Skip to main content

Civil WarIn 1832 South Carolina, prompted by tariffs that they felt adversely affected the State, passed a law making the offending Federal Law unlawful and unenforceable within the State.

This situation is known as the Nullification Crisis, and led to the Federal government passing a Bill that authorised the use of military force against the State of South Carolina.

Of such import was this principle that the Federal government was prepared to go to war with a State of the Union, to enforce its Constitutional right of supremacy.

Now it appears that some lawmakers in Wyoming are prepared to subject the citizens of their state to a similar risk.

State of Wyoming House Bill HB0104:

AN ACT relating to firearms; providing 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; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

(a) No public servant as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or  regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.

(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be 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.

During the last four years we have seen a marked "uptick" in State laws being amended or rejected by Federal Courts. Many have been an easy call, wingers seeking to enforce their will on women, right up to the Affordable Care Act challenged by States all the way to the SCOTUS

This, while not normally so frequent, is normal law-making. States and the Federal government make laws which may, or may not be challenged. Indeed the constitutionality of a law cannot really be determined in advance, although clearly some laws stand less chance of making it than others.

What is happening in Wyoming is not that.

What the Bill here does is assert the primacy of State Law over Federal Law. If upheld, which is not actually possible, it would rip up the Constitution.

While this proposed law may indeed be simply "grandstanding", the direct challenge to the constitution is a marked departure for the Right, bent as they are on protecting the constitution against all-comers.

Apparently they do not do irony in Wyoming, but I do wonder what implications there should be for legislators who attack the constitution so directly, rather than simply pass stoopid laws that will be struck down.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  SCOTUS has already spoken on this in the 1860s (30+ / 0-)

    Wyoming's actions would be ruled null and void since a state cannot nullify a Federal law.

    So yeah it is grandstanding.  But I would love to see our government nullify their federal funding to Wyoming for a few weeks to make its point.

    Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

    by pistolSO on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:57:36 PM PST

    •  What surprised me (6+ / 0-)

      was that most of the grandstanding we have seen has been in the passing of laws that are clearly within the purview of the SCOTUS.

      This is the first time I have seen any of them attempt to actually nullify the constitution.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:00:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, this is beyond nullification (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, MikePhoenix, Sandino, radarlady, jacey

        nullification says a law is not a law.  There's no such thing as enforcement of a null law, so it's logically impossible to prosecute someone for enforcing it.

        These people are too stupid to understand what they're doing.

        "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:07:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Constitution v. Patriot Act (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe, the  Wyoming legislature is merely expressing an awareness of something the rest of us do not yet comprehend.

        Perhaps Wyoming understands that effectively the US no longer functions, practically speaking, under the auspices of the US Constitution.

        It could be that Wyoming is acknowledging that America is now operating under the US PATRIOT ACT, rather than the US Constitution.

        It seems plausible that America still labors under the illusion that the US Constitution is the prevailing document that controls/limits the power of the Federal Government and sets forth those limitations in the Bill of Rights.

        When in truth, significant portions of the US government operate under the auspices of the US PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA.

    •  This is exactly what I was thinking... (11+ / 0-)

      ... if the federal government has to go to court to fight this foolishness, ALL the money spent comes directly out of federal funding to Wyoming.

      I feel the same way about states that insist on limiting  women's healthcare choices.  If a female member of a military family stationed at a base in a state which has decided to limit her healthcare choices needs to go to another state to receive the care she feels she needs, then that state should pay her travel and living expenses while she is receiving treatment - regardless of the procedure.  It sickens me that a woman from a state like New York or Connecticut who is stationed in Mississippi has to accept fewer healthcare options because of the stupidity of the state's legislature, she should be allowed to travel to a state to receive the services she needs and Mississippi should pay for it.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:21:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's called the "supremacy" clause, (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, MikePhoenix, radarlady, JohnB47, BachFan

      which basically states the primacy of federal law over state law. ordinarily, you would like to assume that state lawmakers (or their legal counsel) would be familiar with this clause in the federal constitution, since it was part of the original constitution, ratified in 1789 (Article VI, Clause 2). the south carolina legislature knew what it was doing was BS, and would be struck down by the supreme court, assuming they bothered to abide by the court's opinion.

      in fact, an entire war was fought, over this very issue, in the form of slavery. south carolina (along with the 10 other states foolish enough to align themselves with it) lost. so, with that well known history available to them, i'll give the wyoming legislator who introduced this the benefit of the doubt, and assume they're well aware the proposed legislation would have no legal standing, out of the gate, and that this is just grandstanding, to gain points with their state's gun nuts. should the state pass the law, attempt to enforce it, and be sued as a result, those legislators who voted for it, and the gov. that signed it, should be held personally financially accountable for those costs, not the taxpayers.

      taking this approach (holding legislators personally at financial risk), for passing laws they know won't survive judicial scrutiny, would, i believe, reduce the number of obviously unconstitutional bills proposed/passed, and save everyone a lot of time and money on this nonsense.

