Author Topic: Wyoming joins the fight (Read 969 times)

nw_hunter · « **on:** March 17, 2010, 06:59:08 PM »

Good for Wyoming! It will be interesting to see how all of this will play out!

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

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.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

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."

lee1954 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2010, 04:34:47 AM »

Usualy Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal Is commansence --
and right of many R I N O s ...
We have a state buget in the black.
Hope we get a small gun Manufactor in the state ..I may be wrong,, but I think the law works best for gun made here in the state...
Or at least how I understand Montana law works Dan

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2010, 04:59:56 AM »

Freedom Arms is located in Wyoming.

lee1954 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:52:32 AM »

I better wake up,,, they are a good gun too...
I hope they let other open up shop here to... we have some great Smith in the state.
As I understand the gun smith's can't make a gun -- only make a gun work better... Dan

PS I think we have some work over close to where they are made .. I'll have to check it out...

dukkillr · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:14:26 AM »

Without doing any legal research at all, I find this line or reasoning fascinating. That is to say, it seems logical with one huge problem to overcome... Namely, that there must be some mechanism that ensures that guns do not travel outside the state. When grandpa dies and leaves little johnny his prized turret mounted .50 machine gun, what happens if little johnny lives in California? What mechanism keeps that gun from going anywhere in the US? What happens to an owners guns when he moves?

If there is no way to keep that from happening, this will not work. You can't search every car that crosses the border. You could make a registry, but we all know how gun owners feel about registries. I honestly don't know the answer...

If the SCOTUS is not convinced that there is some means of keeping these guns OUT of interstate commerce they will strike the law. So in order to make this law work in the real world (a tenuous prospect) there must be something. Ideas?

nw_hunter · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:23:07 AM »

Quote from: dukkillr on March 18, 2010, 07:14:26 AM

Without doing any legal research at all, I find this line or reasoning fascinating. That is to say, it seems logical with one huge problem to overcome... Namely, that there must be some mechanism that ensures that guns do not travel outside the state. When grandpa dies and leaves little johnny his prized turret mounted .50 machine gun, what happens if little johnny lives in California? What mechanism keeps that gun from going anywhere in the US? What happens to an owners guns when he moves?

If there is no way to keep that from happening, this will not work. You can't search every car that crosses the border. You could make a registry, but we all know how gun owners feel about registries. I honestly don't know the answer...

If the SCOTUS is not convinced that there is some means of keeping these guns OUT of interstate commerce they will strike the law. So in order to make this law work in the real world (a tenuous prospect) there must be something. Ideas?

I'm sure there must be some lawyers in Wyoming capable of tackling this tenuous prospect

rex6666 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:24:08 AM »

I may be wrong, but my thoughts are, makes no diff. it is right or wrong
will work or won't work. If enough states sign on, some thing will have to change. If you throw enough stuff against the wall some of it will stick.

bilmac · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:27:53 AM »

Duk your line of reasoning may seem logical, but on the other hand wouldn't it be up to the Feds to prove that a gun manufactured in Wyo and sold in the state had left the state. Interpreting the interstate commerce act so that it gives the Feds the right to control firearms takes a real stretch of the imagination.

dukkillr · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:57:57 AM »

Quote from: bilmac on March 18, 2010, 07:27:53 AM

Duk your line of reasoning may seem logical, but on the other hand wouldn't it be up to the Feds to prove that a gun manufactured in Wyo and sold in the state had left the state. Interpreting the interstate commerce act so that it gives the Feds the right to control firearms takes a real stretch of the imagination.

Not as the law appears today. Your question prompted me to spend the last 30 minutes cruising case law on the subject. (I'm stuck in the law library waiting for my next hearing, and I've had like 4 too many cups of coffee!)

In the most recent SCOTUS case I could find on this exact question, the court rules 6-3 that Marijuana grown and used entirely in the state of California was still subject to Federal Drug regulation. The case is called Gonzales v. Raich and seems to be exactly analogous to what Wyoming and others are arguing. Interestingly, (at least to me) Scalia wrote a concurring opinion while O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented.

This area of law is extremely complicated and there are very few, if any, hard rules. The court waxes and wanes on what constitutes "Interstate Commerce" depending on the political climate and the question at hand. I would encourage anyone who really wants to know about the issue to read Gonzales v. Raich and examine the precedent each side leans on for their argument.

Heather · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2010, 09:35:35 AM »

I guess I am just thinking too simply again. Why would the state need to track guns leaving the state? Once the gun leaves the state then it isn't under protection of the Wyoming law and is subject to not only any Federal Firearm law, but the laws of the state it enters.

Heather

dukkillr · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2010, 09:44:49 AM »

Quote from: Heather on March 18, 2010, 09:35:35 AM

I guess I am just thinking too simply again. Why would the state need to track guns leaving the state? Once the gun leaves the state then it isn't under protection of the Wyoming law and is subject to not only any Federal Firearm law, but the laws of the state it enters.

Heather

No, that's not the issue. The issue would be, in what way can the state of Wyoming ensure that these guns do not enter inter-state commerce. The default rule is that they will. You are right that once they did, they would be under the jursidiction of the Feds, but if Wyoming cannot show that they willnot, they will ALWAYS be under jurisdiction of the Feds.

Read the case I cited above, it will make much more sense.

Graybeard · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2010, 11:05:40 AM »

The REAL BOTTOMLINE here is that the federal government has over stepped its Constitutional authority and usurped the state's rights in far far too many things thru the auspices of the commerce clause.

