Great to see a state finally assert it's power over the federal government

[P@triot]

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...

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 Mack’s 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.

yeah... Printz v United States doesn't really support your idea that state law trumps federal.

at all.

Ok....? And the sun is not hot, the sky is not blue, and the Earth is not round

I notice you didn't try to back up that wild statement with one single fact and/or example. How interesting...

 

[saveliberty]

He's full of bs Rottweiler.

 

[P@triot]

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.

As usual, you have zero idea what you are talking about. The federal government has 18, and only 18, enumerated powers. Those powers are the only thing they can make laws on that trump the state laws. All other items, the states have the power and completely trump the federal government. I know that scares you because people with the freedom to do what they want scares the hell out of you, but it is the simple truth.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Except when it decriminalizes marijuana?

 

[saveliberty]

All these wild interpretations of the Constitution by the left is precisely why activist judges need to be excluded from the Supreme Court in particular and all courts in general.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Except when it decriminalizes marijuana?

(eagerly awaiting any dumbocrat to touch this one )

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Except when it decriminalizes marijuana?

all the states can do is change the state law. federal law still applies. how federal law enforcement chooses to implement that law is another thing entirely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And Congress represents the people, Federal laws are supreme, and states can not ‘nullify’ Federal statutes.

That’s settled and accepted law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or ‘communists.’

 

[P@triot]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[saveliberty]

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.

And Congress represents the people, Federal laws are supreme, and states can not ‘nullify’ Federal statutes.

That’s settled and accepted law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or ‘communists.’

God given rights expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are supreme.

 

[ogibillm]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

that's great. back here in reality if there's a question about the constitutionality of a law the courts decide it, and until they say otherwise the law is presumed constitutional. and once again for everybody out there federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The laws are not in conflict.

Federal uses interstate commerce to govern firearms.

In the Wyoming and Montana laws the arms must stay intra-state and never left in interstate commerce.

A state law designed to ‘nullify’ a Federal statute indeed conflicts with that Federal statute. A state may not pass laws authorizing its residents to ignore or violate Federal laws.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

The laws are not in conflict.

Federal uses interstate commerce to govern firearms.

In the Wyoming and Montana laws the arms must stay intra-state and never left in interstate commerce.

A state law designed to ‘nullify’ a Federal statute indeed conflicts with that Federal statute. A state may not pass laws authorizing its residents to ignore or violate Federal laws.

What part of interstate and intrastate confuses you? The federal government only has a say on Constitutional granted areas.

 

[Amelia]

When the government goes too far, the people may rebel, whether it's "constitutional" or not.

The government ignores that reality at its own peril.

 

[P@triot]

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.

And Congress represents the people, Federal laws are supreme, and states can not ‘nullify’ Federal statutes.

That’s settled and accepted law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or ‘communists.’

You have no idea what you're talking about. If federal laws were "supreme" then Sheriff Richard Mack could not have defeated portions of the Brady Bill and the Clinton Administration.

Federal law is only "supreme" on the 18 enumerated powers the federal government is authorized to have power on. Period.

 

[P@triot]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

that's great. back here in reality if there's a question about the constitutionality of a law the courts decide it, and until they say otherwise the law is presumed constitutional. and once again for everybody out there federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

If federal law "trumps state law", then how did Sheriff Richard Mack defeat the Brady Bill which was federal law???

You simply have no fucking clue...

 

[ogibillm]

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.

And Congress represents the people, Federal laws are supreme, and states can not ‘nullify’ Federal statutes.

That’s settled and accepted law, having nothing to do with ‘liberals’ or ‘communists.’

You have no idea what you're talking about. If federal laws were "supreme" then Sheriff Richard Mack could not have defeated portions of the Brady Bill and the Clinton Administration.

Federal law is only "supreme" on the 18 enumerated powers the federal government is authorized to have power on. Period.

those portions were deemed unconstitutional - and were thus void.

that had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with state law trumping federal (it doesn't, ever), which is the question at hand here.

 

[saveliberty]

that's great. back here in reality if there's a question about the constitutionality of a law the courts decide it, and until they say otherwise the law is presumed constitutional. and once again for everybody out there federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Educate yourself.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Except when it decriminalizes marijuana?

all the states can do is change the state law. federal law still applies. how federal law enforcement chooses to implement that law is another thing entirely.

Way to dodge that like a politician. We know exactly how the federal government has "chosen" to implement their law against narcotics. And they just got overridden by a couple of states....

 

[ogibillm]

that's great. back here in reality if there's a question about the constitutionality of a law the courts decide it, and until they say otherwise the law is presumed constitutional. and once again for everybody out there federal law trumps state law. every. fucking. time.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Educate yourself.

seriously, are you having a laugh? did you not go to high school? never watched the news?

this is really middle school stuff.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=civics+textbook]Amazon.com: civics textbook[/ame]

buy one of those. any of them (well, maybe not the honda civic repair guide) and put a little knowledge in your brain.