Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by apokalupsis33vital
Though admirable, what prevents the federal government from countering Wyoming's legislation with legislation of their own? Oh, and what is up with that article, was it typed by a tea party member? That was just dreadful to read, I could barely get through it with all of the typos and god-awful grammar... smh


The Washington Examiner article was written by a Tea Party member? Who knew? And who cares? That wasn't the point of the post. It was about the bill. I read it again, and I honestly didn't see any typos. If you are referring to the OP, that wasn't the article. That was my written post from my phone, apologies for any typos in my post, it's hard to post from my android, but I felt it was important news to get out. I try to be prefect, but, well, I fail sometimes.


You said, "...what prevents the federal government from countering Wyoming's legislation with legislation of their own?"

That was also in the OP:

"The Federal government, as most agree, has no business stepping into state business and telling individual states what to do. For those that disagree, see the 10th ammendment."

www.usconstitution.net...


U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

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.


They can't. It's pretty simple. They can legislate their fannies off, but they can't.

tenthamendmentcenter.com...


“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”


and


House Joint Resolution 2 includes language to this effect:

That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. The state of Wyoming will not enforce such mandates.


Thanks for the opportunity to post the information. It's always good to get the 10th out there for those who may forget that the Feds have pretty limited power It is only given, and that which is given CAN be taken away.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dc4lifeskater
 





I hope texas is up next!


You are correct that we will be next. The state of Texas is going to introduce pretty much the exact same "Firearms Protection Act" as Wyoming.

www.khou.com...


Don't mess with Texans or their guns. That’s how state Rep. Steve Toth (R-Woodlands) sees it.



So, he’s proposing legislation that would make any federal law banning semiautomatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable in the Lone Star State.


Let's see who's next. Arizona? Oklahoma? Mississippi? My vote for next goes to Arizona. Im guessing atleast one of these states will propose this exact same Firearms Protection Act within the next week or 2. (Hopefully they all do)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Hi! Thanks for coming and letting us know! I just saw your thread on Texas, most excellent news.

I am with you, Arizona, maybe Montana. Montana was one of, if not THE first, in the 10th movement, so expect to see much of the same rollout on this.

Thanks again for the link and info!

Molon labe.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
So we all understand that if this bill actually passes in Wyoming it will almost assuredly not survive a Supreme Court challenge, right?

Ultimately, it could end up being the mess that legalized "drug that shall not be named" has become, with the State saying it's lawful but the Feds arresting you anyway.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
So we all understand that if this bill actually passes in Wyoming it will almost assuredly not survive a Supreme Court challenge, right?

Ultimately, it could end up being the mess that legalized "drug that shall not be named" has become, with the State saying it's lawful but the Feds arresting you anyway.


I don't understand? It most assuredly will pass. The first time it was proposed, July of 2010, it passed unanimously. If you have the state as your defense, you won't pay a dime for your defense.

I would also guarantee it will survive a Supreme Court challenge. The 10th is pretty clear. No executive order is able to overpower states rights. The president cannot change the constitution with an executive order, nor can he legislate from the oval room. The constution is clear about that, too.

Unless we are under a coup, and the Supremes are in on it, along with a large part of the upper level government, it is all bluster from Obama. He talked big, now he has to put on a show, but after the lights dim, and everyone is warm and fuzzy and back to watching Idol or whatever, the reality of the limits on his reach come into play.

By that time, only the most attentive will see it went nowhere.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


However, what you are not factoring in is a DHS precedence. The Patriot Act gives the authority to the DHS for enforcement of EOs. Scary, huh? It's never been done, but all set up.

In fact, the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) gains complete control of everything, in order "to ensure the safety of" US citizens. An EO that says "do this, do that", well, control goes over to the DHS, which is now the MAIN department of anything that can harm a US citizen.

They are trying to keep us safe. They also want a precedent to begin with. This could be it, if they push the issue.

For the record, State Laws supersede Federal laws. The only reason people think otherwise is because the Federal Government can withdraw funding, and the states don't want to lose all those tax dollars of funding.

To push the issue, Wyoming, and other states, lose all federal funding. What's next after that?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
MIssouri joins the crowd!

www.abovetopsecret.com... - Missouri

www.abovetopsecret.com... - Texas

edit on 16-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I just created a thread for keeping track of all the new states joining in, and some states already had Acts followed. It has lots o information, maps, and searchable bill links etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope you enjoy.

You can search for your state and see where it statnds on 2nd Amendment Rights, as well as 10th Amenendment, and Firearm Protection Act.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
So we all understand that if this bill actually passes in Wyoming it will almost assuredly not survive a Supreme Court challenge, right?

Ultimately, it could end up being the mess that legalized "drug that shall not be named" has become, with the State saying it's lawful but the Feds arresting you anyway.


I don't understand? It most assuredly will pass. The first time it was proposed, July of 2010, it passed unanimously. If you have the state as your defense, you won't pay a dime for your defense.

I would also guarantee it will survive a Supreme Court challenge. The 10th is pretty clear. No executive order is able to overpower states rights. The president cannot change the constitution with an executive order, nor can he legislate from the oval room. The constution is clear about that, too.

Unless we are under a coup, and the Supremes are in on it, along with a large part of the upper level government, it is all bluster from Obama. He talked big, now he has to put on a show, but after the lights dim, and everyone is warm and fuzzy and back to watching Idol or whatever, the reality of the limits on his reach come into play.

By that time, only the most attentive will see it went nowhere.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


Well then why doesn't every state just pass this sort of legislation about pretty much everything and we can all ignore every new Federal law? Because they don't pass muster with the Supreme Court, that's why. States rights is a cute thing to fantasize about, but it doesn't really mean much.

Why don't we eliminate the FAA and let every state have its own aviation rules and regulations? Well, because it would be a complete cluster F. Why don't we eliminate the EPA and let each state regulate emissions? Because one state would always be suing the bordering state for infringing on their air quality. Oh, the states have the ability to regulate within certain parameters, but it's all governed by the Federal laws.

If new Federal gun legislation is passed, these feel good laws mean nothing other than the State does not plan on enforcement. If that. The Feds will be happy to enforce Federal laws. These sorts of laws get struck down all the time.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Not if they make it too much of a hassle, by, I don't know, arresting them and charging them with a felony? Kinda like how gun grabbers are trying to pass laws making it a real hassle for gun owners to get guns and ammo. The federal government cannot dictate state laws.....

The only power they have over the states is coercion, threatening to withhold giving back any money that the state collected for them VIA federal taxes.
edit on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:31:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Quoted "Well then why doesn't every state just pass this sort of legislation about pretty much everything and we can all ignore every new Federal law? Because they don't pass muster with the Supreme Court, that's why. States rights is a cute thing to fantasize about, but it doesn't really mean much. "

You are correct. States rights is a cute thing to you and the feds, but to me and many millions more this is beyond acceptable. We intend to remove any visage of cuteness and replace it with an ugly fanged viscious nasty to look at mangy critter that will bite your face off for so much as looking at my meal.





top topics
 
62
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join