Good on ya Wyoming!

E

eyeguard

Active Member
Messages
590
Heard on KSL this morning that good ol' WYO is strongly considering taking action against any Federal Gun laws the state feels are too restricting (paraphrasing), and will deem them "unenforcable". They also mentioned that any Federal Agent trying to enforce a federal gun law/ban could face felony charges for doing so. :) I guess if the western states can do this re: wolves... why not guns? If the feds keep conjuring up all this stupid BS... then I think it's only right for the states to stick up for themselves and put it to them how things are really gonna be!

EG





campfire2.gif
"A man can be hard to find in the mountains, but you're welcome at my fire anytime."
 
It will probably never fly and if you think the ststes out West "beat" the Feds on the wolf deal you better go back and do some reading. They can control how they handle the wolf populations as long as the populations are maintained to meet the ESA, which the Feds still control. If they don't meet the requirements they signed off on, they will lose control.
 
So will they send back all the funds the Federal government sends to them for welfare, farm bill payments, highways, social security payments, etc, etc? or will they only ignore the parts of Federal law they don't like?

If they are pure I say good, I will move to Wyoming. I suspect I am safe in staying here in Montana.

Nemont
 
I would think so too Nemont! All it is with that deal is basic political posturing to present a "feel good" thingy to the electorate.
 
A Civil War??? The Federal Government should take notice of the happenings around the world. The people will take only so much before they demand a Revolution. Will the amending or the outright removal of basic Constitutional rights be the catalyst that sets off a peaceful nation to stand up and say no more. How many states would it take to unite in one cause against a Government that is slowly changing to a dictatorship versus a democracy. Is the United States slowly moving to a legalized Dictatorship. I believe it is. The ban on gun's is coming, we are going to be forced to live with it. Then there will be more bans, then more bans, until there are no guns allowed by any American. This is the course we are heading. Will this be the legislation that Americans stand up and say NO. I doubt it because the American people are controlled by Federal Money. The States are controlled by Federal money. SO like it or not we must all grab the horses tail in front of us and slowly be led to slaughter, when it comes to basic and original Constitutional rights.
 
History will show that when the states make attempts like this, the Federal Government responds by removing highway funds, education funds and etc. thus forcing the state to fall in line. This was tried once in Wyoming many years ago when they refused to enact the 65MPH speed limit that the Federal Goverment demanded. Wyoming held out for awhile but when the Feds withheld their highway funds our speed limits dropped. Sad day because it can take a long time to travel across the state at 65MPH! This bill if passed, while greatly supported, will likely meet the same fate.
 
Exactly Right!!!!!! If states want to make a difference they should direct all federal tax monies to the state vs the feds. Let the state take care of themselves with that revenue. Would this succession be followed by other states? How long before the Government would say NO and force the states to pay by Military force. Its getting closer
 
Actually this is a very good piece of legislation. I heard an interview of the bill's author on the Andrew Wilkow radio show. WY has a law on the books that says the federal government cannot interfere with the right of it's citizens to own and use firearms manufactured within the state as passed in 2009. The new law would expand that right to firearms manufactured outside of WY and to people bringing firearms into WY when they move there. The intention of the law is to stop action of the executive branch in WY and bring the issue before the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid an armed confrontation. The lawmaker has been contacted by legislators from TX, ID and UT who are considering introducing similar bills. Finally some people have the sack to stand up to the tyranny coming from the current administration and are taking action to hold their feet to the constitutional fire.
 
I think this is great. I think these bills will pass and do some good. Look at all these states that are legalizing Marijuana. Are the Fed's going in there and busting all these people with weed? No they are just letting the States do what they want. I am all for it and hope some more states follow suit.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-13 AT 08:23AM (MST)[p]We have some major issues going on in the state and yet we have a handful of idiots who insist on wasting time and money with these types of bills. Last year one guy wanted to put US flag in every classroom. Nice thought, who's gonna pay? In the latter 80's, the State refused to increase the drinking age from 19 to 21. Wasn't gonna let the Feds tell them how to chew their cabbage. The Feds said fine, we'll start with holding something like $75 million in funds for highway/road construction. The legislature couldn't roll fast enough. Would be no different here if the State tries to play tough guy...
 
