power given to the Feds comes from the people, and the people retain the absolute right to take it back at anytime.

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

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.

case.tm...

I believe this falls under Tort Law.
Right now Tort Law is under fire, and may go the way of other rights that have fallen. We need to keep them all.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Here are some facts put out by the National Bar Association
www.abanet.org...
______________________________________________________________

In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.

CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2003 www.cdc.gov...

* The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.

Kellermann AL and Waeckerle JF. Preventing Firearm Injuries. Ann Emerg Med July 1998; 32:77-79.

* The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
* The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
____________________________________________________________
www.abanet.org...

Not sure if these statistics mean anything but it should give you pause for thought.
Nobody wants to take your gun away from you but these are the reasons some are in favor and promote responsible ownership and gun control. I think you are irresponsible if you do not.

Something needs to be done to bring these numbers down. Other than tracking weapons more carefully and maybe taking assault weapons out of the hands of the average Joe so the cops aren't out gunned I am not sure what else can be done. Certainly you have no objection to tracking the sale and registration of guns so they cannot fall EASILY into the hands of criminals and the sadly mentally deranged?

Some men wield a gun to compensate for a diminutive penis. A power trip because they can't afford the Porsche. Similar to short mans syndrome (where the boss who is shortest will be the biggest prick) and I am not saying it's true for all - or even that guns should be removed but they should be controlled a lot better than they are. I live in FL and I can buy a handgun today without any questions asked. As a matter of fact I did.
But it sure frightens the hell out of me that anyone can.

In fact - if we are stuck with guns as an important part of our culture then we need to level the playing field and provide at least a 48 to everyone over the age of 16. No one is going to give you a hard time with THEIR GUN if they know chances are excellent that YOU ARE CARRYING A GUN also.

My solution: Control them better or give one to everyone who passes a simple mental exam. A little radical perhaps but really not much different than the views I see posted here.







[edit on 13-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

www.medicinenet.com...

start quote

DOCTOR'S VIEW ARCHIVE
Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05

Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes. ] end quote

All the above quoted from www.medicinenet.com...

reply to post by rusethorcain


Now before anyone jumps in with this quote out of context

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

I am not saying we should be like Japan.
There should be a sensible solution however and I do not hear those valiant protectors of the second amendment offering any solutions what so ever.

If this group of armed citizens EVER used their abundance of artillery and freedom to bear arms to somehow protect and defend the thousands of women and children, who are abused, raped, and murdered on a daily basis - I might be able to dredge up a little respect for them.

But even with all these men armed to the teeth to protect the rights and liberties of this great country...women and children do not have the liberty to walk the street without getting abducted by some guy with a gun.

reply to post by rusethorcain


What, are you ATS's biggest anti-gun advocate or something?

This thread deals with states rights over federal attempts to overstep their bounds using interstate commerce laws- it is NOT an argument over whether citizens should have the right to bear arms. That one was decided long ago in a pretty well known document.

But seeing as you are gonna go there, here, read THAT:

www.thearmedcitizen.com...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

What, are you ATS's biggest anti-gun advocate or something?

This thread deals with states rights over federal attempts to overstep their bounds using interstate commerce laws- it is NOT an argument over whether citizens should have the right to bear arms. That one was decided long ago in a pretty well known document.

But seeing as you are gonna go there, here, read THAT:

www.thearmedcitizen.com...

I didn't think I am and I certainly hope not. I went to your link and like the great reptilian demi god dick cheney I have to say "so what?"

I have a girl friend who wouldn't be alive today if she did not have a shotgun to shoot an armed intruder. What does this have to do with federal attempts to stop people from going to FL to buy an illegal gun?
Do you want every insane lunatic on the planet to own one?

militia noun. 1 A body of citizens enrolled and drilled in military organizations other than the regular military forces, and called out only in emergencies. 2 U.S. All able-bodied male citizens between eighteen and forty-five years of age not members of of the regular military forces.
www.bobtuley.com...

[edit on 13-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


A study from 1994 is outdated and irrelevant. The fact is that homicide (and violent crime) rates have dropped significantly in the intervening period.

Additionally, I'd argue that a comparison of gun-related deaths between the US and other countries is inherently misleading, simply because the US allows gun ownership and many other western nations do not. Of course it will have a much higher rate of firearm-related deaths.

A better comparison is the overall homicide rate. Its still going to be lower in other industrialized countries. In fact, if you consider only the non-firearm related homicides in the US, you STILL come out with a rate that is higher than most other western democracies. The point is, there are many more factors at play and its not as simple as just blaming firearms.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

A study from 1994 is outdated and irrelevant. The fact is that homicide (and violent crime) rates have dropped significantly in the intervening period.

Additionally, I'd argue that a comparison of gun-related deaths between the US and other countries is inherently misleading, simply because the US allows gun ownership and many other western nations do not. Of course it will have a much higher rate of firearm-related deaths.

A better comparison is the overall homicide rate. Its still going to be lower in other industrialized countries. In fact, if you consider only the non-firearm related homicides in the US, you STILL come out with a rate that is higher than most other western democracies. The point is, there are many more factors at play and its not as simple as just blaming firearms.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by vor78]

Certainly you are right since the numbers must be much higher now.
Don't blame firearms for firearm deaths? I realize when I have overstayed my welcome and so I will leave you fellas to shoot the breeze...

...as if the breeze had done anything to you.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Why did you even get on the thread, as the OP stated, this is about the Constitutional powers of the Fed compared to the State.

I could give you stats to make your head spin but I am not going there. If you want to talk about the 10th amendment rights of the State over the Fed, I will engage in the debate.

If you want to argue over the 2nd amendment, maybe find a thread on that subject. Of course people on those threads will bury your statistics.

Here is a nice one. With there only being 900,000 doctors in the US and over 200,000,000 guns. Doctors still kill more people than guns. And at about a 10 fold count. How bout them stats?

reply to post by rusethorcain


I'm simply stating fact. The fact is that US homicide rates have dropped roughly by more than a third since the early 1990s, from about 10 per 100,000 to about 6.0 per 100,000 today. The total number of firearm-related deaths, including suicides, is around 31,000 per year as compared to about 44,000 that are motor vehicle related. The study that you linked from 1994 was wrong in these predictions.

Its also a fact that there are roughly 6,000 homicides yearly in the US that do not involve the use of a handgun. This roughly equates to a rate of 2.0 per 100,000, a rate that is equivalent to or higher than most Western democracies.

The firearm-related deaths are merely a symptom of the real problem: the US is simply more inherently violent than the rest.