Wyoming lawmakers introduce bill to nullify federal gun control measures, jail federal agents

[JohnC]

Wyoming lawmakers introduce bill to nullify federal gun control measures, jail federal agents :up:

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/12/wyoming-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-nullify-federal-gun-control-measures-jail-federal-agents/#ixzz2Hsl82zm6

[Guest sL1k]

i like it!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We should do the same.

[DaveS]

Highly unlikely to ever happen!

 

Dave

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I know, but desireable.

[diablo982]

Lame political posturing. It would be nice if legislators could introduce legislation which could actually pass/make a difference. This guy knows his proposed law is unenforceable due to the supremacy clause, he just wants media attention. I really don't care because he represents Wyoming, but it seems like some of our local politicians are no better.

[DaveTN]

Lame political posturing. It would be nice if legislators could introduce legislation which could actually pass/make a difference. This guy knows his proposed law is unenforceable due to the supremacy clause, he just wants media attention. I really don't care because he represents Wyoming, but it seems like some of our local politicians are no better.

I agree. Any Federal laws (if any are passed) will be challenged in the court system. I think these types of state legislation is a good message, but to say you are going to start throwing cops in jail is as ignorant as gun owner saying he’s going to start killing people. I expect more than that out of legislators, unenforceable threats have no place in this. I don’t want to hear any of my Tennessee legislators making dumb azz threats they can’t back up. (Not that they haven’t done it before)

[ProjectDexter]

Never say never, bold statement is bold.

[Wingshooter]

I like the fact that the state of WY is getting up in the out-of-control Fed government's face. Whether it passes or not, it lets the people of WY know that at least part of the local legislature has their back. I believe in order to win this assault on the 2A, the states may have to get bold on behalf of the people.

[Chucktshoes]

I agree. Any Federal laws (if any are passed) will be challenged in the court system. I think these types of state legislation is a good message, but to say you are going to start throwing cops in jail is as ignorant as gun owner saying he’s going to start killing people. I expect more than that out of legislators, unenforceable threats have no place in this. I don’t want to hear any of my Tennessee legislators making dumb azz threats they can’t back up. (Not that they haven’t done it before)

I disagree. The reason why this legislation has any meaning at all is that it has teeth. Just like they did with their version of a Firearms Freedom Act. Ours was a meaningless piece of drivel with no backing behind it. Our AG basically let it be known that anyone charged by the Feds for operating under the TFFA was on their own. The only way for the states to reassert sovereignty is to make sure that any legislation they pass to that end, has the teeth of state law enforcement behind it. You are right that you don't make unenforceable threats, you back up the legislation you pass by enforcing the penalties in it. Only then can you force the fed.gov to deal with the issue instead of ignoring it. Lock up a couple s@&$bags from Burn All Toddlers First and then ask the fed.gov, "Whatcha gonna do about it?" Edited January 15, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I doubt the supremacy clause would do much to protect a federal officer when he violates laws. A state has a duty to it's

citizens, as much or more in the case of unjust laws being forced. Who cares how many lawsuits Eric Holder files in Federal court?

I like Wyoming's ideas. More states could follow them on this.

 

When you guys talk about the supremacy clause, do you realize they are for those enumerated powers in the

Constitution? Look at Article 1, section 8 and see if that addresses a federal agent has some kind of supremacy

over local and state authority to come and get your guns. It's that way to limit the federal government's power

over the states for a reason. Then go look at the tenth Amendment. Supremacy clause is not the be all end all

except over those 17 items. The IRS is covered by an Amendment so it's not the same, but never should have

happened.

Edited January 15, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Oh Shoot]

...More states could follow them on this.

 

Kentucky sheriff pledges to defy Obama on guns

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/kentucky-sheriff-pledges-to-defy-obama-on-guns/

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just saw that. Maybe you'll laugh at my post.

[Oh Shoot]

I just saw that. Maybe you'll laugh at my post.

 

?? Didn't understand comment.

 

Never mind, I see, other thread.

 

I won't laugh, I'll deputize you, might not have badge though. ;)

 

- OS

Edited January 15, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

I disagree. The reason why this legislation has any meaning at all is that it has teeth. Just like they did with their version of a Firearms Freedom Act. Ours was a meaningless piece of drivel with no backing behind it. Our AG basically let it be known that anyone charged by the Feds for operating under the TFFA was on their own. The only way for the states to reassert sovereignty is to make sure that any legislation they pass to that end, has the teeth of state law enforcement behind it. You are right that you don't make unenforceable threats, you back up the legislation you pass by enforcing the penalties in it. Only then can you force the fed.gov to deal with the issue instead of ignoring it. Lock up a couple s@&$bags from Burn All Toddlers First and then ask the fed.gov, "Whatcha gonna do about it?"

The states can do whatever they want. But putting cops in jail isn’t going to be a choice. It isn’t fair to the people either. If its Federal charges the Feds can grab them and say the same thing to the state “Whatcha gonna do about it?” If they aren’t in the state anymore, there isn’t much the state can do to help them.