    •  I am Wyoming (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, BachFan, twigg, pistolSO

      born and bred, and I can tell you that nullifying Federal funding would not deter these morons from passing this "law." There is another HB coming up that would establish some handgun or other the "State Gun." There was a time, in the 60s, 70s and early 80s when Wyoming lawmakers had a tiny bit of sense. It has since left them.

  •  Well, they can't SAY the word "Secession" (14+ / 0-)

    So, you know, this is just... uhm...

    Funcession!! Or something...

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:00:30 PM PST

  •  I wonder if they recall an incident (5+ / 0-)

    in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.  I just wonder if Obama would have the nerve to do what Eisenhower did.  

    Then there were other incidents in Mississippi and Alabama where SCOTUS rulings were flouted by the governors Ross Barnett, Sr. and George Wallace regarding university admissions. That really worked out well for the governors.....Not.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:05:33 PM PST

    •  OS - help me understand how this law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, Otteray Scribe

      and state/federal conflict is different than the pot laws where we have state laws legalizing, to some degree, marijuana while the feds continue to view it as an illegal drug.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:50:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It might seem like a fine distinction but ... (9+ / 0-)

        What the State laws on pot do is say that, within prescribed limits, the State will not enforce Federal law. That is, possession is no longer a State offense, and they leave the Feds to do whatever they want to do.

        Where the Wyoming Bill differs is that it asserts State Law to be above Federal law, and allows enforcement against federal employees who are attempting to enforce federal law.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:58:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What twigg said. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, Kentucky Kid, VClib, LinSea, Sue B, ER Doc

        Federal law trumps state law.  If a state does not want to enforce a Federal law, they cannot be forced to do so by any means other than withholding funds.  However, states cannot act in a manner contrary to Federal law.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:08:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So how can the two states that just passed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, Otteray Scribe

          laws making marijuana "legal" not be acting contrary to federal law? If they can't, then how have they at least semi-done just that?

          I'm just curious as to how the two work (or don't work) along the same lines.....Thanks

          •  They cannnot flaunt Federal law. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, Kentucky Kid, Massconfusion, ER Doc

            The limit of their ability is to ignore the drug laws.  That does not work out well for some people.  Here is a link to a story Professor Turley posted a few days ago that illustrates the point.

            http://jonathanturley.org/...

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:29:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It works because they do not challenge (5+ / 0-)

            Federal Law.

            They are simply State Laws, and the Feds are free to enforce their own laws any way they choose.

            In the case of cannabis, the Feds said "If you do it this way, we will not conduct enforcement actions in your State" ... WS and Colorado are doing just that.

            So in those States it is just another law that is not enforced, and there is no conflict.

            It differs in the Wyoming case because that law proposes making it a felony for anyone to attempt to enforce Federal Law. In effect they are making Wyoming law supreme, and that, if it stands, tears up the Constitution.

            The way the Constitution is written now, it would effectively mean that Wyoming seceded.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:30:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a little more complex than that (0+ / 0-)

              Wyoming is drawing a line in the sand about what they consider to be constitutional.

              The real question here (of some interest) is: let's assume that Wyoming is correct and the federal laws they argue against here are actually unconstitutional.

              Can a state establish state law penalties for federal officers enforcing unconstitutional laws? Or do the Feds just get a blanket pass because they are Feds?

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:33:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wyoming cannot pass a law (0+ / 0-)

                that nullifies a Federal Law, duly enacted. Nor can they pass a law imposing penalties on Federal employees enforcing that law.

                If they do that, and ignore the Federal Court, then the create a very real constitutional crisis

                It's a matter for them, but it would not end well.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:25:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  There is no conflict (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt

            Consider: jaywalking is not illegal by federal law. But state law prohibits it (maybe).

            With pot, it's just the reverse. Just like import/export laws, etc, the state just doesn't take a position on it and leaves it up to the Feds.

            There is no 'conflict' because you can comply with both sets of laws simply by abstaining from pot. However, a state law forbidding paying income taxes would be a conflict because it is impossible for joe average citizen to comply with both laws.

            The Wyoming case has some more interesting wrinkles that I am frankly too drunk at present to analyze effectively.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:29:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Right's Never Gotten Over Losing the Articles (9+ / 0-)

    of Confederation.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:06:12 PM PST

  •  Doesn't big game hunter Cheney live in Wyoming?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, glorificus

    If so, wonder what his take is??

