Here’s How Wyoming Lawmakers Are Trying to Beat Obama Admin. to the Punch on Possible Gun Ban
File-In this Thursday, July 26, 2012 file photo an AR-15 style rifle is displayed at the Firing-Line indoor range and gun shop, in Aurora, Colo. Similar weapons have been used in at least four high-profile shootings in the past year, including most recently the Connecticut school shootings and the Christmas Eve killings of two New York firefighters. Credit: AP
A number of Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation intended to protect gun owners from any future federal ban on semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, KTWO reports.
Introduced last week, the “Firearms Protection Act” would make any federal law banning semi-automatic rifles or limiting magazine capacity unenforceable in Wyoming.
In fact, under the proposed bill, anyone who tried to enforce a federal gun ban could be charged with a felony. The Wyoming Attorney General’s office would also be permitted to defend any state resident against a federal gun ban.
“An act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; proving a penalty; and providing for an effective date,” the bill states.
“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 owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony,” the proposed legislation adds.
Per the Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering:
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Wyoming State Senator Larry Hicks, told The Washington Examiner that this type of legislation sends a message to the federal government in Washington D.C.
“It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” Hicks explained in an interview.
Citing the Tenth and the Second Amendments, Hicks asserted that the legislation was Constitutional, adding that he fully expected it to pass in the Wyoming state legislature. Hicks said that his Wyoming constituents were upset about the looming threat of gun control coming from Washington, particularly since Vice President Biden signaled yesterday that President Obama was willing to issue an executive order to tackle the gun issue.
[...]
Hicks explained that the model of the bill was taken from a bill passed in the State of Montana in 2009 adding that it wasn’t much different from what he’d seen other states do.
Whether or not such a law would actually be effective is a topic that will likely be debated. However, the so-called “Supremacy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution says federal law overrules state law when the two conflict. Still, as we’ve seen in states that have recently legalized marijuana, like Colorado and Washington, the feds don’t always immediately exert their power over a state’s sovereignty.
Read the entire Firearms Protection Act here.
Featured image via Getty
(H/T: Drudge)
Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.
Popular Stories
‘Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]‘: High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With ‘Consenting’ Fellow Student 921 Comments
‘The Daily Show’ Creator Makes Outrageously Offensive Anti-Conservative Joke About Okla. Tornado 399 Comments
Washington Times Writer: Fox News Scandal Goes ‘Much Deeper,’ W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About 354 Comments
University Will Investigate Christian Professor’s Intelligent Design Class Following Atheist Furor 259 Comments
CNN Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Unchanged Since Scandals Hit 252 Comments
Faith
- Incredible: The Moment a Woman’s Dog Emerges from Rubble During TV Interview Right After She Describes Losing Him Read More
- See the First Behind-the-Scenes Photos as Beck and Mercury One Survey the Damage in Okla. 143 Comments
-
Here’s the Inspirational Story of an American Flag Hanging Amid the Oklahoma Tornado’s Destruction
Read More
-
University Will Investigate Christian Professor’s Intelligent Design Class Following Atheist Furor
259 Comments
-
‘Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]‘: High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With ‘Consenting’ Fellow Student
921 Comments
Business
-
Watch Live: Senate Hearing on IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups
Read More
-
Treasury Sec. Ready to Deploy ‘Extraordinary Measures’ as U.S. Hits Debt Limit (Again)
Read More
-
‘In the End, Everything Will Be Claimed’: Creator of First 3D-Printed Gun Highlights Creeping Gov’t Control of Technology
Read More
-
Sebelius’ Controversial Fundraising Efforts Raise Concerns, Allegedly Chase Away Potential Donors
Read More
-
See All the Viral Backlash Abercrombie & Fitch Has Received for Its CEO’s Comments From Years Ago That Resurfaced Again
Read More
Technology
-
How a $4.5 Million Network of 181 Sirens Helped Save Lives in Oklahoma Twister
Read More
-
See the Record-Setting Python a Man Caught With His Bare Hands (and Guess How Much It Weighed)
Read More
-
This Teen’s Invention Means You Could Charge Your Cellphone in Less Than 30 Seconds
Read More
-
One of the Most Unlikely Animals Being Trained to Hunt Land Mines
Read More
-
Woman Who Lost All Limbs to Flesh-Eating Bacteria Gets $200K Bionic Arms
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (336)
common cents
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:49pm“Whether or not such a law would actually be effective is a topic that will likely be debated. However, the so-called “Supremacy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution says federal law overrules state law when the two conflict.” The federal government is bound by the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution itself, anything else is left to the states. The federal government lacks the authority to use the supremacy Claus, where there is no “supremacy”
Report this comment
Bodacious_Boedi
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:08pmIt’ll embroil the States Rights debate again and it’s the first step in further dividing this country into a civil war with Wyoming’s much to be congratulated flipping off of Dear Leader.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:24pmThose who were worried about how the NRA would come down, here’s your answer:
After Meeting, NRA Says White House Has ‘Agenda to Attack the Second Amendment’
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-meeting-nra-says-white-house-has-agenda-attack-second-amendment_695097.html
“”We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.”
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:40pmThe legislators in these states who think any state law can ever trump federal law should be fired for their critical ignorance of the constitution. You are 100% correct. Federal law will always trump state and local laws. This is why what congress passes should interest every single American. Congress can easily invalidate any state law by passing a conflicting federal law. BUT, congress can’t pass any laws that violate our rights as they are spelled out in the constitution. The president does not have the power to override the constitution.
Report this comment
JRook
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:45pmHow’s about jason and the other ignorant folks take note that there are numerous members of congress, both republicans and democrats who believe that reasonable restrictions on the sale and use of automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are warranted. Including some high ranking members of the military. The second amendment does not provide for universal access and ownership of any gun produced. Or would you argue ownership of 50 caliber machine guns, blackhawk gatling guns or tank cannons fall under the 2nd. amendment. Arguing the extreme places you in the group of zealots on any issue. That is people who are both ignorant and ignored when the adults have a rational discussion of the real issues rather than the made up talking points.
searcher619
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:48pmAt least not w/o amending the constitution which is VERY difficult to do.
Report this comment
JRook
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:48pmQuick question for all the 2nd. amendment zealots here. How exactly would you apply it in defending how gun manufacturers, wholesalers and gun shops “loose” track of 100,000 guns per year. And how any moron can go into a gun show and purchase virtually any gun and amount of ammo without any background check or waiting period. Quick go check the NRA website for well spun talking points before you answer. We wouldn’t want you honest adult answer now would we.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:49pm@Jrook
The sense of desperation and panic in your post is delicious. I can actually sense fear. Please, do continue!