Federal law supercedes state and local laws. It's in the constitution. The precedent is that the feds will refuse to recognize the law and continue to prosecute those in violation of the federal laws.

I wish it wasn't the case, but that is more than likely the scenario, or like previously stated, the feds will just threaten to with-hold moneys.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-13 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]"So will they send back all the funds the Federal government sends" to them for welfare, farm bill payments, highways, social security payments, etc, etc? or will they only ignore the parts of Federal law they don't like?

If they are pure I say good, I will move to Wyoming. I suspect I am safe in staying here in Montana.

Nemont
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In response to Nemont and Topgun:

Wyoming takes in $1.11 from the feds for every $1.00 they pay to the feds.

So the fed does NOT hold a huge amout of leverage in that regard.

States that have a large percentage of public land usaully take in more fed. money than they pay out.

Question is if these states refuse those funds will those public lands still be under the control of the Fed.

Many belive under the 10th amendment they would not.

Those in control in Washington right now are on the fast track to force these kind of 10th and 2nd amendment questions to be answered.
 
>Most people forget the civil war
>was fought over "States Rights"
>not slavery.

I believe that was the losers argument...
 
I don't see the feds stopping any of the marijuana usage here in colorado which i believe is still illegal on a federal level
 
Wow! You are gullible enough to believe that the North invaded the South to free slaves?

The mountains, not the hills.
 
I don't believe the bill is a feel good move for the constituents. I know one of the sponsors. He is very down to earth and realistic. I expect what this bill can do is set the ground work for a possible state-federal legal action that may eventually end up in a higher court. Whether it can cause a stay of action on the part of the feds during the legal process would, I suppose, depend on legal precedent and the judge.

Like the wolf issue, it is much bigger than the topic. States have to keep challenging the federal government relative to rights or eventually all of the states rights stand risk of being rolled over. They may win a few or loose a few, but in the end states need to continue to assert legal autonomy.
 
mmwb---With the current Lib trend in this country I think you have hit on a pretty good reason to challenge this kind of stuff whether a win is possible at this time or not.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-13 AT 01:30PM (MST)[p]>Federal law supercedes state and local
>laws. It's in the constitution.
>The precedent is that the
>feds will refuse to recognize
>the law and continue to
>prosecute those in violation of
>the federal laws.
>
>I wish it wasn't the case,
>but that is more than
>likely the scenario, or like
>previously stated, the feds will
>just threaten to with-hold moneys.
>

The Supremacy Clause only applies to constitutionally authorized powers. One could argue that this law is in violation of the the second amendment and therefore the constitution which would give the authority in this matter to the state.


The mountains, not the hills.
 
Oregon and Texas have now joined the Party:

""We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.""


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
It's good legislation and I support it. Might be tweaked, but just the knowledge that those of us in rural places still value the 2nd amendment sends a good message to the feds. They meddle far too much in our business and the 2nd amendment has been tested many times.

I was here for the 65mph debacle. What's the speed limit now and does Wyoming still get its highway $$? That was a good fight, too. We won in the long run.

Maybe Obama and Congress should look at debt and budgetary isuues and leave the gun deal alone. They have their hands full trying to get a budget and debt deal done and this seems to me to be a diversion from the lack of action and partisan politics on those other issues. Deflection from the debt and budget to drum up support from urban areas. Not new........just poitics as usual.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3302.png
B49F38D2-C33C-4D84-BF0D-52C9E86E769F.jpeg
IMG_2904 copy.jpg
AC20A6FD-4E35-4B84-8966-1E0558D5C560.jpeg
IMG_8743.jpg
F162A291-9D0D-4EDB-9A9D-5E6132ACF5BA.jpeg
3F1BC8E4-B423-4CA5-9A62-40FA1C4B2523.jpeg
S.D. Pheasants.JPG
IMG_8734.png
IMG_2910 copy.jpg
63476798.JPG
050A3CF8-F6CA-4211-90DA-13F18779E14C.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom