PDA

View Full Version : Wyoming HB0104 (Firearms Freedom Act)



Superhero
01-10-13, 14:20
Text of HB0104 (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf)
News story about it (http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/)
Firearms Freedom Act (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/)

My wife is an attorney and pretty much says this is similar to the recent rulings on cannabis in CO and WA. If the Feds wants, they can sue the state and force them to remove the laws from their books, because federal law trumps state law, and there is already case law precedent (Wickard vs Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)) giving the federal government very broad powers under the commerce clause.

With the full legalization of recreational cannabis in WA and CO, and with something like 17 states having legal medical marijuana, I see a states taking steps to regain some of the power they've lost in the last 100 years or so. The states were set up to be laboratories of democracy (Louis Brandeis), and they can't accomplish this without being allowed to legislate locally as they see fit.

What do you guys think? Any legal minds here that think there actually is a chance states will be able to successfully challenge the federal government on this?

I think we need to let the supreme court have another look at the commerce clause and how the federal government uses it to expand its authority.

Matt0317
01-11-13, 00:39
Absolutely. I see where your wife is coming from, the whole "Federal law is supreme" - however, the Constitution, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment would/should trump federal law - IT is the LAW OF THE LAND. Our right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. - meaning ANY regulation...(i would think to include commerce)

There is no inalienable right to smoke pot, so the federal law would have the upper hand on that one.

Also the bill states that any Wyoming citizen who may be prosecuted by federal law will be defended by the state attorney general.


I'm no lawyer though, so your wife is probably right... i dunno its interesting for sure. With the people they have backing it they sure seem pretty damn confident... I'm jealous lol. I'm in NC

Superhero
01-11-13, 00:48
We had a discussion about Wickard vs Filburn this evening and she went into it a little bit further. In WvF, it was ruled that because the extra wheat he was growing for himself would keep him from buying it off the market, and that the effect of everybody doing this would be detrimental to the market across the nation as a whole, that he was indeed affecting interstate commerce.

As regards guns, she said simply that "guns are not wheat".

Of course, different judges interpret things differently, so we'll see how this turns out. I'm hopeful but not holding my breath.

Koshinn
01-11-13, 00:52
Text of HB0104 (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf)
News story about it (http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/)
Firearms Freedom Act (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/)

My wife is an attorney and pretty much says this is similar to the recent rulings on cannabis in CO and WA. If the Feds wants, they can sue the state and force them to remove the laws from their books, because federal law trumps state law, and there is already case law precedent (Wickard vs Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)) giving the federal government very broad powers under the commerce clause.

With the full legalization of recreational cannabis in WA and CO, and with something like 17 states having legal medical marijuana, I see a states taking steps to regain some of the power they've lost in the last 100 years or so. The states were set up to be laboratories of democracy (Louis Brandeis), and they can't accomplish this without being allowed to legislate locally as they see fit.

What do you guys think? Any legal minds here that think there actually is a chance states will be able to successfully challenge the federal government on this?

I think we need to let the supreme court have another look at the commerce clause and how the federal government uses it to expand its authority.

Tell her to check US v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549)

Montana did this like 3 yrs ago, they're currently at the 9th Circuit.


ETA: I was discussing this in the "ban" thread with someone who I can't remember, but we applied the FFAs to the pending AWB and mag capacity limits. If a magazine is made in a state, labelled for use only in that state, and never actually leaves the state (and thus never enters the stream of commerce), it probably can't be regulated under the commerce clause because Lopez put limits on Wickbard. But maybe not. We'll see.

Superhero
01-11-13, 01:02
We haven't looked into that case. I've read about it on Wiki but she gets pretty tired of looking at legal stuff all day so convincing her to discuss cases with someone who requires a lot of explanation of terms of art, certain precedents that need to be kept in mind, other laws that might apply etc. is not an easy task. I don't blame her. lol

Hopefully this case can get decided before another justice retires and Obama has a chance to appoint another anti-gun person to a position of authority.

For my part, I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate the ridiculous amount of power the federal government has over individual states. I'm a very left-leaning liberal and even I think it's ridiculous how far the Fed can go in controlling what states can and cannot do.




Tell her to check US v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549)

Montana did this like 3 yrs ago, they're currently at the 9th Circuit.


ETA: I was discussing this in the "ban" thread with someone who I can't remember, but we applied the FFAs to the pending AWB and mag capacity limits. If a magazine is made in a state, labelled for use only in that state, and never actually leaves the state (and thus never enters the stream of commerce), it probably can't be regulated under the commerce clause because Lopez put limits on Wickbard.

xjustintimex
01-11-13, 01:05
If anything could this not possibly allow some of the gun restriction to go to the supreme court, where we will have a shot at it being deemed unconstitutional. That was the strategy I figured they were pulling for when I read this.

Matt0317
01-11-13, 01:14
Yeah getting rid of the NFA would be sweet.