Report this comment
Turin
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:54pmSearcher619,
Please say NO to ignorance:
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:54pmJrook:
“automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are warranted.”
Automatic weapons (fully automatic machine-guns) have been illegal to own for civilians in the US for MANY years. If you are caught with one you will be doing at least 10 years in federal prison if I remember right. funny thing is that law hasn’t done much to keep these guns out of the black market. I knew quite few people who have them.
Report this comment
70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:01pm@J COMMIE HOOK
You are a communist who believes in every point of the Communist manifesto. You want gun bans so you and your commie friends can force your FASCIST views on freedom loving Americans. If you want to live as a SLAVE to government move to NY or Chicago. Don’t force fascism on us and we wont force freedom on you!
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:09pmJRook
“Quick question for all the 2nd. amendment zealots here. How exactly would you apply it in defending how gun manufacturers, wholesalers and gun shops “loose” track of 100,000 guns per year. ”
You are kidding right? You want to ban guns because some guns are stolen or lost? Seriously? So should we also ban knives and other weapons simply because those too go missing and/or stolen? Fact is the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ARM the civilian population so that in the even the government stops answering to the people and becomes tyrannical the people have the means to overthrow it. it was not added because the founding fathers were worried about the ability to hunt and and sport shooting. So there really shouldn’t be any gun bans. The people should be free to own any gun the military has. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment place any limits on what arms can be owned.
Report this comment
Dont_eat_me_bro
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:13pmJKook –
Who needs a gun show to sell weapons? I just sold all of mine to the lawn guy – he said his name was Pedro Sanchez and he was just trying to make a living and protect his family. I’ve been assured by the government that he is no threat to our country!
Report this comment
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:27pmDoesn’t anyone understand the power we have still?
The Declaration of Independence states: ” Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. and to institute new government.”
“We have in this country substantially two national governments,one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument. If the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era on Constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written Constitution, into an era of legislative absolutism.”
– Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan
Downes vs. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244,381 1901.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYleC7l86ys&feature=plcp
Stop paying taxes to a government that spends it so foolishly and allow the de jure government that is in place, waiting for our present de facto government to fall to their knees, to restore the Constitution back to what is was always meant to be. It is up to us to save our Constitution and way of life that our founders gave to us over 200 years ago and our Declaration of Independence gives us the right to do so.
Report this comment
Raider1
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:29pmPeople need to brush up on the 9th amendment and dont forget, the second amendment only works if we band together in a network. We need to look out for each other. As individuals we will lose every time because they will just dominate you then label you as a (fill in the blank) and nobody will care about the truth. Ruby Ridge ring any bells?
Report this comment
Raider1
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:34pmHey federal supremacy law guys….where do you think those federal laws come from? Thats right, the constitution. Activist judges have already engaged in lawlessness (for decades) by “interpreting” the constitution how they want it to be rather than what it actually says.
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:42pmNRAWOL.org may be a better ‘spokesperson’ against the NRA conspiracy of ignorance.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:42pmGooberment will continue to fail, until it is finally restored.
Suspect we will have to hit rock bottom before things improve.
“That guy” just aint got a clue.
Report this comment
lordjosh
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:50pmIt is already a felony. At least for most of my weapons. It’s called grand theft.
Report this comment
Hotrod25
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:59pm@Jrook
Access to those weapons ARE protected under the 2nd amendment! YOU may not feel it is necessary to own one now but if US citizens ever find theirself in the same situation as the syrian citizens are in now, you would feel very different. Citizens owning firearms are meant to keep that from ever happening here. whether or not you feel like our current crop of politicians would ever do that or not doesnt matter. It would just set the table for a future group of leaders who may not have very good intentions to take over the people. You may not think it could ever happen here because it never has before BUT we have always had out gun rights before also. coincidence— I think NOT!
Report this comment
gr8t2bfree
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:18pmWhen obammy passes his executive order bypassing the constitution, then Wyoming law will mean as much as obammy’s law! If obammy doesn’t care about it, why should Wyoming care about obammy’s executive order.
Report this comment
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:36pmJRook, Who cares where people get their lawful weapons from? Are you a U.S. Citizen between the age of 17 and 45?? If you are, you are a part of the militia and you should have a military weapon in your possession.
10 USC 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So if you are a citizen, get your **** down and purchase your military style weapon, it is your duty.
Report this comment
JEANNIEMAC
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:01pmEfficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654
of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside th
Report this comment
Jimw
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:18pmCheck the Tenth Amendment.
Report this comment
caveman74
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:22pmTo all you anti gun people tell me where does the constitution limit the type of arms we can own? When the constitution was penned well regulated meant well equipped and trained. And grown ups recognize that before tyrants can take over they disarm the public. Grown ups also realize the implications of a disarmed public. Check violent crime rates of disarmed nations and compare to us (violent crime not gun crime, yes our gun crime is high but trending down since the eighties but overall violent crime is dramatically lower than gun free nations like England or Australia). Grown ups argue facts not emotion
I will not comply
Report this comment
OldVet
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:40pmThe 10th amendment in this case trumps the supremacy clause.
Report this comment
DeOppressoLiber
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:06pmPerry step up to the plate and get Texas on board.
And all the other states that believe in the 10th Amendment.
Time to Community Organize and get this vote out.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:06pmI sent a copy of this bill to my governor with a request for a public assurance that he will defend our rights.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:11pmRook-
the 2nd amendment doesn’t provide for the government to be involved in tracking gun ownership nor allow for the restriction of what types of guns the people keep. 50 cal machine guns should be in the hands of citizens if they are in the hands of our government. If the police can carry and use full auto assault weapons and flash bang grenades, the people should be similarly armed.
Report this comment
Liberty Over Democracy
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:20pmour government, past and future, has shown us that laws do not matter…but it is up to each state to make a stand…and those that are concerned need to push their state to stand…or move to one that does. it is time.
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 8:27pmSounds like the Wyoming law would enforce the Second Amendment!!!
Report this comment
502_eagle
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:26pmAnybody know of land that is for sale in Wyoming?
Report this comment
FormerLib
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:27pmThe caption under the photo of the AR is a bald-faced AP lie. It says:
“In this Thursday, July 26, 2012 file photo an AR-15 style rifle is displayed at the Firing-Line indoor range and gun shop, in Aurora, Colo. Similar weapons have been used in at least four high-profile shootings in the past year, including most recently the Connecticut school shootings and the Christmas Eve killings of two New York firefighters. Credit: AP”
No AR was used in the Connecticut school shootings. The video clearly shows the sherriff’s department removing the AR from the trunk of the killer’s car. Unless he shot all those kids, ran back out to his car and put the AR in the trunk, and then went back inside to shoot himself, it’s simply a lie.
Report this comment
SirBeavis
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:33pmI agree, good job Wyoming. Montana passed a law last year (or maybe the year before) telling the Feds where they could shove it when it came to firearms commerce inside the state of Montana, based on the commerce clause having to do with interstate commerce. I think Utah or another south western state did also. As the article points out, they haven’t invoked the supremacy clause with the two states who have recreational marijuana laws yet, but I’d like to add that they haven’t invoked it against sanctuary cities and states either.
Report this comment
BOUGHT YOUR SILO YET?
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:37pmYes, but the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states that right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I know, I get what you are saying. It just makes my eyes bleed how they pick and choose which laws of the Constitution they enforce and how they will use one law to protect their butts whilst attacking another one.
Report this comment
junkets
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:50pmTo common sense, whether it is enforceable is a great question. The truth is, the mandate in 0bamacare is truly unconstitutional but it still is now a law. On the other hand, if a multitude of states pass such a law, maybe the elite will get the message. If not, maybe we will have to have an Article V amendment.
To SEARCHER619, your scorn for people trying to stand up for the rights of citizens aside, congress can and has passed laws that violate our rights. The 1994 ban is one example. 0bamacare mandate was already mentioned. Prohibition violated our rights. Do you need more examples to get the point that, as you seem to understand already, Congress and apparently the president through executive orders can do whatever they want until we say “no”. In fact, there is a long history of executive orders that violate the constitution? Lastly, the supremacy is actually granted to the states or the people, not the federal government. 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.
Report this comment
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 9:52pmI’ll have to keep a close eye on this. Might have to move 40 miles to my north to live in Cheyenne!
Report this comment
ALL4FREEDOM
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:07pmYour interpretation is exactly right. Now try to convince a Supreme Court that neither understands nor protects the Constitution any longer.
Report this comment
terrym21
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:56pmAfter “that guy” was re-elected and people started signing petitions to secede, I kind of laughed it off. But now, it’s obvious that “that guy” is intent on using the recent crisis to serve his agenda to destroy the 2nd amendment. Our federal government no longer represents the will of most rural people. The big cities vote blue because they have a friend in office who will give them free stuff. It’s time to dissolve this polarized nation into segments of common beliefs. As Davy Crockett might have said: “You may all go to hell and I will secede from the Obamanation!”.
Report this comment
battlebornconservative
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:20pmAnything Obama passes in relation to gun bans is unconstitutional. and as we all know “Unconstitutional laws are not laws”. So this Wyoming law is not in conflict with any federal laws and will stand against any weapons ban.
Report this comment
henryKnox
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:37pmHow about JROOK understand that it isn’t any of his business what guns I buy or what ammo I have. I don’t care what goes on in his bedroom and he shouldn’t care about me and my relationship with my gov’t.
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 11:41pmGhost, I thought you were one of the smarter people around here. I still think that, but your cutesy response to JROOKs intelligent post makes me think you’re incapable of reasonable discussion on this topic. If you were willing or capable, you’d address the issues he expressed. Instead? Cutesy comment.
But you’re a expert an on the Constitution of the United States of America, right? Doesn’t the First Amendment say that that the government shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech?” That’s really clear isn’t it? Clear, yes, but in need of rational interpretation. The Supreme court has said you can’t yell “fire” in a theater, you can’t incite a riot or murder, you can’t defame a person and so on.
JROOK has pointed out intelligent restrictions on the 2nd Amendment: owning Gatling guns, automatic cannons and so on. What “arms” are protected by the Amendment is a legitimate topic for discussion, although one you are unwilling to address.
I’d add that there are reasonable restrictions on the right to “bear” arms. I’d argue that the right to bear arms doesn’t extend to walking into a library, or government office or airplane with a shotgun or AK-15. That’s an abridgment or your right to “bear arms” but the adults have decided that does not violate the intent of the Constitution.
Ghost, cut the cute, and tell me where you stand. Are there any restriction at all to the “arms” a person can own? And can anybody walk onto a
Report this comment
ranepowel
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:56am@West Coast Patriot
If you’re making the insane argument that every man and woman of a certain age is considered part of the militia, then that’s fine by Obama, as, “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. [Article 2,Section 2 of the US Constitution]”
So, Obama just calls up the militia, which means you, and he’s your commander and chief to which you will be forced to obey under penalty of death.
You really thought that out, didn’t you, genius? :)
Report this comment
ScarletRose
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 3:47amIf 25 – 30 other states get one of their own…hehehehehehe
Report this comment
mgh999
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 8:39amFor JROOK
a. Actually under NFA you can still own a 50 cal machine gun, 37 mm anti-tank gun, 75 mm Howitzer or a 60 mm Mortar. $200 tax stamp and proper forms. But if you can afford any of these and cost of ammunition ($5 per round for the 50) you probably aren’t going to be hitting the 7-11.
b. 17 states already require some background check at all gun shows (it’s already Federal law for any FFL dealer to require a background check – so the “gun show loophole” really amounts to controlling individual to individual sales) – DOJ study BTW presented less than 2% of criminal fire arms came through gun shows.
c. Finally, sale of automatic weapons are already extremely controlled by the ATF under various laws (NFA, FOPA). What they are talking is semi-automatic weapons (1 pull of the trigger to fire each round, and 30 round magazines? Guess what, that’s what they all come with. Most gun manufacturers just put a $10 Magpul in the box).
VP Biden’s statement regarding re-institution of an “assault weapon ban” and limits on “high capacity” magazines being predetermined actions have nothing to do with actually stemming gun related crime, as <1% of all murders are committed by AR-15 / AK-47 style platforms.
This sounds good, gives the appearance of action without any messy hard work – 67% of murders committed by persons with prior felonies; 5 of top 10 most frequently reported stolen guns are revolvers (10% of the guns used). This is about ideology not sa
Report this comment
coachsmac
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 8:58amHey Bodacious, any one who flips off Washington is alright with me!! Obama and his cronies are treading on thin ice here as the people will revolt if he pushes this to hard. The people will only stand for so much and he is nearing his frigging limit!
Report this comment
dcatkin
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:12amI pray that Utah will initiate a law like this one here. Yes there is ialways the suprenecy clause, but I’d like to see the feds inforce that on every single gun owner in this country.
This really is not about gun control, it’s about people control, American people control. The feds know that they can’t advance their comunistic agenda if every American has a gun
They know that they can’t enforce agenda 21, and come in and steal our private property. They can’t advnce their green laws that get rid of cole fired power.
They know that American will resist, they know that any real Americans left in this country will stand and fight these laws, and fight the consistant tax raises.
That is what gun control is about, it’s how they will push the lefty agenda on the American people. It’s how they will make us obey their wishes.
It’s how they will give more hondouts of our tax dollars to the bums of the country, to those who don’t wnat to work.
Report this comment
spmcintyre
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:17amThe enumerated powers of the Federal Government does not include weapons legislation, which is banned by the 2nd Amendment. There is no law that can be passed by the Fed or a State that is Constitutional, therefore discussing who has controlling authority here is pointless.
Report this comment
spmcintyre
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:20amThe controlling authority here is the Constitution, since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal, State, County or City lawmakers have no authority to pass gun laws, But since when has the Constitution been a hinderance to control freaks/tyrants.
Report this comment
joetentpeg
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:57amMr. JKook.
You’re absolutely right.
The Chicago Jesus believes only Mexican Drug Lords and Libyan Al Qaida are to trusted with “assault weapons.”
Ps. Perhaps you could provide us with some data on the last time someone committed a crime with a .50 cal machine gun or main gun from an Abrams tank?
Report this comment
OIF3survivor
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:58amsendthemeteors:
I the lack of reading retention displayed by you has been truly amazing. Your now frequent question regarding the intent of type of weapon has been consistently and cogently answered on a few occasions now and yet you continue to ask it as if it is a significant point of weakness in the arguments of the ‘individual’ interpretation of the ‘right of the people’ clause of the second amendment. Let me attempt once again.
No one has ever claimed that the 2nd Amendment includes any type of weapon than that which can be carried as an individual one, ie., pistol, rifle, or shotgun(which, by the way, is FAR more lethal in tight enclosed spaces than any of your bogus category of assault weapons). It was always meant as the type of weapon which could be brought to the type of assembly/drills which used to be a standard feature in US life. More importantly, the weapon needed to be of the type of which could be effectively carried and used by the individual in time of war for however long he was required to serve.
So the entire, nuclear bomb, bazooka(team) and machine gun (most are heavy CREW-serve weapons) argument is a false one to begin with. Please try again.
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:29amThis has nothing to do with a law passed by congress – this has everything to do with a President that thinks he can supersede congress and all americans by a executive order.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program”, it was unconstitutional.
These resolutions attempt to reassert state sovereignty over any area not listed among the “enumerated powers” (i.e., any law based on an “expansive reading” of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Supremacy Clause would, according to this resolution, be invalid).
During 2009, “state sovereignty resolutions” or “10th Amendment Resolutions” were introduced in the legislatures of 37 states; in seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee).
During 2010, resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 21 states; the resolution passed in seven states (Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).
Report this comment
Swimming-with-the-Sharks
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:47amExcept that the Fed cannot trump the constitution which they seem to be trying to do, under Obummer, at every turn. Therefore state rights > fed mandates.
Report this comment
Zach2orJack
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 11:22am@Sendmeteors
You cannot yell fire in a movie theater because it’s private property, not because it’s not defended by the 1st amendment. That is a leftist argument that holds no water. Defamation and “hate speech” are also subject to interpretation. Another liberal argument that holds no water is the one that our founding fathers had muskets and didn’t foresee automatic weapons in the hands of the public. They had muskets and cannons the “assault weapons” of the day. The only reason for the 2nd amendment was so that the people could form a militia to defend their state or themselves against a tyrannical govt. You can argue whether or not we should have “assault rifles” all day but under our law we should be able to own any form of weapon we choose. Our forefathers had just fought for their freedom from a tyrannical govt and made sure that we would have the right and means to do so also.
Report this comment
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:34pmBuilding on what Zach said above, the founders did not foresee the telegraph, and yet nobody found it in violation of the first amendment towards communication. Nor did they have the cell phone, but this raises no red flags in courts.
Another interesting caselaw is the ban on taxing ink. Apparently, some journalists thought that taxing ink was an infringement on their freedom of press, so they sued the government and won.
Can the same be said of taxing ammunition, the very things that make guns ‘work’?
Just food for thought.
Report this comment
Simple Skeptic
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:25pmThis is largely why the 17th amendment should be repealed. The republic was voted out and democracy was voted in that day. Our founders envisioned a republic where states rights/sovereignty were held high and the powers granted to the federal govt. were protection of rights only…that’s why the constitution is singularly focused on limiting powers.
Report this comment
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:27pmRanepowel, You must turn on your brain before you post, seriously. I did not write the law, I just posted it as fact. An argument that has been brought on the 2nd amendment is that it is only meant for the militia (being the Natl Guard). Well the militia IS every able bodied man 17-45, therefore every one of them have the right to bear arms. Of course, I am older, so I would have to volunteer but as an Oathkeeper, I would not follow any unconstitutional order given by anyone, even the so-called Commander & Chief, and that goes for every citizen in the militia. Start thinking before you post.
Report this comment
falconrk
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:27pmAh, but the “Supremacy Clause” doesn’t trump the 2nd or 10th amendments. They can only be altered through a Constitutional Convention, and I don’t think enough states would ratify changes to either.
Report this comment
falconrk
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 2:32pm@Common Sense- Better redo your Gov’t 101 class… the “Supremacy Clause” doesn’t trump any amendment, only a Constitutional Convention can do that and only if the changes are ratified by the states. BOH’s Executive Orders can’t do it either!
Report this comment
Beepster
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 3:18pmSearcher619, One thing to consider is “Who is the SUPREME law enforcement PERSON in a county?” That would be the County/Parish/whatever Sheriff. It is TOTALLY his domain. Feds come in and try to enforce a law against a state, he CAN arrest the agent(s), and they can be tried by jury. Why do you think Holder stays out of Maricopa County, Az?? Ol’ Sheriff Joe Arpaio would probably arrest him in a moment for Fast and Furious.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 3:32pmjunkets:
Those illegal laws only stand if we let them. How do you think laws get reviewed by the Supreme Court for their constitutionality? If no one challenges the laws the Supremes never get to rule on their legality. And I bet if the president was stupid enough the try and ban all guns he’d be facing a revolt by the civilian population and many in the military.
