Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

A

achilles28

This is the answer. Entire States opting out and declaring anti-constitutional laws illegal :)




Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds
Written by Alex Newman
Friday, 11 January 2013 14:01
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/co...ill-would-nullify-obama-gun-control-jail-feds

As the Obama administration plots various assaults on gun rights by “executive order” and legislation, proposals described as “very extreme” even by some Democrats, state lawmakers in Wyoming have another idea. Republican legislators are rallying behind nullification legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the state. Lawmakers expect it to pass.

The new bill, H.B. 0104 or the “Firearms Protection Act,” would nullify any new federal infringements on the constitutionally protected gun rights of state residents — who enjoy some of the lowest crime rates while being among the most heavily armed people in America. Unconstitutional federal gun registration schemes, as well as restrictions on semi-automatic guns or standard-capacity magazines, would also be nullified under the legislation.

There are teeth in the proposed law too: Any federal official attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on gun rights passed after January 1 of this year would be charged with a felony. If convicted, criminal officials would be punished by up to five years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. The legislation also authorizes the state attorney general to defend citizens of Wyoming if federal authorities seek prosecutions under unconstitutional gun control rules.

At least eight state representatives and two state senators have already sponsored the legislation. And nationwide, support for similar measures is exploding. "We want to get things ahead of the game," Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the primary sponsor of the bill, told the Huffington Post. "We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming…. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights."
 
I was just wondering, what does the second amendment have to say about firearm registration, or "arms" registration in general? Do those laws we already have that make it illegal to posses a sidewinder, or at least to "bear" one while shopping at Piggly Wiggly, infringe on the second amendment? What is the definition of "arms" in the second amendment. Is it just arms like bows and arrows, slingshots, rocks, fireplace pokers, muzzle loaders, and cannons, or does it include anything that these 18th Century arms have evolved into? A Bazooka and a Howitzer maybe, but probably not a hydrogen bomb? I just can't see a muzzle loader or cannon evolving into a hydrogen bomb! Just wondering?

On the other hand if "bearing arms" is for the purpose of raising a militia to put down insurrections and repel invasions, then I suppose we have to think in terms of something with a little more oomph than your average bazooka. Maybe a few cluster bombs, a little napalm and a small tactical hydrogen bomb would be appropriate, and safe enough as long as you kept them under lock and key and only took them out on weekends. It would definitely be a good idea for anyone buying a hydrogen bomb, even a small one, to undergo a background check. And I suppose that wouldn't be too much of an infringement on the second amendment as long as you didn't have to register it. Until we can get this "arms" business ironed out it does look as though Wyoming won't be safe for federal agents. But at least we'll be able to raise a fairly well-armed militia if the need arises.:D
 
Quote from piezoe:

I was just wondering, what does the second amendment have to say about firearm registration, or "arms" registration in general? Do those laws we already have that make it illegal to posses a sidewinder, or at least to "bear" one while shopping at Piggly Wiggly, infringe on the second amendment? What is the definition of "arms" in the second amendment. Is it just arms like bows and arrows, slingshots, rocks, fireplace pokers, muzzle loaders, and cannons, or does it include anything that these 18th Century arms have evolved into? A Bazooka and a Howitzer maybe, but probably not a hydrogen bomb? I just can't see a muzzle loader or cannon evolving into a hydrogen bomb! Just wondering?

On the other hand if "bearing arms" is for the purpose of raising a militia to put down insurrections and repel invasions, then I suppose we have to think in terms of something with a little more oomph than your average bazooka. Maybe a few cluster bombs, a little napalm and a small tactical hydrogen bomb would be appropriate, and safe enough as long as you kept them under lock and key and only took them out on weekends. It would definitely be a good idea for anyone buying a hydrogen bomb, even a small one, to undergo a background check. And I suppose that wouldn't be too much of an infringement on the second amendment as long as you didn't have to register it. Until we can get this "arms" business ironed out it does look as though Wyoming won't be safe for federal agents. But at least we'll be able to raise a fairly well-armed militia if the need arises.:D
More...

I guess you don't take the constitution too seriously and think it ought to be changed to reflect the modernity of contemporary American society.

My view of the constitution is shaped by my grandfather who sat in a Japanese prison camp on Sumatra in WWII and my disabled father who was shot in Korea defending the ideas on that piece of paper you are mocking.

I'll bet you don't exhibit that humor in public like a bar or restaurant. I'll bet you just trot it out when you are nice and safe enconsed in your castle and mouthing off on the internet.
 