 

I will fully support it if Tennessee decides to ignore any federal gun laws. But I will not support putting any Federal Agents doing their job in jail. If that happened I would do anything I could to help free the agent.

[Guest PapaB]

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the right to pass firearms laws. This power has been added by Supreme Court Justices that have expanded the commerce clause beyond recognition. Individual States need to do what WY is doing to get this back into SCOTUS for review. The voters need to get a President in office that will put Constitutionally sound jurists back on the Court before another challenge to the Commerce Clause.

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the right to pass firearms laws. This power has been added by Supreme Court Justices that have expanded the commerce clause beyond recognition. Individual States need to do what WY is doing to get this back into SCOTUS for review. The voters need to get a President in office that will put Constitutionally sound jurists back on the Court before another challenge to the Commerce Clause.

 

If all five of "our" justices last through BHO's second term, I'll be more than a bit surprised.

 

Course, after Roberts' last decision, maybe we only have four now anyway, depending on issue.

 

- OS

Edited January 15, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

The states can do whatever they want. But putting cops in jail isn’t going to be a choice. It isn’t fair to the people either. If its Federal charges the Feds can grab them and say the same thing to the state “Whatcha gonna do about it?” If they aren’t in the state anymore, there isn’t much the state can do to help them.

I will fully support it if Tennessee decides to ignore any federal gun laws. But I will not support putting any Federal Agents doing their job in jail. If that happened I would do anything I could to help free the agent.

Unpack that a little. What do you mean by "anything"?

As far as being unfair, who said life was fair. The point is to force the federal agents to choose between their oath and following orders. Edited January 15, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[JayC]

Show me where the Constitution grants the federal government any police/arrest powers?

 

Those are powers reserved to the state, so the states allow them to arrest people, and we have a law here in TN (a couple I believe) that grant police powers to federal agents, I'm sure Wyoming does as well.  So the state legislature can revoke those powers at anytime or under any conditions...  If the FBI or ATF want somebody arrested and they don't have police powers, they can forward their warrants to the sheriff and ask them to pick somebody up.

 

But, there is nothing the feds can do if the sheriff places said request in a low priority bucket that his deputies never manage to get to :)

 

If a police officer arrests a person on a charge that the legislature has forbidding police officers to have arrest powers for, then said police officer can be charged with kidnapping just like any other citizen (since they lacked legal authority to arrest the person).

 

So exactly why do federal agents who have no (or limited) police powers not have to follow state law?  f they violate state law, why shouldn't they be arrested and charged, and convicted of a crime?

 

The states can do whatever they want. But putting cops in jail isn’t going to be a choice. It isn’t fair to the people either. If its Federal charges the Feds can grab them and say the same thing to the state “Whatcha gonna do about it?” If they aren’t in the state anymore, there isn’t much the state can do to help them.

 

I will fully support it if Tennessee decides to ignore any federal gun laws. But I will not support putting any Federal Agents doing their job in jail. If that happened I would do anything I could to help free the agent.

 

And the Feds, have all but agreed that the states can do this...  Texas 2 years ago almost passed a law that would have made TSA pat downs a crime in a limited set of situations...  The Feds answer: If you do that we'll stop flights into/out of the state of Texas.  The feds know that 'agents' of the Federal government have no powers in a state except those granted by the state.

Edited January 15, 2013 by JayC

[DaveTN]

Unpack that a little. What do you mean by "anything"?

As far as being unfair, who said life was fair. The point is to force the federal agents to choose between their oath and following orders.

Help them escape, help those trying to free them locate them, etc. I'm not talking about an armed jail takeover or anything.

I certainly never said life was fair. But its not right to tell gun owners the Feds can't enforce the laws, and they find themselves in Federal custody.
If those law makers want to beat their chest and talk about what the Feds can and can't do I expect to see them openly doing it.

Don't get me wrong, taking a stand against the Feds is great; but if you are going to put anyone in jail; you are going to have to start at the top not the bottom.
 

 
If they violate state law, why shouldn't they be arrested and charged, and convicted of a crime?

If you think Obama and Biden are committing crimes then you go after them legally; not by arresting the lowest common denominator. Edited January 15, 2013 by DaveTN

[Guest PapaB]

If all five of "our" justices last through BHO's second term, I'll be more than a bit surprised.

 

Course, after Roberts' last decision, maybe we only have four now anyway, depending on issue.

 

- OS

 

I agree with you. I think it will take at least 2, and possibly 3 presidential terms to undo what the current office holder will get to do to SCOTUS this term.

[JayC]

Don't get me wrong, taking a stand against the Feds is great; but if you are going to put anyone in jail; you are going to have to start at the top not the bottom.
 If you think Obama and Biden are committing crimes then you go after them legally; not by arresting the lowest common denominator.

 

So we're only supposed to arrest the kingpin's of drug cartels now?  Since when is a criminal act supposed to be overlooked because they were only following orders?

 

Nobody is stopping them from doing their job...  finding criminals and getting warrants issued...  but their arrest powers within the states (outside of federal institutions) is regulated by the States, and that power can be revoked at anytime.