Report this comment
Larry E
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 3:39pm@JROOK: You are an ignoramus whose lack of knowledge of the history and background of 2A is typical. If, as the left says, the 2A was to arm the militia (all able bodied men, btw) then the current infrantryman’s personal weapons should be available to ALL peaceable citizens. That would mean M16 rifles/M4 carbines and M9 pistols or suitable alternatives, and the rifles/carbines should be capable of selective fire, i.e., semi-auto or fully automatic/burst fire with 30 round magazines as well. The 2A is NOT about hunting, it’s about self defense and defense against a tyrannical government, which in case you haven’t noticed we’re rapidly approaching or have even achieved.
Report this comment
searcher619
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 3:53pmBeepster:
Doesn’t matter any law enforcement officer worthy of eh job is honor-bound to uphold our laws. those include the constitution. Even judges are sworn to abide by the constitution. This also means they are free to NOT enforce laws which violate the constitution which triggers a supreme Court hearing. But yeah you don’t want anyone in law enforcement who will pick and choose which laws they want to enforce and when ones to ignore. The system we have works when we actually use it to get rid of bad laws.
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 4:15pmhere it is: Wyoming State Constitution:
Article 1, Section 24. Right to bear arms.
The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.
Article 1, Section 37. Constitution of United States supreme law of land.
The State of Wyoming is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Article 6, Section 21. Oath of office; how administered.
“any person refusing to take said oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office, and any person who shall be convicted of having sworn or affirmed falsely, or of having violated said oath or affirmation, shall be guilty of perjury, and be forever disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit within this state.”
Arizona: Constitution: Article 2
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired
Louisiana Constitution: Article 1
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
Amended by Acts 2012, No. 874, §1, approved November 6, 2012, eff. December 10, 2012.
Tesas Constitution: Article 1
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power,
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 4:27pmWe, the people, voted to send our representatives to congress, on a Federal Level, to defend our rights and the rights of the State we live in. No President shall have the right to supersede Congress and deny my vote by executive order.
Any president that passes an executive order that supersedes congress and the people’s right to vote. Should be charged with Perjury.
18 USC § 1621 – Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
The Oath: 5 U.S.C. §3331
Report this comment
ThoreauHD
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 4:29pmA Federal law is illegal/nullified when it reaches beyond the scope of the US Constitution, which gives the Federal Government it’s authority in the first place.
Report this comment
Simple Skeptic
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 5:12pm“I hope Congress, before they adjourn will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best – the most judicious & disinterested Federalists, who wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States & their respective Citizens, many of them if not all are anxiously expecting them. They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private & personal Rights of the Citizens depend. Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated Government over all the States: which, although it may be wished for by some was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without Amendments. I am fully persuaded that the population of the U S living in different Climates, of different Education and Manners, and possessed of different Habits & feelings under one consolidated Government can not long remain free, or indeed remain under any kind of Government but despotism” – Sam Adams
Report this comment
country_hick
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 5:25pmJRook;
Quick question for all the 2nd. amendment zealots here. How exactly would you apply it in defending how gun manufacturers, wholesalers and gun shops “loose” track of 100,000 guns per year. And how any moron can go into a gun show and purchase virtually any gun and amount of ammo without any background check or waiting period. Quick go check the NRA website for well spun talking points before you answer. We wouldn’t want you honest adult answer now would we.
#1 – Then why is the BATFE NOT investigating and prosecuting those gun shops? Oh, that’s right, prosecutions are down 40% under Obama.
#2 – When was the last time you went to a gun show? EVERY show I have been to has forbidden private sales in the show and the DEALERS are required to run a NICS check. #2b – I am not allowed under NCIC regulations from requesting a NICS check if I sell one of my guns.
Quick, check your Morgan talking points before answering.
Report this comment
Obama_In_PeePee_Is_Becks_Art
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 5:38pm@Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder – [http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/3684.gif]
How do you sign up at TheBlaze and have “spaces” between words in your handle, and set an animated .GIF avatar (without it being filter down to a static picture)?
Thanks.
Report this comment
donwann
Posted on January 12, 2013 at 1:58amJRook…….Not every moron or intelligent person for that manner can walk into a gun show and buy “virtually any gun and any amount of ammo without a background check or waiting period.” You can spew all the propaganda you want, but the majority of sellers at a gun show are licensed dealers, thus if you by a firearm from one of them you will be subject to a background check!!! No exceptions!!! Furthermore, where do you get this that manufacturers lose track of 100,000 weapons every year? You obviously have no knowledge of the weapons manufacturing process, and the serial number reporting process to the BATF? Serial numbers for a lot (batch) of weapons are reported to the BATF before the are produced. During the production run you have weapons that are use for QC testing, test to fail, etc. You also have weapons that do not pass QC testing. Any weapon pulled for quality control or testing is not passed on to the consumer it is destroyed. The serial numbers of the destroyed weapons are passed on to the BATF also to be reconciled with the list of production serial numbers, thus the discrepancy between production serial numbers and actual delivered weapons.
Report this comment
hipockets
Posted on January 12, 2013 at 5:55amIf Wyoming can get this passed,I,as their neighbor in Montana,may have to move to Wyoming’ I value my guns and the rights to own them. I could again move to Canada and have 3 times the income I have here in the US,however,not leaving my Guns here’ Good Luck in your fight Wyoming’ I’m behind you’
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on January 12, 2013 at 1:25pmOIF3Survivor, you seem to know exactly what the Founders intended, which seems to be “any type of weapon than that which can be carried as an individual one.” A small nuclear device will fit in a suitcase, and chemical arms can easily be carried around “for the duration of a war.” As can Rambo style fully automatic weapons, hand grenades and so on.
And if the intent was to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over a nation, pistols, rifles and shotguns aren’t going to do that. What good is a rifle going to do you against RPGs and automatic cannons? Not to mention B52 bombers. If that was the genuine thought behind the 2nd Amendment, then you need access to every weapon the government has. Otherwise you’ll be outgunned.
