-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Article: Wyoming: Gun Free Zones Act Repeal Legislation Passes House Committee, Sent
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Excellent.
Won't federal law still apply though?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
Wyoming would have to issue a state license for the exemption to the federal GFSZ act to apply.
So it applies regardless, a state license merely fulfills the requirement of the GFSZA requirements to bring a firearm into a school zone. Thus won't this compel Wyoming to create a licensing process for residents?
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Perfect.
This is what the bill does right? Grant the ability to Wyoming CCW holders to carry on school property.
Its such bullshit that the act was shot down by SCOTUS but a slight change in language and its back up. I admittedly need to read more into it, but its absurd.
Then again... SCOTUS also gave us those awful rulings in Gonzales v. Reich and Wickard v Filburn.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Then again... SCOTUS also gave us those awful rulings in Gonzales v. Reich and Wickard v Filburn.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
IIRC no challenge to the re-written GFSZA has been brought to SCOTUS yet........dont forget......it was a REPUBLICAN congress that insisted on re-writing the bill and it was people like Gingrich. Santorum and others that voted for it as part of a larger omnibus bill
So, the courts are currently in conflict on this one and its ripe for a re-appeal to SCOTUS
The re-write of GFSZA is premised upon the assertion that since most firearms have moved interstate during their lives/in commerce that the fed gov has the power/auth to institute the 1500' school restrictions/licensing limitations/etc
Pretty much its a pile of bunk and I'm pretty sure that a good case in front of SCOTUS will have the anti's with tail btwn legs as the court has already ruled on this once before been smacked down as an abuse of commerce clause
Agreed but I suspect their tolerance on Congress challenging them a second time on same issue may be a but thin
Next step for Wyoming should be to aggressively employ the 10th Amendment, which essentially says that the federal government only has powers granted to it by the Constitution. The rest is up to the states or the people. Constitutionally-speaking (plainly) there should be no gun control on the federal level.
This is why other states have taken up the "anti-commandeering" clause, which, in a nutshell, is refusal to comply with federal standards, rules or laws. They can do this Constitutionally.
In employing it, the government would be bereft of any state assistance (which they rely heavily upon) in enforcing their obtuse laws, such as gun control.
This is why other states have taken up the "anti-commandeering" clause, which, in a nutshell, is refusal to comply with federal standards, rules or laws. They can do this Constitutionally.
In employing it, the government would be bereft of any state assistance (which they rely heavily upon) in enforcing their obtuse laws, such as gun control.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
I think WY is constitutional carry with no CCW system.
It would mean that local LEO would have no cause to bother persons caught carrying, and that the feds would have to be involved to bring charges.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Virtually every legal case involving a state law that has ever gone head to head with the Commerce Clause, particularly "dormant" Commerce Clause cases, have invoked the 10th Amendment. Just like the Commerce Clause has been expanded beyond it's bounds by the courts, the 10th Amendment--not coincidentally--has been deflated by the courts.
Kudos to your Constitutional knowledge that you bring up the potential argument, but you're far from the first person to consider using it--and fail doing so.
By the way, there is no anti-commendeering "clause", but rather it's a legal "doctrine" that the courts have used to maintain what little principles of federalism still exist. The Doctrines' main case on point re: this situation is US v. Printz.
Last edited:
