…is about to take preemptive action:

The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government.

You know, if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had read a little history, they’d know how the Revolutionary War started.

53 thoughts on “Wyoming”

    1. …and if you’d read the story a little closer you’d know that Montana has had a similar law on the books since 2009. To my knowledge, the Federal Government has not brought legal action to overturn it.

      By the way folks, sending a note to your state congress critters suggesting they follow suit, as I just did here in Colorado, may be a great way to get the word out.

    2. Actually about seven states have such laws on the books. The Feds can’t do much about it without also eliminating medical marijuana in California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and other states.

      1. Raich v. Gonzales.

        Turns out the Feds (and the Supreme Court) don’t care what State law says about it, if Federal law says it’s illegal.

    3. Ahh… The ruling class’s toady, Chris Gerrib, is back again. I think you strapped on your jackboots a little bit too tight there, Chris.

      1. It’s not his boots that are too tight, it’s his jock strap, and it’s cutting of blood flow to his brain.



    4. “nullification is unconstitutional”

      I’m reminded of that Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Moe the bully says something dumb and Calvin says “Here’s Moe, folks, let’s give him a hand!”

    5. As a newly-minted Leftist Democrat, I’d like to know how I can be incorporated into the Jim-Gerrib-Matula-Bob-1 tag team that weighs in on a rotating basis on gun control. After all, I understand that our actual goal is to disarm people who might foolishly oppose our objective of ruling them. Please help me understand, Comrade Gerrib, how I may best serve the Cause.

      1. MfK,

        Except that I have never been for gun control so you owe me an apology. I don’t think its the government’s business what guns I buy, sell or own. Period.

        And I disagree on the modern ban of guns on campus. When I went to NM tech in the 1970’s I had both a pistol and rifle in my dorm room that I used to take with me when I went prospecting. The engineering student in the room next to me was a gun smith and his room looked like arsenal. And the Administration didn’t care. In fact several of the campus police used to pay him to work on their guns, which is how I got to know some of the officers and eventually went to work for them.

        I guess that just because I see most of the Tea Party candidates as con artists who are making this country easier for the left to take over, and Rand as an inconsistent Libertarian, you label me as leftist. But as I have often stated, I am a Reagen Republican who see the fringe nut cases destroying the Republican Party and making it easier for the left to get away with things like gun control.

    1. Maybe they think that they will pay the redcoats with magical $1T coins… Because if they start the confiscation and the resistance turns up, the dollar is going to be worthless.

  1. Chris,
    how is it you always ‘know’ what’s Unconstitutional, except when someone with a (D) after their name is outright talking about or actually going about things that the Constitution or Bill of Rights says should NEVER be touched?

    1. Ding, ding, ding.

      He only like the constitution and law and order when its used to opress his political opponents.

  2. Perhaps gerrib can explain what he thinks is being nullified? The law is in compliance with the 2nd Amendment, but that’s hardly the issue. The Wyoming law doesn’t say a federal law is nullified. It simply says its unenforceable. It seems inline with the SCOTUS ruling against Arizona which said that state could not enforce federal law. Further, the sanctions against those violating Wyoming law places no undue burden on the federal judicial system.

    By the way, any executive order by Sheriff Biden would be an issue of enforcement, not law. Wyoming seems to be following the White House’s example.

  3. It is illegal to arrest Federal agents for enforcing Federal law. Wyoming’s law is unconstitutional, and has been since Andrew Jackson’s administration.

    Montana’s law is careful crafted to attempt to get around the interstate commerce clause, by restricting itself to guns made in and never transported out of the state of Montana. It’s currently under appeal in Federal courts.

    If you actually read Scalia’s opinion (in PDF) you will see that he specifically allows Congress to regulate what types of guns are legal.

    You may not like what the Federal government does, but it is the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like what it does, try winning some elections.

    1. At least we all know where Gerrib stands on the issue. The only argument he has left is “we won the election, we get to make the rules and you have to suffer if you don’t like it.”

      That, and he seems to forget that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. Executive orders that violate the Constitution are still unconstitutional, even if 95% of the populace voted for the executive who made the order.

      If the President (or even Congress) signed an executive order or a law that established Catholicism as the national religion, it would be just as unconstitutional as an executive order mandating that citizens let the National Guard sleep in their homes, or an executive order re-enacting slavery or allowing the president to serve more than two terms.

      I also love how the president just signed a bill letting him get Secret Service protection for the rest of his life, repealing the 1994 law ensuring protection for 10 years after one’s presidency ends. I wonder how many other benefits he’s going to put in place for himself before he leaves office?

    2. And, if you are going to invoke a SC opinion, and provide a link to it, it’s generally preferred to provide a citation to the section or page in the opinion that supports your assertion. To say that “Scalia said that Congress can do this, it’s right here somewhere in this 157-page document” is specious, at best. Provide a page number or other proper citation if you really want to make such a claim, as it is the claimant who has the burden of proof, not the respondent. If not, your claim is worth just as much as the cost of the electricity used to light the phosphors around the words in the claim.

      1. See Page 2 of the document – the part which reads: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
        It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
        manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
        or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
        doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
        felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
        laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
        arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
        “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
        of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

        1. If you had actually bothered to read pp.54-56 of the opinion, you would have seen that the “dangerous and unusual” does not restrict the “types” of guns that most people are clamoring to have banned. In fact, it specifically excludes them:

          It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          Which is to say, “just because M-16s didn’t exist in the 1700s doesn’t mean they aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.” In fact, Scalia’s opinion reads that concealed weapons bans and gun-free zones aren’t Unconstitutional, but barring “unusual” weapons (presumably fully-automatic weapons or RPGs), the Constitution doesn’t limit its protection to muzzle-loaders and pistols.

          1. No – Scalia specifically upheld the NFA which “banned” full-auto weapons. Since those weapons were clearly used by armies at the time, interpreting that quote the way you did is contradictory. What he’s saying in the passage you quote is:

            “Some people argue that because our civilian militia can’t carry the same types of weapons as the Army, there is no militia and thus no private right to a gun.”

            He then rejects that argument, saying that militias of the 1700s brought whatever they had, and that was the intent of the militia. Whether or not “bring what you have” would be as effective now as in 1800 is not the Court’s problem.

    3. They’re not going to be arrested for enforcing federal law, they’re going to be arrested for violating Wyoming law. State and local governments arrest federal agents for violating state law all the time. It’s often for drunk and disorderly conduct, DUI, and occassionally murder, but federal agents don’t enjoy complete legal immunity and are not above the law.

      1. If Federal and Wyoming law are in conflict, Federal law prevails. You can’t arrest a Federal agent for enforcing Federal law, regardless of what Wyoming law says.

        1. Why not? Since the Constitution doesn’t matter, why should any other law matter?

          The veils are stripped away. The only real law is “might makes right”. You wish the federal government to have all the might so that it can impose your vision of the right upon the unwilling.

          But some people refuse to allow the federal government to do so. Some people would rather die than live your way. You are saying that the federal government should kill such people.

          That makes you the bad guy in this drama, Mr. Gerrib.

          Are you willing to live with that?

          1. And the problem for Chris Gerrib’s “might makes right” position is that the fed govt is $16T in debt with $90T in unfunded liabilities. If civil war breaks out, no magical $1T platinum coins will save the fed bureaucracy from its lack of might.

        2. This administration- and specifically this party- have announced that Rule of Law is an outdated concept. Well, fine- if it is, it is no more outdated for y’all than it is for us.

          For a party that loves to consider its opponents terrorists, Nazis, fascists, brutal rednecks, murderers, haters, et cetera… y’all on the Left are certainly pushing hard to take any restraints off of our behavior. Good luck with that.

    4. OK Chris, so when the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, when do you think it becomes infringement?

      What kind of law that Congress passes would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment in your view?

    5. It is rather ironic that a person who voted for Obama is talking about the following the law and the constitution.

    6. It is illegal to arrest Federal agents for enforcing Federal law.

      Have you ever heard of Nuremberg, Chris?

      Your statement is pretty much the definition of a fascist society.

      When government agents are above the law, there is no law.

      1. Chris Gerrib really likes his ultra tight jackboots. Maybe he should practice the line, “veee vere just following orders!”

    7. Mr. Gerrib:

      There can be only one reason that you want people to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves: because a disarmed populace will be helpless to stop the government from imposing the ideological program you favor upon those who oppose it.

      That’s it. You, and others like you, have a deep-seated hatred of those who disagree with your ideology, and you seek to remove our ability to resist it. Your ultimate goal is a world where the government can kill anyone who does not think and behave in accordance with your ideology.

      By contrast, I have no desire to use the power of the State to impose my way of life upon you. That is why I am on the side of Good and you are on the side of Evil.

      How your heart, and the hearts of those who agree with you, came to be so full of hate is a mystery to me. But know this: there are those who are willing to die rather than to be disarmed and submit to the program you and your comrades seek to impose upon the world.

      And you are willing for them to die, too.

      And that is why I deeply, sincerely pity you.

      1. The evil is readily visible when Chris Gerrib uses dishonesty to prove his point. I remember when he used to claim he is a “moderate” while supporting every single thing the MSM and fed bureaucracy says even when the statements contradict each other or deviate from what most Americans think.

        I already determined that Jim is completely evil. Perhaps, so is Chris Gerrib.

    8. enforcing Federal law.

      What’s the federal law? Biden is threatening Executive Orders, which are not federal law. Federal agents are required to obey lawful Executive Orders, because they are the ones to whom the orders apply. However, such an order is not law. What Wyoming is threatening via law is that if a Federal Agent follows an unlawful order in their state, they will be prosecuted. Sure, such prosecution would probably be tested by SCOTUS, but I’m fairly certain that is the point.

  4. I own guns and would like to keep them. Congress can’t (and won’t) “take my guns” or “disarm me.” That would be unconstitutional. I did, as part of receiving my commission in the US Navy, take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    I don’t want a disarmed populace helpless before the evil of a center-left politician. What I do want is to prevent crooks and nuts from getting guns. That’s why I want background checks and enforcement on straw purchase laws and gun trafficking. (Gangbangers ain’t buying their guns at Wal-Mart.)

    I don’t personally think a magazine capacity restriction will do much good, but I fail to see anything in the Constitution that prevents one. Nor do I see a burning reason you or anybody needs a high-capacity magazine.

    None of our rights are absolute. You can’t use the First Amendment to defend against libel or fraud, for example.

    No state can pass a law effectively nullifying a Federal law. That situation existed under the Articles of Confederation and was a failure, resulting in the current system of government. Montana’s law attempts to circumvent the Commerce Clause, and I’m not enough of a lawyer to see if it will stand or not. Wyoming’s proposed law is nullification.

    1. You can’t use the First Amendment to defend against libel or fraud, for example.

      Well, I’m glad we have that settled. You can’t use the 2nd Amendment to kill your neighbor, for example.

      So since such laws already exist on the books, why are we even discussing the need for new laws? You don’t go through background checks before you’re allowed to use the 1st Amendment.

    2. Chris Gerrib says:

      I don’t personally think a magazine capacity restriction will do much good, but I fail to see anything in the Constitution that prevents one. Nor do I see a burning reason you or anybody needs a high-capacity magazine.

      Translated: “This restriction won’t work, but we should do it anyway because I’m a fascist”

      I own guns and would like to keep them.

      The old 90’s Time Magazine antigun trick. This is 2013 Chris.

      That would be unconstitutional. I did, as part of receiving my commission in the US Navy, take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

      That’s a typo, chris actually meant Kriegsmarine, at least he wished he was old enough to be in the Kriegsmarine.

      That’s why I want background checks and enforcement on straw purchase laws and gun trafficking. (Gangbangers ain’t buying their guns at Wal-Mart.)

      So you admit that thugs can get guns illegally and that the thugs should be targeted, not ordinary gun owners. So what’s all this noise about?

      Oh, yes, because chris likes his jackboots so much. They are spiffy you know!

      1. One of the ways to distinguish between ordinary gun owners and gun traffickers would be to see if they follow the law on background checks. Right now, it’s damn near impossible to convict somebody of being a straw gun buyer.

        1. it’s damn near impossible to convict somebody of being a straw gun buyer.