Report this comment
TIMEBOMB
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:48pmI will not tolerate this insubordination from Wyoming regarding your rulers wishes to disarm the public.
I’ve talked to my subordinates in my regime about a total gun ban and that’s my ultimate goal. I wasn’t conferring with other members of my regime I want to make that clear because I’m superior to them in every way and they’re just around to make it look like I’m taking input. Well I’m taking a lot of input but that’s a different matter entirely. As your magnificent ruler I’ve determined that an armed populace is much too dangerous for my regime so a total gun ban is fast approaching. Praise be to me BHO.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:03pmToo much in the way of input. Uh, sir and stuff.
Report this comment
catty
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:18pmDo you get tired of being boring and unoriginal day after day?
Report this comment
Spirit 72
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:24pmTo TimeBomb
It is evident you could not be King Hussein Obummer because you only used “I” or “my” a dozen times. He would have referenced himself at least 2 dozen times.
Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:27pmcatty
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:18pm
Do you get tired of being boring and unoriginal day after day?
Don’t you dare talk to your Communist and Chief that way ! What a Biotch.
Report this comment
TIMEBOMB
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:30pmCATTY As your magnificent ruler I do grow weary of your idiotic posts,must you continue torturing your God and my subjects? Cease and desist for the love of me!
Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:21pmZeitbombe – wachsen wir ja müde Ihrer idiotischen Beiträge. Müssen Sie weiter quälen? Einzustellen und zu unterlassen? Sie verkaufen!
Report this comment
txswalker
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:45pmif you can buy a big soda there too I’m all in !!!
Report this comment
hoopsgulch
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:19pmIn WY, you can order a keg of soda.
YOU KNOW YOU ARE A TRUE WYOMINGITE WHEN:
1. “Vacation” means going east or west on I-80 for the weekend.
2. You measure distance in hours.
3. You know several people who have hit a deer more than once.
4. You often switch from “heat” to “A/C” in the same day and back again.
5. You can drive 65 mph through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching.
6. You see people wearing camouflage at social events (including weddings).
7. You install security lights on your house and garage and leave both unlocked.
8. You carry jumper cables in your car and your girlfriend knows how to use them.
9. You design your kid’s Halloween costume to fit over a snowsuit.
10. Driving is better in the winter because the potholes are filled with snow.
11. You were unaware that there is a legal drinking age.
Report this comment
From Virginia
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 10:07pm@Hoopsgulch! I’ve been thinking of Wyoming for a while now. Only thing that stopped me was all that federal land on the map! Spooky! But I LOVE your list! I may have to check it out!
Report this comment
WillG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:44pmI will stay in Tennessee and continue to Govern myself and what I own. Hats off to Wyoming though.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:50pmSure, because that the definition of government right: do whatever you feel.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:59pmActually, pub, the definition of government in these united States is that the Federal government has very restricted powers, and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are outside of their power to violate. Thus, they are the lawless ones “doing whatever they feel”.
Logic 101 is great.
You’re welcome.
Report this comment
WillG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:14pmPubis,if whatever I feel is providing for and rearing a family and owning whatever firearm or how many,whatever caliber,whatever capacity magazine I deem fit for my needs so on and so forth than yes,”that my definition of government”. All I need the U.S. government for is a National Defense and Roads. Other than that I have no use for the Federal Government or argumentative A$$-Bags like you.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:14pmBearing arms is a natural right of humanity since the dawn of civilization. Each person has the prefect natural right to defend themselves against enemies. I don’t know why this is so hard for anti-gun folks to understand.
Report this comment
taxpro4u03
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:19pm@Publiuspencilman
“The question of nullification was solved by the Civil War.”
Was it? 15 united States Statutes at Large 249(1) — corporations can do what they want — UNLESS they violate the rights of the sovereign —> 201 U.S. 43@89 {1906} — course — knowing ‘contract law’ and understanding its CORRECT application are horses of a different color – same with correctly identifying respective jurisdictions…. Many folks have homework to do — What’s keepin’ ya? :-)
Report this comment
MoseyAlong
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:24pm@ Ghost
I saw what you did there with your capitilization..I assume on purpose.
Wonder if this will eventually help with court rulings.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:32pm@ MoseyAlong
You’re quite observant. :)
And yes, on purpose.
Report this comment
WillG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:40pmGhosts gets it Pubis,pay close attention to his posts. You may get some good learning from them.
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:55pmPUBLIUSPENCILMAN
Right, it’s called the pursuit of happiness and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves. Of course, as long as it is lawful.
Report this comment
jessieH
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:37pmI wish them luck but Osama Obama isn’t taking our Rights without a fight. Glad to see WY. is on call when needed.
Report this comment
Rowgue
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:37pmIt doesn’t matter. Federal law trumps state law. Besides all that law would be doing is restating a right that is already guaranteed by the constitution. If they’re willing to make laws that are blatantly unconstitutional why would anyone think they would ever defer to state law on this.
Report this comment
jcldwl
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:41pmIf federal law violates the constitution it is unenforceable. It is a state’s and individual’s rights to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Ours has become tyrannical. Wyoming though cold does have lot’s of room available. I hope the majority of states follow this lead.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:43pmOnly when there is interstate commerce applied.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:49pmWhether a federal law is Constitutional is up to the courts to decide, not a bunch of politicians trying to get attention by passing ridiculous laws.
The question of nullification was solved by the Civil War.
Report this comment
Rowgue
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:52pmIt’s only unenforceable after it’s been challenged and found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Until then it’s a law and you’ll be prosecuted for it like any other. Knowing it’s unconstitutional isn’t going to keep you out of prison. And even if the law is later overturned for being unconstitutional they don’t set you free. They don’t retroactively go back and free everyone incarcerated for laws later determined to be unconstitutional. They don’t compensate you for the massive fines you were forced to pay. They don’t have any responsibility in repairing your life that they destroyed by putting you in prison under a law later invalidated.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:56pmWhen exactly did the 10th amendment get repealed?
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:00pm@Pub
Cite to me from the Constitution where it claims that the courts decide what is Constitutional. Hint: You can’t, it doesn’t exist, it was invented out of whole cloth. The only mention of SCOTUS states that it is empowered to be the last court to review and rule on appellate cases.
The last decision on what is Constitutional lay with the People, not the Federal government and not SCOTUS. So sorry.
Report this comment
VRW Conspirator
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:04pmThe “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution only applies within the confines of “conflict.” That is why you must read the WY law carefully, they included a phrase that says the law only governs sales, ownership, and enforcement within the State limits and to items staying inside the State limits.
“Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.”
But you are right technically and the SUPREME Federal law is the US Constitution which states “the rights of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL not be infringed” (Note that the word “shall” is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) So WY is not in “conflict” with the Constitution and thus not with Federal law. If Obama but EO or Congress by law creates a bill that is in conflict with the 2nd Amendment, that Amendment wins and the law or EO is unconstitutional and unlawful and thus does not need to be heeded or followed or enforced.
Technically, ANY State/person can choose to disobey any EO and law passed that is in violation of the 27 Amendments of the Constitution.
Report this comment
SavvyCowboy
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:13pm@jcldwl – If you think WY is COLD, try living 2 states to the NE of there! But at least here in “oil country USA” we have enough common sense legislators (in session right now) who may just follow WY’s lead. We cannot allow the Ovomit regime to continue to take our freedoms away, no matter how trivial they may seem. Freedom is Freedom!
Report this comment
usmars30
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:27pmBut an executive order is not law. To create a law it must be approved by both houses of congress first. Barack is only decreeing his executive will. Therefore this states law will trump an executive order.
Report this comment
Mojoron
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:37pmI wish I could live there.
Report this comment
Gladileftcalifornia
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:36pmIf my state doesn’t pass a similar law I’ll consider moving to Wyoming.
Report this comment
19RANDY59
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:40pmMy thoughts exactly
Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:43pmWell, if you already left California…
Why aren’t you in Wyoming?
Bro, I never knew what a ball and chain felt like, until Mrs. Woodyee “voted” AGAINST leaving this Leftist hell-hole…If I could legally drag Mrs. Woodyee with me, I’d have left yesterday. Literally.
Report this comment
daniel3839
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:46pmMe too. Im keeping my rights. What is scary is that when the state and feds laws conflict the FEDS WIN. So what does that tell you? Looks to me that the state is submissive to the government? I thought states had their sovereignty?
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:51pmDaniel, you clearly have no idea how the US government works. Read a book.
Report this comment
Zipit
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:14pmPUBICUSPENCILDICK! Please explain to us, your view as to, “how the government works”,
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:18pmIf you do go to Wyoming, check out the Wind River area. Nice and not crowded.
Report this comment
grimmster
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:26pm@Zipit.
The gubment works by giving him obammy money every month,how do you think the little fat pos buys his cheetos each week?!…..
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:27pm@Dismayed Vetran
Technically speaking, almost anywhere in Wyoming is not crowded. I’ve rode my motorcycle on roads there for an hour or longer and not seen another living soul. Sometimes though they have heavy traffic, and I’ll see a car every 20-30 minutes. This is of course outside of Cheyenne, which is nearly a small town sized city.
Man do I love that place.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:29pmThe 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. – 10th amendment to the Constitution
In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government’s power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court’s 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject
I know various fascists love to trample on the rights and liberties of diverse and distant communities. The ultimate arbiture of the defense of rights is the muzzle of my firearm, which will not be taken from me while I still draw breath. There are few better ways to finish out your life than to know you perished fighting for the freedom of others, yourself, and family.
Report this comment
americangrammy
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:21pm@daniel
The individual States lost their sovereignty and have been submissive to the Federal government since 1865.
For all that the United States citizens love Mr. Lincoln, he does have a great deal to answer for. We can start with Income Taxes…..
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:26amWoodyee-
just get her real drunk, when she wakes up you’ll be in Wyoming where you say…”ta duh!”
what a surprise for her.
Report this comment
Patriot4Pres2020
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:10amThis whole discussion about WY is hitting home with me. Its funny, we are fixing up our home in NY,, yep I said NY! Our goal is to sell and be out of the state within the next 6 month, God willing. WY is on the top of or list. Was considering NH but its just to blue here on the east coast. We fear that NH, though considered the freeest state in the Union will swing left real fast. Any thoughts? I made a mistake moving to NY just 3 years ago. Wide awake now and moving on but this time I want to make a smart move. Powder is dry and NY is not geting my AR! It may needed it someday. Any advice?
Report this comment
RaydocX
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:35pmHrmmm…. i suppose i could do telemed from Wyoming… skiied snowy range a dozen or more years ago… some beautiful country, and apparently still some rational reasonable lawmakers.
what’s not to like, ‘cept it’d be closer to California and Wasington, the lands of the Left coast loons.
Thank you, Wyoming lawmakers… I home my hometown folks follow suit.
Report this comment
SREGN
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:35pmPlease, Chris Christie, enact the same thing here in NJ! Wait a minute, I must be delusional……
Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:35pmI’m really sorry. They are too late with this and not needed.
The United States Constitution of 1791. All Rights Reserved.
Report this comment
athiest-infedel
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:33pmI hope Colorado follows them.
Report this comment
shorthanded12
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:47pmWould state law makers have the time to make such laws? They didnt fight hard to keep the “weed” off the ballot….dont see Colorado pushing anything protecting the rights of the 2nd admendment for its citizens.
Report this comment
silentknight
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:05pmThat would be great but with chickenpooper as the governor it will never happen. God bless Wyoming for at least trying.
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:32pmYeah the supremacy clause doesn’t apply to unconstitutional laws, especially executive orders. I don’t care what the worm constitutional lawyers say these days.
Report this comment
Rowgue
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:46pmThey do until they are challenged and invalidated because they are found to be unconstitutional. You’re certainly free to feel the federal law is not legitimate if you like, but they won’t hesitate for one second to arrest you on it, and the state won’t do a damn thing. Sitting in prison for a few years doesn’t really help you or anybody else.
Report this comment
justangry
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:08pmThat’s the coward’s way of looking at it. God-given rights aren’t subject to man. Evil men may try and use illegitimate force to prevent me from exercising my rights, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. And considering these same evil men think I have no right to due process, it’s either die fighting or surrender like a lamb to be slaughtered.
Report this comment
wzanesdad
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:39pmrowgue,
good point, however, I have a feeling you’d never be arrested in wyoming…..not without a fight anyway.
Report this comment
shorthanded12
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:32pmMore “Power to the States”
Federal Gubment is out of control and on a Power grab that would make any drunkin sailor look sober.
I have another suggestion for States..round up all Illeagals an force the GUBMENT to do its job “DEPORT” not later “NOW” Would save billions!!!!!!!!!!!
Wander if Fat “SIS” and The Coward is already looking at Wyoming proposed bill and planning there assult like they did with Arizona and Gov Brewer.
Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:32pmI hope this spreads to all real states. Of course,….the NE is too far gone to matter. Let us pray for a peaceful break-up but a secession of states by any means and with any consequences is more tolerable than living with Washington D.C.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:32pmFine business! I will probably move to Wyoming if they pass this and my state doesn’t.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:37pmI’m already on record, for half a year now, advocating Wyoming as the top Liberty Destination in the state. It’s one hell of a great place, with great people. It’s like going back to 1882, except with cars and electricity.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:06pmGoJ… some of my pals have already bugged out for that destination. It is enticing I must say. Especially if they get such a law passed.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:10pmWords cannot describe how beautiful it is in parts, and how bleak and unforgiving in others. It’s utterly untamed. The people there are as close to the Original American mold as you can find these days. I’ve never felt so at home as when I’ve went to Wyoming. I don’t have to explain my libertarian beliefs, they’re kind of the default beliefs there, and I never worry about exercising any rights there. It’s perfect, in my view, or as close as we’ll get to it on this earth.
Report this comment
havbrew
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:31pmFederal Law only supersedes State law IF the Sheriff in a given county allows Federal enforcement to occur. God love WY! If anything, it’s a big F U to Barry!
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:14pmNo, a Federal Agent acting under the cover of federal law supersecedes any Sherriff. I do enjoy reading the gun nutters followish legal advice, but the WY law is unconstitutional on its face.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:21pmOh, poor Enicom. So ignorant of the Constitution, so prissy when his beloved socialist government gets thwarted. It must really suck to be Enicom. :)
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:21pmGHOST, Yes, honest assessment of ENCINOM. Wants an Executive Order to trump a Constitutional Amendment, yet let the federal courts come down against those states that just made pot legal……..
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:32amEncinom-
Won’t help the federal if he is sitting in a Wyoming jail, arrested by the wyoming state police. If he brings his buddies there might be a shootout. My money is on the wyoming guys for marksmanship and guts.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:30pmIt’s time for congress to step up and cut off the money.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/biden-meets-with-nra-faces-pushback-on-hill-over-executive-order-gun-control/
Report this comment
Mapache
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:45pmCongress could defend ATF and that would certainly put a crimp in any confiscation or regulation plan. The only ones left would be FBI and US Marshals and they would get the message.
Report this comment
blanco5
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:29pmState’s rights! State’s rights! Use them!!!
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:20pmas well as your individual rights!
Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:28pmThat kind of thing kind of blows big holes in the hallucinations of the media (that citizens are afraid of guns, they are not), and we should have all of the states make this kind of worth while endeavor?
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:28pmWyoming… Bless you. May other states follow suit.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:38pm@00100111
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:28pm
May other states follow suit.
—————————————————
I bet they will. It takes one to get the snowball traveling downhill.
And yes I meant to use the word “snowball” :)
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:27pmROCK! I am officially starting to look for a job in that State.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:38pmBuffalo is beautiful, right under the mountains, quite fetching. Just sayin’. :)
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:49pmAnd if you read the bill for “meaning” the analysis is quite interesting.
WY lawmakers went WAY farther than they needed to. Thats the funny part.
They didnt JUST overrule Federal Law, they make a very specific POINT that
anyone who attempts to enforce a Fed Law will be charged with a FELONY.
That really is a message being sent by WY.
It essentially says “Hey Barry — FU”
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:01pm@Bodybag
Yep. And this is why I love Wyoming.
Report this comment
@leftfighter
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:26pmHey Tallahassee… you reading this?
Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:56pmMy 2¢… Hey Richmond… Are you listening too?
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:07pmDad
Richmond said who dat? Whaaa?
Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 5:14pmFubared – “Dad, Richmond said who dat? Whaaa?”
You’re serious? Follow the thread…
“@leftfighter – “Hey Tallahassee… you reading this?”
Tallahassee is Florida’s state capital…
“DadRocked – My 2¢… Hey Richmond… Are you listening too?”
Richmond is Virginia’s state capital…
Did you’re public schools not teach geography and state capitals?
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:17pmUh, so my actually living in the environs of Richmond and being conversant in native Richmond speak had zero to do with that. Dad, you may have gotten some of that elitist NoVa crap on you. But I get it.
Report this comment
rcguy
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 8:10amHey, Rick Scott, get off your ass and do something if you want to be re-elected Govenor of Florida.
Molan Labe!
Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:25pmThey had better hurry – we are just days away from enemy-obama issuing his unconstitutional “Executive Order(s)” gun-grab.
Report this comment
gwinf
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:36pmThe gun grab only works when we citizens comply. As for me, I will not comply!
Report this comment
Oldphoto678
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 6:10pmDo you want to make a bet. I’ll bet you that nothing you say President Obama is going to do is going to happen. I’ll bet you that no one is going to try and take your guns. I’l bet you that you are just a bit to paranoid.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 7:58pmPhotog
As an aside, did you ever hear a repub refer to Bush as “President” Bush with a lisp and arrogance only found in limited supply in a certain subset of our wanna be lefty elites? You are eat up with it. You have 0 boxers don’t you? A 0 set of jammies to huh? Fuzzy 0 slippers to boot?
Report this comment
phil1765
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 5:19amOldphoto678
Better to be paranoid than down right stupid. I hope you are right and nothing comes of this, but unless you have been under a rock there has been a good bit of conversation from different politicians about confiscation. Just because you choose to be a sheep doesn’t mean that we all have to be.
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:24pmThat is why I love Wyoming.
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:32pmFYI – My family is from there and we go back at least twice a year for hunting and fishing. If you are conservative, move there.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 3:44pmEven better, if you’re *libertarian*, move there. It’s a libertarian, live and let live paradise.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:24pmMy wife was born in Rock Springs. The last time we were there open carry was pretty common. There is a family parcel in the Wind River. Good country. Eastern Wyoming is high desert and pretty harsh.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 10, 2013 at 4:33pm@Dismayed
I was there in July, open carry was still no big deal to anybody. It’s great to climb off a motorcycle, check into a nice hotel with a six shooter and gun belt strapped on, and have the guy behind the counter in a nice suit smile and not even blink twice.
Report this comment
JeffMT
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:35amI live in Montana, am only about 100 miles from Wyoming and can easily move back there (lived in Sheridan for a while thirty years ago) if I want/need to. So, no worries.
Report this comment