General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWyoming Wingnut Launches Unconstitutional Attack on Nonexistent Gun Laws
Why Wyoming, Idaho and Montana have reputations for being "way out there" when it comes to a sane rationale...
In these states there is a loud contingent of gubbamint haters who contest anything that comes out of DC, unless it's a subsidy check of some sort. A prime example would be this:
-------
Wyoming Wingnut Launches Unconstitutional Attack on Nonexistent Gun Laws
Another "constitutional conservative" who doesn't understand the basics of our Constitution.
In a bill sponsored by eight representatives and two state senators, the lawmakers stipulate 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. These two measures have been among Bidens proposals. The Wyoming bill also makes it a felony to enforce federal gun laws:
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. and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both[...]
Any federal law, rule, regulation or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013
shall be unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to:
(i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
Theres just one glaring problem with the legislators plan: If the federal government were to pass such measures, the bill would be unconstitutional.
Think Progress / By Annie Rose Strasser
Just sayin'...
2naSalit
(86,600 posts)beautiful real estate, scary social climate.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)2naSalit
(86,600 posts)pulled the same crap when the USWFS re-introduced the grey wolf to the ecosystem. Now that the Sens from MT and ID stuffed an illegal rider into a budget Bill a few years ago removing them from the ESA list, they are being killed for sport right after coming off the list. I guess it could be called "c'boy politics" this is yet another example of what happens when funds for education are always the first to go in state budget cuts. And these folks are actually proud of this ignorance. Killing is one of the great pass-times out here.
jody
(26,624 posts)Aren't they both expressions of nullification developed by Jefferson and Madison to protest the Sedition Act that made it a federal crime to criticize the president and other elected officials?
The Sedition Act abolished a First Amendment right our Constitution requires government to protect, not destroy.
when's the last time someone used pot to specifically kill a bunch of people? And how is it that pot becomes an equal consideration with assault weapons and federal attempts to make the populace safer by regulating these implements of death? Pot has no comparable effects nor is the use of it. Apples and oranges, I think intent of use of such items and intent of manufacture of such items would be the major consideration as to why these two things don't compare... aside from the fact that pot is an organic item with medicinal properties and assault rifles and mega-clips are man-made machines/tools specifically designed for mass killing, or maybe that would be the point?
jody
(26,624 posts)misused the power its sovereign citizens delegated to it and declare federal law, e.g Sedition Act, is unconstitutional, Jefferson & Madison declared in their KY & VA Resolutions that states had an obligation to nullify it.
I believe Jefferson used "nullification" in the first draft of the 1798 KY Resolution but it was replaced. I also believe "nullification" was use in the revised 1799 version.
I don't understand how anyone can accept CO & WA rejection (nullification) of the federal marijuana law against recreational use of marijuana but oppose other states rejecting federal laws that abuse the powers delegated by that state's citizens to federal government.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...no one ever cut down a busload of 6-year-old kids with a bag of weed.
Why do you PERSIST in ignoring the difference between two different things? Is it idiocy or dishonesty? Because it cannot be both, nor neither.
jody
(26,624 posts)and quote any part of their arguments with which you disagree.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions_of_1798
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Virginia_Resolutions_of_1798
Robb
(39,665 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)As it is, you do not, not even by a stretch that Mr. Fantastic would envy.
In these instances, the states simple declare that something no longer violates state law, and persons who do that something are no longer subject to arrest by officers charged with enforcing state law. They emphatically do not set aside or 'nullify' Federal law, and certainly do not presume to make Federal officials criminally liable for enforcing Federal law in the state's boundaries. State and local officials do not enforce Federal law; where something is criminal under both state and Federal law, a person arrested under state law by state officers may be turned over to the Federal authorities for disposition under Federal law, but that is not the same thing as state officers enforcing Federal law.
jody
(26,624 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)A state deciding not to make something illegal under state law has nothing whatever to do with nullification of Federal law.
A state declaring a Federal officer violates state law by enforcing Federal law is simply setting up its police officers for arrest and sentencing by Federal authorities, should they be so unwise as to act on their supposed 'state authority' over a Federal officer enforcing Federal law within the state.
jody
(26,624 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Not a moment too soon.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Thank you for the heads-up; I expect there will rejoicing in Meta, and a a dwindling sound of gnashing teeth elsewhere....
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...is a far cry from declining to enforce Federal law.
bubbayugga
(222 posts)MineralMan
(146,305 posts)Fewer are passed. This one will not be passed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And if the CF that is the state-federal patchwork of semi-legalized marijuana nationwide is any indication, that's not something we want to replicate with guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)2naSalit
(86,600 posts)I wanted to arrest Bush too even though I don't live in VT. But living out here in gun nut land I have had many opportunities to observe how the Wyoming legislature has shown that they have a bat-shit-crazy element bar none except Idaho which is right next door... they take turns receiving the honor. And Bush should be arrested, even to this day, and not of frivolous BS either, like this crap is. A shameless waste of taxpayer time and money.