          I know, look how hard it is to get a conviction related to Fast and Furious. Hell, look how much effort it is to get a conviction against Nidal Hasan. Still, none of the laws you mentioned would do anything to speed up convictions in either of those cases, nor any case that might have been brought in relation to Newtown, CT.

    3. I don’t want a disarmed populace helpless before the evil of a center-left politician.

      But that’s what a gun ban/registration/licensing gets you, as you know full well.

      What I do want is to prevent crooks and nuts from getting guns.

      Impossible, as you know full well.

      I fail to see anything in the Constitution that prevents one. Nor do I see a burning reason you or anybody needs a high-capacity magazine.

      Thank you for posting that irrelevant personal opinion. Fortunately, my freedom is not limited by your whim.

      None of our rights are absolute.

      You are correct, because no such thing as “rights” exist. Rights are unalienable. It follows that any freedom of action that can be taken away is not a right. And since any gangster, guard, or government can use force to take away the “rights” of those with no ability to oppose them, then it is obvious than neither I nor anybody else has any natural rights at all.

      The only right that exists is “might makes right”. The reason I speak freely and own guns is because I choose to, not because I have some nebulous right to do so. The only way to stop me from speaking freely and owning the guns of my choice is to kill me.

      Which is what you are advocating. Oh, you can dress it up any way you want to, mister Officer, Sir, but in the end you want a politician or a bureaucrat or a policeman to have all the power and for me to have none. You want them to be able to kill me without facing the risk of being killed. You want me to be a slave.

      Might makes right. We are free because we have might — guns. You want to take away the might of people like me by taking their guns away. And once that happens, the government and criminals will have all the might. We will then be slaves, living at their sufferance.

      Freedom is dangerous, Officer G, In a free society, each man, woman and child runs the chance of getting their self-esteem destroyed by insults and slanders, or of hearing their religion and cherished beliefs mocked, or of being killed by a nut with a gun. I would rather that I and my family run those risks than live in a society where “security” comes first.

      That’s what it means to be free.

      1. Biden and Obama are not advocating a gun ban nor even registration. Nor does registration lead to a ban, any more than registering your car leads to a ban on driving.

        Saying “we can’t prevent criminals from getting guns so therefore we shouldn’t try” is like saying “we can’t prevent crooks from robbing banks so let’s legalize it.”

        I’m not going to comment on the rest of your unhinged hyperbole.

        1. Chris Gerrib said:

          Saying “we can’t prevent criminals from getting guns so therefore we shouldn’t try” is like saying “we can’t prevent crooks from robbing banks so let’s legalize it.”

          Actually, we can prevent crooks from robbing banks, we just shoot them in self-defense. It is quite possible.

          The problem with stopping crooks from getting guns? It’s the 21st century. And you know it chris. But you’ll just be going blah blah blah blah blah, over and over again like a broken record.

        2. unhinged hyperbole:

          Nor does registration lead to a ban

          Registration can easily lead to a ban, and the Obama administration has effectively done this in the past. The 5th Circuit even ruled against the Obama administration from failing to provide registrations in an effort that banned drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, that’s about all the Obama administration could do with an executive order, if they actually had the authority to regulate semi-automatics, which they don’t. Yet, that was one of Biden’s threats, to reclassify semi-autos under the 1934 NFA, so that the Obama administration could force regulation, which again they use to ban activity.

          So when you claim this isn’t a strategy, I’m well aware of who is providing the over-the-top hyperbole. I’ve heard it from Cuomo as well. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but Cuomo wants to claim it does.

  5. I think someone tried making a state law that superseded federal law back before the Civil War. That ended real swell.

      1. Dave,

        Its was a factor in the sense that the ideal of Nullification (state being able to reject federal law) had been resolved earlier in the federal government’s favor during the Nullification Crisis in the 1830’s when South Carolina first threaten to succeed because of what it felt was excessive taxation by the federal government.


        The actual trigger for the Civil War was the election of President Lincoln since it was felt he would push for a federal law to abolish slavery that the southern states would be forced to abide by, that is why the first seven states succeeded before President Lincoln was inaugurated. And as Rand pointed out it was President Lincoln’s decision to oppose the succession by all means possible that escalated into war.

Comments are closed.