State Fights Back. Wyoming set to FINE / IMPRISON FEDERAL AGENTS TRYING TO ENFORCE GOVT. GUN RULES.

Wyoming you say? Hmmmm....

Yes, I believe this is going to be a trend. States will begin to assert that the Constitution as regards to regulation of firearms can only apply to guns not manufactured and remaining in that State.

Still other States, I believe will follow and form a pact to defend any Federal violation of States' rights of a sister State. The Fed will then be forced to think about whether it wants to touch off a Civil War over the issue.

I'm waiting for Arizona to make a move then I'll make a move and make an investment in Ruger.

Honestly, this won't work. It's unconstitutional. The Federal government won't allow this to happen. I'm not for the large government, but Wyoming is just being ignorant.

Wyoming you say? Hmmmm....

Yes, I believe this is going to be a trend. States will begin to assert that the Constitution as regards to regulation of firearms can only apply to guns not manufactured and remaining in that State.

Still other States, I believe will follow and form a pact to defend any Federal violation of States' rights of a sister State. The Fed will then be forced to think about whether it wants to touch off a Civil War over the issue.

I'm waiting for Arizona to make a move then I'll make a move and make an investment in Ruger.

AZ is burdened with a large indigent population that heavily depends upon the feds for sustenance. The illegals have virtually emptied the state coffers by themselves. I know AZ is basically a gun-friendly state (having lived in north AZ longer than I lived anywhere) but a threat from the feds to withhold funds would get all the reservations and other 'minorities' in an uproar - so it's an interesting question which way the state will swing, isn't it?

Honestly, this won't work. It's unconstitutional. The Federal government won't allow this to happen. I'm not for the large government, but Wyoming is just being ignorant.

You are either very young, and an indoctrinated fool. Or just stupid, but definately one of the two, or both.

Honestly, this won't work. It's unconstitutional. The Federal government won't allow this to happen. I'm not for the large government, but Wyoming is just being ignorant.

The shills come out at night.

Yes, welfare is the carrot, along with Fed highway funds, infrastrucute, etc. Cut the welfare off, and you will not have the problem in the future. The States have whored themselves to the Feds, and the ecroachment will continue.

The reservations should not even be an issue. Federal land, they pay the welfare tab. People riot, put them in tent city jails wearing pink panties, and eating bologna.

Shit, put a 40,000 volt fence around the reservation, or just let them build casino's, problem solved.

State plan fines feds
$2,000 over gun rules
2 years in jail also possible for agent
enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm
--WND

[link to www.wnd.com]
Posted: March 13, 2010
12:20 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules.

According a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

But Wyoming's law goes further, stating, "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 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 than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both."

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.


He said the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works.

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
HOMELAND REBELLION

State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules
2 years in jail also possible for agent enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm

------------------------------------------------------------

Tenth Amendment Center map showing 4 states adopting gun exemptions (in red)


According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything.

In the Montana lawsuit, the federal government's brief argues it can regulate intrastate commerce because of the Commerce Clause.

But the analysis said what the states are doing is simply a nullification.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

"By signing HB95, Gov. Freudenthal places Wyoming in a position of proper authority while pressing the issue of state supremacy back into the public sphere," he continued.

On a blog, one commentator noted, "This is a healthy sign. Legislators in several states working to take back sovereignty and restore constitutional government. The next step that has to be taken is to replace representatives and senators who don't support states rights. Then, the House needs to introduce impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court justices who exhibit bad behavior. Contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court justices do not serve lifetime appointments. They serve for periods of GOOD BEHAVIOR. I contend that erroneous decisions constitute bad behavior."

Learn what you can do about your nation. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

According to the Casper, Wyo., Star-Tribune, the law takes effect in July and consumers could purchase guns immediately under the exemption from the state's sole firearms manufacturer, Freedom Arms, which makes revolvers in the $2,000 price range.

The newspaper reported authorities already have discussed the possible scenario of a local Wyoming sheriff arresting a U.S. marshal.

"That's a question we've sort of asked ourselves," John Powell, a spokesman with the U.S. attorney's office in Cheyenne, told the paper. "We're not exactly sure how this is going to play out."

State Rep. Alan Jaggi, R-Lyman, told the newspaper there could be confrontations.

"I think it could be a possibility if we had some overzealous – do I want to say bureaucrat? – that would just say, 'Hey, we're going to show these states we have all the authority,'" Jaggi said. "States' rights – I'm willing to say that's important enough to us to do it."

In signing Utah's law, Gov. Gary Herbert said it was time to act.

"There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing," said Herbert in a statement.

The Montana lawsuit was filed by state officials against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms within state borders.

In a subsequent filing, the federal government demanded dismissal of the action, explaining it can regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

The government's filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of "standing" for the plaintiffs and the court's lack of "jurisdiction," as well as the Constitution's Commerce clause. The government filing argues, "The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress' power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed."

The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.

His organization said, "The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed."

For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.

There's no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the First Amendment, Marbut explained.

The federal government had written gun dealers in Montana as well as in Tennessee when it adopted its own version of the same law that warned against following the state laws.

The letters were distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In the Tennessee case, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the adopted Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

Im all for seceding

Yes, welfare is the carrot, along with Fed highway funds, infrastrucute, etc. Cut the welfare off, and you will not have the problem in the future. The States have whored themselves to the Feds, and the ecroachment will continue.

The reservations should not even be an issue. Federal land, they pay the welfare tab. People riot, put them in tent city jails wearing pink panties, and eating bologna.

Shit, put a 40,000 volt fence around the reservation, or just let them build casino's, problem solved.

I like Joe Arpaio too!
As to casinos, they can build them if they want - so far, nobody in state government is stopping them. That's voted in with each tribe, and sometimes, the tribal council does it anyway, even when the tribal members do not want one, as with the Navajos.

The illegals don't pay any attention to gun laws anyway. All this talk of gun confiscations is directed at law-abiding Americans, and mostly at white Americans at that. Then we have a problem with out-of-state liberals moving into the state and trying to turn it into California; they've ruined Flagstaff.

You can always tell they've arrived when the no-smoking ordinances show up and local taxes sky-rocket and then the illegals - in areas we'd never seen them before - cutting grass in the liberals' gated communities. When the illegals start robbing and killing Americans, the liberals pass gun laws against the victims, not the perpetrators.

Im all for seceding


I think all states should, then you you crazy gun toting retards can invade each other, instead of countries where you have no business

Im all for seceding


I think all states should, then you you crazy gun toting retards can invade each other, instead of countries where you have no business

I think all states should, then you you crazy gun toting retards can invade each other, instead of countries where you have no business

In Texas we still think of ourselves as a country. Not long ago, the only government we saw was a mayor. If a fed was coming in, the local deputies would put the word out at the local cafe. Then, people would make sure their rifles were loaded and at the front door.

Texans are already at or beyond the mad as hell and not going to take it anymore stage. And for all Rick Perry isn't, he is ranch raised Texan. He's already talked secession. I think Texans are ripe to stand up to DC.

:TexCowboy:

Honestly, this won't work. It's unconstitutional. The Federal government won't allow this to happen. I'm not for the large government, but Wyoming is just being ignorant.


#1: It is totally constitutional.
#2: since when did the federal government start caring again about the constitution?
#3: I think you are something that rhymes with HILL


From China?

hmmmmmmm

Once the federal funds are cut off, what do you think will happen next?

Will the working taxpayers only pay state taxes?

It is a interesting concept, but what will but the end result?

This could be the start of the break-up of the US!

Im all for seceding


I think all states should, then you you crazy gun toting retards can invade each other, instead of countries where you have no business

In Texas we still think of ourselves as a country. Not long ago, the only government we saw was a mayor. If a fed was coming in, the local deputies would put the word out at the local cafe. Then, people would make sure their rifles were loaded and at the front door.

Texans are already at or beyond the mad as hell and not going to take it anymore stage. And for all Rick Perry isn't, he is ranch raised Texan. He's already talked secession. I think Texans are ripe to stand up to DC.

:TexCowboy:
You know Texas is a great state. May I ask what happened to this Texas pride when they shoved the new hiway up your ass? If the Mexi's are flying over your towns down south why aren't you all down there stopping this shit like now. Texan's being bad! Come on.