Wyoming threatens to jail Fed. agents enforcing gun laws

[ninny]

"The bill – HB0104 – states 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.”

http://www.independencedeclaration.o...erms-for-feds/

.

[copperkid3]

Wyoming is looking VERY good as a place to spend a permanent "vacation".

[edcopp]

The state does have that right.

[InvalidID]

I think they're following Montana on this one.

[OkieDavid]

I hope it spreads.......

[coolrunnin]

I do to!

[Wayne02]

How cold does it get in Wyoming again?

[big rockpile]

Originally Posted by Wayne02

How cold does it get in Wyoming again?

It gets cold but not as cold as it is not being a Free American'

big rockpile

[mekasmom]

Just a legal thought..... Since congress has the right to "legislate commerce" between the states and between any state and foreign nation, why wouldn't congress have the right to regulate gun sales?
Unless the gun was manufactured within the same state, wouldn't it fall under the Commerce clause of Article 1 section 8? If I were the President or Congress that is how I would stick more gun regulation into action. I doubt every firearm manufacturer has factories in every state? And knowing WM, I would even assume that many of the things they sell come from outside the nation?
The Articles in the Constitution seem to take pre-eminence over the amendments in law cases.

[Bearfootfarm]

Since congress has the right to "legislate commerce" between the states and between any state and foreign nation, why wouldn't congress have the right to regulate gun sales?

Banning an entire class of firearms based mostly on how they LOOK is not "regulating sales".

Guns are already one of the most "regulated" products in the world

[whodunit]

Originally Posted by mekasmom

Just a legal thought..... Since congress has the right to "legislate commerce" between the states and between any state and foreign nation, why wouldn't congress have the right to regulate gun sales?
Unless the gun was manufactured within the same state, wouldn't it fall under the Commerce clause of Article 1 section 8? If I were the President or Congress that is how I would stick more gun regulation into action. I doubt every firearm manufacturer has factories in every state? And knowing WM, I would even assume that many of the things they sell come from outside the nation?
The Articles in the Constitution seem to take pre-eminence over the amendments in law cases.

...and how do you feel about two states (Washington and Colorado) legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in violation of federal law?

[InvalidID]

Originally Posted by mekasmom

Just a legal thought..... Since congress has the right to "legislate commerce" between the states and between any state and foreign nation, why wouldn't congress have the right to regulate gun sales?
Unless the gun was manufactured within the same state, wouldn't it fall under the Commerce clause of Article 1 section 8? If I were the President or Congress that is how I would stick more gun regulation into action. I doubt every firearm manufacturer has factories in every state? And knowing WM, I would even assume that many of the things they sell come from outside the nation?
The Articles in the Constitution seem to take pre-eminence over the amendments in law cases.

There are ways around this as well. For example, small shops in each state making receivers and magazines. The rest of the 'gun' is simply considered parts, only the receiver is the 'firearm' after all.

Or, people can make their own receivers. AK receivers for example are quite simple to make at home.

[||Downhome||]

The Commerce Clause is a Issue.
Even when there is no Interstate commerce and its all Intrastate.
The same with Marijuana also and anything really.
Grounds for Federal intervention and Enforcement would take only someone taking them out of the state Illegally.
The Feds from the start would would play tight with any and all Federal Funds thats usually how they get what they want in the first place.
but really the precedent set by Wickard v. Filburn is what it would boil down to.
It has already applied to Marijuana.
It would be applied here as well.
Its a good Message that being sent and I wish more States would make that stand.
It may be possible then to make the Supreme court invalidate the Wickard v. Filburn precedent, but I doubt highly they would that is where the feds derive most of their influence.

[Trixie]

If it's not just political posturing - it's good.

Wasn't there some state that was going to get around the commerce clause by having no regulation on guns made inside the state, sold inside the state.

I wonder how that would work for taking a gun outside the state -

[Wags]

Originally Posted by Trixie

If it's not just political posturing - it's good.

Wasn't there some state that was going to get around the commerce clause by having no regulation on guns made inside the state, sold inside the state.

I wonder how that would work for taking a gun outside the state -

I do believe that the state you are thinking of is Montana

[mekasmom]

Originally Posted by whodunit

...and how do you feel about two states (Washington and Colorado) legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in violation of federal law?

How do I FEEL? I don't care. But I was talking legal theory. Legally Congress does have the duty and right to legislate commerce. That's the whole point of the commerce clause.
And I wasn't talking about a "class" of firearms. I was talking about where they are manufactured and where they are sold. They could legally limit a lot of sales simply by working through the commerce clause regardless of the second amendment. It is a sneaky way to do it legally under the radar and screaming about the second amendment. It would be how a smart lawyer would try to sneak it through. That is why they are called sharks.

[mekasmom]

Originally Posted by InvalidID

There are ways around this as well. For example, small shops in each state making receivers and magazines. The rest of the 'gun' is simply considered parts, only the receiver is the 'firearm' after all.

Or, people can make their own receivers. AK receivers for example are quite simple to make at home.

Now that last paragraph is very interesting. It would let them get around any commerce clause restrictions. It sounds pretty scary though. Hopefully none of them would blow up on them or anything.

As far as the manufacturing, it would force all sales to come from within each state and be manufactured there.

[mekasmom]

Originally Posted by ||Downhome||

really the precedent set by Wickard v. Filburn is what it would boil down to.

I had never studied this case, but it is fascinating. It limited the amount of wheat a farmer could grow even for personal use. It is kind of scary too, if we think about it. It gives the fed gov the right to basically starve people out if they chose to.
And as far as the firearm issue, it could be used to stop the kind of local and personal production that Invalid mentioned.

[painterswife]

Wyoming is not threatening. That is a bad headline. A few lawmakers have proposed a bill. It is no where near making it into existence.

[wy_white_wolf]

Originally Posted by Trixie

If it's not just political posturing - it's good.

Wasn't there some state that was going to get around the commerce clause by having no regulation on guns made inside the state, sold inside the state.

I wonder how that would work for taking a gun outside the state -

Wyoming already has that for guns. This new bill would extend that to cover gun parts (magazines) and ammo. It also increases the penalty for any government agent who tries inforcing federal law over the state law. It also makes the state AG available to defend individuals against federal action.

WWW