# Just an interesting article on KSL



## guner (Sep 25, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=236990 ... id=queue-4


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

We need to do that here. I certainly isn't about "saving kids from massacres" like the media and anti-rights spin it to be. It is about CONTROL over people who might not agree with the social engineering in store for us "for our own good".

Speaking of social engineering, have you seen where a Dem from NY has introduced a bill in Congress that would eliminate the 2-term limit on the President?
Hmmm... Obama/Biden _forever_!!


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

We are heading down an interesting road for sure. Gun control is just that "control". We cannot affort to give an inch on any gun control measures. It always surprises me how many people are so willing to give up their freedoms for security and safety. Security and safety don't exist in the real world. Bad things happen and bad people do bad things, regardless whether it's with a gun or not.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

This is an interesting statement kind of bill. Problem is, it violates the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause. This bill is more unconstitutional than any kind of gun control bill out there.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> This is an interesting statement kind of bill. Problem is, it violates the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause. This bill is more unconstitutional than any kind of gun control bill out there.


Yep. We expect it to die on the floor, then re-written and re-presented numerous times. It will get a lot of press in the meantime, the goal of the sponsors.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See, that means your Wyoming guys have more sense than Utah's legislature. Our guys would pass it and then act surprised when they get laughed at and challenged.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This is just the start of bigger things to come.

As everyone knows the Wyoming counties with gas, oil and coal are seceding from the Union. We're gonna call it Newoming. Under Newoming's constitution you will be committing a felony if you do NOT use a military-style rifle or a double-stack pistol when hunting big game.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> This is an interesting statement kind of bill. Problem is, it violates the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause. This bill is more unconstitutional than any kind of gun control bill out there.


This is an honest question, how does it work in the states that allow the use of Marijuana? Isn't this the same thing? It is against the Federal Laws.


----------



## Mavis13 (Oct 29, 2007)

jahan said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > This is an interesting statement kind of bill. Problem is, it violates the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause. This bill is more unconstitutional than any kind of gun control bill out there.
> ...


Obama has decreed that though it's technically illegal it doesn't matter. Once again showing that law means nothing to him. So if we get an honorable man in office it could then become a "real" law again; however it could be argued in court that because it was not prosecuted before it's un-prosecutable now.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_2 ... source=pkg


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

NO Way this is enforcable... whats next, states pass regulations for migratory birds to set their own seasons? I like the creative idea, but there is no way this would be allowed.


-DallanC


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

> If passed, HB0104 would declare any federal law limiting access to semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines unenforceable in that state.


Here is my question (and please keep in mind I am pro-gun if you haven't noticed): when a federal law is passed, how do states make it possible to supersede federal laws? This is something that I have been wondering with marijuana laws and states legalizing marijuana, and in a way this kind of follows the same pattern.

I was once told that if a state law contradicts federal law, the federal government can threaten to take away certain funding until the state's laws align with federal law. I don't know if this is true, but that is what I was told. I was also told that Obama has a superfluous nipple... thats just what I was told :mrgreen:

Thoughts? (on the law question, not the nipple)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You are correct Bax. State's cannot supersede Federal law. That is the issue with the marijuana laws. The Feds are yet to push the issue under this administration. But State laws cannot supersede Federal laws. This is also why Utah's Statute demanding all the Federal Lands be turned over to the state will die when challenged in Federal court.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Wyoming would do better by sponsoring a bill that sent 20 million Wyoming tax payer dollars to the NRA to be used to protect the second amendment. They would get more bang for their buck.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I like the statement being made and if it passes it will make an even bigger statement. True that state laws cannot supersede federal laws. The other fact is that states cannot enforce federal laws. Immigration laws area great example of this. The bigger statement I was referring to is that the federal government cannot enforce whatever laws get passed if the states decide to turn a blind eye. The ATF if an agency in shambles without a director and with a huge backlog of work. Making the point that more laws do absolutely nothing.

Another item; any ban that the feds try to ram in or even if they do ram it in by executive order would be unconstitutional. So there would be no harm done by the states. Where I do see a problem is in a statement made by Kendall Kroeker where he stated that if any federal agents come to Wyoming to enforce any laws addressed by their bill, they would arrest and prosecute the federal agents for violating state law. Really tough situation here.

The oath to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic must supersede any order from a government agency.


----------

