rushmc 23 #1 January 10, 2013 We have seen this trend grow. The trend I post of is that of the States starting to re-assurt their Constitutionaly given powers Now it is about guns http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/ QuoteSeveral Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #2 January 10, 2013 Interposition has a pretty lousy historical record."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 January 10, 2013 QuoteInterposition has a pretty lousy historical record. Feds would not be able to do anything about it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #4 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteInterposition has a pretty lousy historical record. Feds would not be able to do anything about it Sure, just like those medical marijuana state laws have protected people from prosecution by the federal government."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #5 January 10, 2013 I've always liked wyoming and I'm quite fond of montana as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 January 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteInterposition has a pretty lousy historical record. Feds would not be able to do anything about it Please stop practicing constitutional law without a license. You're just plain wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #7 January 11, 2013 Which brings up a question. What if the governor of a state made all the adults residents of the state who have not been convicted of a felony members of the state militia. How would that affect their 2nd amendment rights ?You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 January 11, 2013 The same way us posting here affects our first amendment rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #9 January 11, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteInterposition has a pretty lousy historical record. Feds would not be able to do anything about it Please stop practicing constitutional law without a license. You're just plain wrong. Andy - I'm not a genius at CONLAW, but what do you think about a state that protects gun ownership and has an indigenous production capability? If there is no interstate commerce, how do the feds enforce anti-gun legislation? Nothing springs to mind, though I'm sure the current AG would come up with something.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #10 January 11, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Interposition has a pretty lousy historical record. Feds would not be able to do anything about it Please stop practicing constitutional law without a license. You're just plain wrong. Andy - I'm not a genius at CONLAW, but what do you think about a state that protects gun ownership and has an indigenous production capability? If there is no interstate commerce, how do the feds enforce anti-gun legislation? Nothing springs to mind, though I'm sure the current AG would come up with something. Busy @ work, so this is the very short version. Hypothetically assuming absolutely zero interstate commerce, federal funding or any other federal and/or interstate interest (ha), I do think a state might be able to simply instruct its employees - LEOs, DAs, etc., to forbear from acting to enforce Federal Statute X. But I don't think the federal courts (and possibly even state courts if the judges have the balls) will permit the state to criminalize such action or impose any civil penalty. (Maybe they could get away with firing the employee for insubordination; maybe not.) And no way would most federal courts let a state get away with prohibiting a federal agent from enforcing a federal law on state territory, or undertaking any affirmative (i.e., non-passive) act to interfere with the federal agent. (Taken to the extreme, that might be deemed a constructive cecession - how'd that work out the last time? ) Aside from judicial-based enforcement like was done in the 50s & 60s, I imagine, if history is a guide, that the feds would probably threaten to pull sundry federal funding. Or, the feds could nationalize the state national guard - that, too was done in "certain places" in the early 60s, as I recall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #11 January 11, 2013 Quote Andy - I'm not a genius at CONLAW, but what do you think about a state that protects gun ownership and has an indigenous production capability? If there is no interstate commerce, how do the feds enforce anti-gun legislation? Nothing springs to mind, though I'm sure the current AG would come up with something. I don't get the point about indigenous production capability. Under Wickard v. Filburn it would still be Interstate Commerce and federal jurisdiction could apply."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 January 11, 2013 Aside from the limiting effect that US v. Lopez (1995) had on Wickard, the point was mainly to posit a hypothetical scenario as a foundation for analysis. We were trained that way in law school because judges often do that to lawyers during oral arguments in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #13 January 14, 2013 I think you and I went in the same direction with slightly different outcomes. I agree that the state would be unlikely to criminalize a fed doing their job. I was thinking more of the larger issue of a state ensuring legal ownership of firearms in their state. If the weapon was produced in the state and never left the state, the feds could not claim interstate commerce. This was always the first issue when I defended gun charges in federal court. Since I never had a case where the weapon was produced within the state, we never went further. I'm not sure there is any further to go. I agree that, in the long run, the feds would just withhold the money they stole from the state's citizens until the state gave in. That's how they ultimately made the 10th amendment moot. But hypothetically, I don't think the feds could ban firearms in a state without the state's compliance. I suppose the feds could claim weapons produced in a state were easily transported across state lines to assert jurisdiction. That's pretty much how the FBI jumps into kidnapping cases when they want.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
