Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What this law does is give Wyoming standing if one of its citizens is arrested under an assault weapons ban. It essentially puts the state in the position of defending its State citizen against an unconstitutional federal law.no, i'm not.
if there was a federal law that say banned handguns someone who had had their handgun taken would then sue in federal court for the return of their weapon on the grounds that the confiscation was illegal because the law was unconstitutional and thus void.
the federal law would stand or fall on its own. state law would never, ever come in to play when considering or challenging the constitutionality of a federal law.
Nonsense.
No state laws are needed for a citizen to file suit challenging has conviction per a Federal law he considers un-Constitutional.
Indeed, if a new Federal AWB were to be enacted a prima facie challenge would be made, enjoining the government from making any arrests pursuant to the ban.
As already correctly noted, this proposed law is red meat to the radical right, its political theatre designed to provoke a conflict having nothing to do with Second Amendment rights or the Constitution.
Wrong as usual libtard commie puke.The People and The States have power over the Federal Gov't. The Federal gov't gets it's power from the Consent of the People, not the other way around.
But you can't tell that to Liberal/Communists. (who only exist in my head)
corrected for accuracy
Federal law trumps state law. Wyoming Republicans are nutjobs wasting taxpayer money with this nonsense.
Does it? Allow me to introduce you to Sheriff Richard Mack - who took on the federal government and won. Once again JK here shows he's a JoKe and the least informed person here...
yeah... Printz v United States doesn't really support your idea that state law trumps federal.Federal law trumps state law. Wyoming Republicans are nutjobs wasting taxpayer money with this nonsense.
Richard Mack was raised in Safford, Arizona. He graduated from BYU and stayed in Provo as a policeman for about 11 years. He left a promising career to move back to Arizona and run for Graham County sheriff. He was elected in 1988 and again in 1992. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill (named for James Brady) into law and the wheels of Sheriff Mack's lawsuit opposing the Brady Bill began to turn.
The Brady Bill was a federal law which required the local Sheriff to conduct background checks on all of Sheriff Macks constituents who wished to purchase a handgun. The sheriff was responsible for all costs associated with the checks, keeping files on each purchase and notifying the gun shops and customers of his findings. Sheriff Mack told me that the most offensive portion of this legislation was that the bill contained a provision that threatened to arrest "anyone who knowingly failed to comply." Well, sheriff Mack intended to do just that; he would not comply and instead filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Tucson to have the Brady Bill ruled unconstitutional.
The suit contended that the federal government had no authority or jurisdiction to compel or force any sheriff in the United States to comply with any mandate, funded or not. Sheriff Mack also objected to being forced to participate in a federal gun control scheme - the District Court cases were successful.
Mack's case has appeared in history and government text books and it was covered by every major news agency in this country. The lamentable issue here is the real impact this victory should have had never happened. The Clinton White House said the decision was meaningless and Janet Reno quickly downplayed it stating that it would change nothing. The truth of the matter is Mack's case changed history. There were actually five Brady bills scheduled for Congress' promulgation, each one to be passed one year after the other. Brady bill two was introduced just two months after Sheriff Mack filed his lawsuit by Senator Moynihan. It failed in committee and Brady bills 3, 4, and 5 were never even mentioned. Sarah Brady said at the signing of the first Brady bill that this "was only the beginning." If the rest of her Brady bills had been passed the Second Amendment would have been completely gutted and gun shows would have been a thing of the past. Mack's case had a great deal to do with stopping this. He fought the Clintons, the Bradys, Handgun Control Inc. and countless others. He received hate mail and threats and ironically had a window shot out of his mini-van. On the other hand, he is the only person in history to have received the top law awards from the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Industry of America, and the Local Sovereignty Coalition. This battle was a real roller coaster ride for this small town sheriff. It cost him a lot and it brought him a great deal of satisfaction.
Mack vs. Brady - 10 years after a defeat of the Brady Bill,... then the NRA Turns on us,... again.
in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?
did wyoming fail civics class?
in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?
did wyoming fail civics class?
I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the court say it is.
Still, it's dangerous for the Court to piss off too many people, now, isn't it. Take something too far, and Cities start burning. Nothing is without consequence.
in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?
did wyoming fail civics class?
I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
It only works when it benefits the libtards.in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?
did wyoming fail civics class?
I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
Oh.. then please tell that to the sanctuary cities and those states giving drivers licenses and entitlements to illegal aliens
This is absolutely outstanding. Of course, it took the liberals becoming so radical, the entire party had to be hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists, but the American people are finally starting to wake up, adhere to the U.S. Constitution, and put the federal government in it's place...
Heres How Wyoming Lawmakers Are Trying to Beat Obama Admin. to the Punch on Possible Gun Ban | TheBlaze.com
It only works when it benefits the libtards.I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
Oh.. then please tell that to the sanctuary cities and those states giving drivers licenses and entitlements to illegal aliens
It only works when it benefits the libtards.I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
Oh.. then please tell that to the sanctuary cities and those states giving drivers licenses and entitlements to illegal aliens
The People and The States have power over the Federal Gov't. The Federal gov't gets it's power from the Consent of the People, not the other way around.
But you can't tell that to Liberal/Communists.
We have many youth with no jobs, responsibility or direction. Mandate two years military service and require all who served to keep and maintain their weapon after service, unless mentally ill or unstable.
The People and The States have power over the Federal Gov't. The Federal gov't gets it's power from the Consent of the People, not the other way around.
But you can't tell that to Liberal/Communists.
No it don't. You need to read the Constitution. Federal law overrules state law when the two are in conflict.
However, the so-called Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution says federal law overrules state law when the two conflict.
in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?
did wyoming fail civics class?
I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
Oh.. then please tell that to the sanctuary cities and those states giving drivers licenses and entitlements to illegal aliens
I had to check the responses to make sure that at least ONE person offered a reality check.
Individual states do NOT have the legal or constitutional authority to invalidate federal law or make federal law unenforceable within their borders.
Oh.. then please tell that to the sanctuary cities and those states giving drivers licenses and entitlements to illegal aliens
Yer clueless.
We have many youth with no jobs, responsibility or direction. Mandate two years military service and require all who served to keep and maintain their weapon after service, unless mentally ill or unstable.
So with 2 years of military training will make those without responsibililty or direction those kids will be given a fully automatic weapon?