The various states are merely trying to stand up and tell the feds that they have over stepped and that they the states are tired of the feds violating the US Constitution thru this one vague clause that never ever should have been allowed to get to where it is today. I am quite sure that what is happening is NOT what was intended by those who penned that part of the Constitution.

The Constitution does give rights or power to the feds as such it is a statement more so of the limitation on the government and yet these days it is being looked on more so as a means to limit the rights and freedoms of "we the people".

Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2010, 11:55:20 AM »

Actually the Constitution is what the Feds CAN'T DO, and the Bill of Rights is what they CAN DO, after due process of law.

Heather · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:15:49 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard on March 18, 2010, 11:05:40 AM

The REAL BOTTOMLINE here is that the federal government has over stepped its Constitutional authority and usurped the state's rights in far far too many things thru the auspices of the commerce clause.

The various states are merely trying to stand up and tell the feds that they have over stepped and that they the states are tired of the feds violating the US Constitution thru this one vague clause that never ever should have been allowed to get to where it is today. I am quite sure that what is happening is NOT what was intended by those who penned that part of the Constitution.

The Constitution does give rights or power to the feds as such it is a statement more so of the limitation on the government and yet these days it is being looked on more so as a means to limit the rights and freedoms of "we the people".

+1

bilmac · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:28:55 PM »

In the end it may be like Rex 6666 says if enough states sign on the feds may back off.

blind ear · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:46:05 PM »

To move government back to the hands of the people new constitutional laws need to be added to take the rights and privilidges of citizens away from coorporations. The veil of secrecy that hides the coorporate ownership and thier interconnections is what allows the owners of business and banking to manipulate us citizens the way we are manipulated. eddie

Dee · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2010, 02:49:41 PM »

Many Congressmen, and Senators that we see "retiring"

, are rats from a possibly sinking ship, but should the ship not sink, they will reappear as LOBBYISTS! These LOBBYISTS, are the root of all evil in D.C. Were it not for these, the beloved by some NRA "LOBBYISTS" would not be needed.

torpedoman · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:38:09 PM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on March 17, 2010, 06:59:08 PM

Good for Wyoming! It will be interesting to see how all of this will play out!

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

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.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

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."

The pending law suit was brought by the second amendment foundation solely for the reason of of getting a legal presidence set when they lose the case. Once the law is tried in any court and found to be sound it's reversal is unlikely, even activest judges don't like to find against another judge.

Graybeard · « **Reply #18 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:19:24 PM »

Quote from: eddiegjr on March 18, 2010, 12:46:05 PM

To move government back to the hands of the people new constitutional laws need to be added to take the rights and privilidges of citizens away from coorporations. The veil of secrecy that hides the coorporate ownership and thier interconnections is what allows the owners of business and banking to manipulate us citizens the way we are manipulated. eddie

No we don't need MORE new laws we need to repeal about 90% of those we already have that are unconstitutional that the judges have allowed to stand. More laws are not an answer to anything good for "we the people" every law passed is a lost of one more freedom or liberty somewhere.

Quote

The pending law suit was brought by the second amendment foundation solely for the reason of of getting a legal presidence set when they lose the case. Once the law is tried in any court and found to be sound it's reversal is unlikely, even activest judges don't like to find against another judge.

Huh?

What are you talking about here? You lost me.

dukkillr · « **Reply #19 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:22:51 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard on March 18, 2010, 06:19:24 PM

Quote
The pending law suit was brought by the second amendment foundation solely for the reason of of getting a legal presidence set when they lose the case. Once the law is tried in any court and found to be sound it's reversal is unlikely, even activest judges don't like to find against another judge.

Huh? What are you talking about here? You lost me.

You are lost because torpedo man is wrong.

torpedoman · « **Reply #20 on:** March 18, 2010, 08:32:22 PM »

thats the way the second amendment foundation who filed the suit explained it to me. But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Graybeard · « **Reply #21 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:09:54 AM »

Filed "what suit"?

I don't understand what lawsuit you are referring to here. Care to enlighten us as to what you are talking about?

streak · « **Reply #22 on:** March 19, 2010, 06:50:10 AM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on March 18, 2010, 07:23:07 AM

Quote from: dukkillr on March 18, 2010, 07:14:26 AM
Without doing any legal research at all, I find this line or reasoning fascinating. That is to say, it seems logical with one huge problem to overcome... Namely, that there must be some mechanism that ensures that guns do not travel outside the state. When grandpa dies and leaves little johnny his prized turret mounted .50 machine gun, what happens if little johnny lives in California? What mechanism keeps that gun from going anywhere in the US? What happens to an owners guns when he moves?

If there is no way to keep that from happening, this will not work. You can't search every car that crosses the border. You could make a registry, but we all know how gun owners feel about registries. I honestly don't know the answer...

If the SCOTUS is not convinced that there is some means of keeping these guns OUT of interstate commerce they will strike the law. So in order to make this law work in the real world (a tenuous prospect) there must be something. Ideas?

Just looking at it from a layman`s point of view, if Johnny as part of the estate is " given" the .50 cal turret gun and possession of this type of gun is "legal" in California and no commercial transaction takes place and that Johnny never tries to sell this gun after taking it to California then why would the interstate commerce act come into play? Any lawyers out there please clarify this!!

I'm sure there must be some lawyers in Wyoming capable of tackling this tenuous prospect