Before the lunatics pounce, I thought it would be a good idea to state that I am perfectly aware that in the 18th century the word arms was used primarily for hand held weapons and the word "ordinance" for things like explosives, cannon, etc. My point in the above facetious post is that the 18th century definition of arms is no longer practical or useful in the 21st century as it relates to the right to bear them, because now we have hand held weapons such as bazookas, missile launchers, grenade launchers, etc. Discussing the 2nd amendment must start with an agreement on what kinds of arms should the second amendment refer to in the twenty-first century.

The U.S. Constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is an example of this obsolescence. The only practical way to keep this obsolescent document alive and useful in the twenty-first century is to interpret it in light of twenty-first century realities. Let us hope we are not so obstinate as to put more importance on what people in the 18th century thought than on what people in the 21st century think. That was then, this is now.

Edit to 377OHMS, I do not think you are one of the lunatics. I had others in mind. I don't think your relatives service in the second world war should enter into a modern consideration of the second amendment.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Before the lunatics pounce, I thought it would be a good idea to state that I am perfectly aware that in the 18th century the word arms was used primarily for hand held weapons and the word "ordinance" for things like explosives, cannon, etc. My point in the above facetious post is that the 18th century definition of arms is no longer practical or useful in the 21st century as it relates to the right to bear them, because now we have hand held weapons such as bazookas, missile launchers, grenade launchers, etc. Discussing the 2nd amendment must start with an agreement on what kinds of arms should the second amendment refer to in the twenty-first century.

The U.S. Constitution is obsolescent, and the second amendment is an example of this obsolescence. The only practical way to keep this obsolescent document alive and useful in the twenty-first century is to interpret it in light of twenty-first century realities. Let us hope we are not so obstinate as to put more importance on what people in the 18th century thought than on what people in the 21st century think. That was then, this is now.
More...

There's a process of changing the constitution to reflect modern day values, it's called amendment..... The constitution is literal not subjective. If you want to change it by all means, get the votes required and change it, until then abide by it. The reason the founding fathers wanted gun rights was to protect the populace from the government.
 
Quote from Wallet:

There's a process of changing the constitution to reflect modern day values, it's called amendment..... The constitution is literal not subjective.
More...

You can state that it is literal, but of course courts put their own interpretation on it whenever the see fit to do so.

Our obsolescent 18th century constitution, while not totally inapplicable to 21st century America, is not entirely applicable either. It is not obsolete, but it is obsolescent.

Amendment is the preferable way to modernize the constitution. In the meantime courts will be forced to hand down opinions which reflect modern realities. The result may be unpopular and even seriously flawed, but the process will usually be right.
 
The U.S. constitutions is the document upon which the freedom of the western world was built.

freedom from govt.
freedom from tyranny by individuals or groups.
freedom to express your opinion.
freedom from govts thinking they could usurp our rights.
freedom so deep that other govt knew they could not take our people over.
freedom so deep we set up a genius system of checks an balances.

freedom so strong... leftists feel blocked by it because leftist strive for bigger more powerful govt.

I suggest that if you suggest we have to eliminate the constitution, you do not really deserve it but we are still going to let you be protected by it.
 
Quote from piezoe:

You can state that it is literal, but of course courts put their own interpretation on it whenever the see fit to do so.

Our obsolescent 18th century constitution, while not totally inapplicable to 21st century America, is not entirely applicable either. It is not obsolete, but it is obsolescent.

Amendment is the preferable way to modernize the constitution. In the meantime courts will be forced to hand down opinions which reflect modern realities. The result may be unpopular and even seriously flawed, but the process will usually be right.
More...

Wrong, legislation via the bench is not what the framers intended. There's checks and balances for an overreaching judiciary, unfortunately we don't exercise those rights today.
 
Quote from Wallet:

Wrong, legislation via the bench is not what the framers intended. There's checks and balances for an overreaching judiciary, unfortunately we don't exercise those rights today.
More...

You seem to understand reality perfectly well; yet refuse to acknowledge it. It's an enigma.

There has never been any question, by anyone, that the framers intended something very different from what we have today . They did not envision an elected upper legislative body. The did not include slaves or women as men created equal. They did not envision anyone other they property holders, nor certainly not women, as having a say in government, and on and on. So this very often-repeated-on-ET nonsense of the framers this and the framers that quite obviously has very little relevance to the modern multicultural, multiracial, very large, capitalist nation known today as the Untied States of America.

The fledgling nation known to the framers was so different from the United States today that it might as well have been on another planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top