  •  This is not (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Gooserock, LinSea, glorificus, kurt

    related to the constitution itself, but there are several states that have marijuana or medical marijuana statutes that conflict with federal law. I live in one of them. The courts haven't generally struck them down even though they conflict with federal law, but the federal government seems to be very inconsistent in the degree to which they attempt to make people within the state comply with federal rather than state law.

    •  California is in that position (1+ / 0-)

      because while there law conflicts, they were given a route to avoid enforcement which they chose to ignore.

      Washington and Colorado are complying.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:10:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, LinSea, kurt

        WA and CO doing? I'm curious how it is possible to comply with federal law while legalizing it.

        CA enacted some regulations around it (number of plants you could grow, only certain places could sell it, you had to get a doc's recommendation to buy it legally, etc).

        •  They both have a year (4+ / 0-)

          to set up a regulated market. They are on it.

          California didn't do that, hence the occasional Federal busts on the pharmacies.

          It will probably be resolved finally when the Fed re-classify cannabis into Class 2.

          If they do that then control of the drug passes entirely to the States. It's the easy way out for all concerned.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:24:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hope that happens (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg

            This seems like one of the most glaring issues in terms of the Feds being way out of step with the population.

            •  My guess is that they are fully aware (1+ / 0-)

              of the problem, and the Admin has said that it is not interested in pursuing federal cases against those covered by the State law.

              They are probably looking for a face-saving way out.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:04:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wonder where you think they said that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kurt

                they are not interested in pursuing Federal cases. Obama, quite disingenuously, said they weren't interested in pursuing individual users, as if they were doing that now (though in the past, some medical users have been arrested and prosecuted). But he didn't mention anything about grow operations and distributors.
                I got an email regarding the recent petition asking for the Feds to keep out of state marijuana laws. It came from intrepid drug warrior Gil Kerlikowske, "Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy." He says

                At President Obama's request, the Justice Department is reviewing the legalization initiatives passed in Colorado and Washington, given differences between state and federal law. In the meantime, please see a recent interview with Barbara Walters in which President Obama addressed the legalization of marijuana:

                President Obama:  

                   But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you've seen the voters speak on this issue.  And as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions.  It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal.

                Personally, I think that the feds will continue to pursue state-legal marijuana operations for the same reasons as we have seen in this diary. I guess sometimes you have to give up your freedoms so that the South doesn't secede and reintroduce slavery, or something like that. It is the responsible and adult view. And what would Gil do for a living? He spent his life busting people, and is probably too old for another career.

                "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

                by shmuelman on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:10:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is really only applicable to Calif. (0+ / 0-)

                  Colorado and WS have both agreed to set up state regulated markets within 12 months. If they do that the Federal government will leave alone everyone who comlies with those regulations.

                  Calif. is a little different because the State did not do that, not to the Feds satisfaction anyway. So in that State the pharmacies and small and large growers are still at risk. Enforcement seems to be limited and sporadic, but that doesn't help if you are the one who is busted.

                  I feel fairly confident that the Administration would rather not have this problem, because they know the way the votes are going, so they will seek an expedient way out.

                  Individuals stand almost a zero chance of being busted in any of those States.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:20:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  ? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, Sparhawk

            this doesn't sound right to me.  the FDA still regulates all prescription drugs, not the states, and there's no promise from the Feds to permit whatever system Washington comes up with in a year.

            "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

            by happymisanthropy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:13:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This isn't quite true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LinSea

              The feds control and regulate all Class 1 drugs, which currently includes cannabis. Cannabis, by the way, is only Class 1 because the federal view is that it has zero medicinal value. All they need to do is accept that it does have such a value and they can immediately move it into another class.

              The States are free to make law relating to all drugs below that, although all States are more than happy to let the FDA take care of drug licensing and safety.

              So if cannabis is reclassified, then the feds will lose interest.

              The Federal government acknowledged that where the people have voted then they are on sticky ground with enforcement, so they sought to influence the situation with agreed State Regulated Markets.

              But Federal law is still law that the feds can enforce if they want to.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:22:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The feds will never reschedule. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kurt

                In fact, many times in the past they have decided to schedule things Schedule I even when the initial reviews had reason to chuck it in Schedule II or higher. MDMA comes to mind.

                If a state government were to decide that they can't in good conscience allow their residents to be mistreated and tossed in dungeons for something that is no crime at all and started arresting federal agents to prevent that, I could never object to that.

                Apparently many here would though.

    •  Conflict But They Don't Require People to Dis- (2+ / 0-)

      obey federal law, they merely permit it --isn't that the case?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:36:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re (0+ / 0-)
      but there are several states that have marijuana or medical marijuana statutes that conflict with federal law. I live in one of them
      How do California's laws conflict with federal laws?

      You can comply with both laws by abstaining from pot.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:35:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  and, don't forget who wyoming's most famous -- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    or, should that be, infamous? -- citizen is: dick cheney.

    in a wicked way, part of me wants to see the state secede just to be rid of him  ;>)

  •  things are getting dangerously weird. (4+ / 0-)

    dangerously
    that's all

    People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. -George Carlin

    by downtownLALife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:14:38 PM PST

  •  Wyoming had a Democratic Governor until a couple (4+ / 0-)

    years ago, now their baser tendencies are showing. Plus it's been one of those winters, little snow, low temps, and the wind blows like hell. They're liable to do anything. Things get better after it melts sometime in late April.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:21:25 PM PST

  •  Those that scream loudest about "constitution" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, sfbob

    squeal loudest about nullification.
    Like the nuts that hate the 14th amendment.

    The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

    by JenS on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:30:26 PM PST

  •  To the extent that interstate commerce (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    is the constitutional basis of all federal gun control statutes, the Wyoming lawmakers may be on to something.

    What a pitiful state of affairs we have in this country, when national gun control laws have to be based on something as irrelevant as interstate commerce.

    Still, I'm just saying that they may be right about this.

    •  It would be open to them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scotths

      to challenge the constitutionality of any federal law, based on the commerce clause or any other clause.

      What they cannot do is make a law that makes the making of a federal law illegal in the State.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:02:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, states can make any law they want (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        In the end, it would be up to the courts to decide. And in this case, the courts might well decide in favor of the state, if the sole basis for the federal law was the interstate commerce clause and if the state law pertained only to firearms manufactured, bought, sold, and used within the state.

        •  That would not be the defense. (0+ / 0-)

          The legislator proposing the law has based it on a power that some argue that States have to nullify federal law.

          But States don't have that power:

          http://thinkprogress.org/...

          The guy actually cited the example of Jefferson helping Virginia and Kentucky in an 18th century case resisting enforcement of the Aliens and Seditions Act.

          They may try a commerce clause challenge, but without accepting registration and traceability, it would be impossible to defend that challenge, because they couldn't show where the guns came from.

          In any event, the law is likely to be based on the general public safety, and that is clear, settled territory.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:07:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wyoming (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Susan from 29, sfbob

    Try living in this state and dealing with the tea party everywhere you go. It is getting very tiresome and makes me want to get out of here. We are not all crazy! Just the people who run the state.

  •  So, why do they all want a dictatorship? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    I wonder why states like Wyoming and Texas and the rest of the old Confederacy would go that route?  So a state like Wyoming is successful in the passing of this law, then what?  Do they leave the union?  If so, what do we do with the railroads and roads that bring out their commerce and energy?    How would they keep their infrastructure in place?  How would they mail a letter?  Would we just put a big road block like in Gaza?  The only way to do that would be a dictatorship to force the peasants to do the work and keep them scared to do anything else.   Lets remember that this same group of clowns wanted to float an aircraft carrier in the middle of the state.  Drive through the middle of the state and see how much water is there.  Not enough to get the huevos of an ant wet.  I am thinking that they really do not think things through there.  Like the feller said above, it has been a long winter and the wind is blowing hard, more or less.  What an embarrassment to be a voter or for that matter, a resident in that state.

    •  They are unlikely to pass it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob

      If they did, that would be stupid because it would set up an immediate constitutional crisis.

      It would be resolved quickly, in District Court.

      If the State chose to Appeal, they are basically accepting the rule of Federal Law, because they appealed to a Federal Court :)

      If they said "Fuck You" to the Federal judge, then we would have a real problem.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:41:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Railroads and other infrastructure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg

      often cross national boundaries. As long as there's cooperation across the boundaries it isn't a problem.

      One problem I WOULD see (in the absurd event that Wyoming actually tried to succeed) is that one of the nation's largest national parks, Yellowstone, lies mainly within Wyoming but several of the entrances are in other states. THAT could get messy. Of course there are probably folks in Wyoming (a certain former VP comes to mind) who'd undoubtedly take great delight in abolishing the park and carving it up for mineral extraction and oil-drilling.

      And of course I-80 runs through Wyoming as well so there'd need to be customs stations at either end. Ditto for the other Interstates that run through it (90 and 25). I suppose they could impose entry tariffs; given the amount of traffic on those roads--especially 80-- they'd probably make out rather well.

      •  I rather suspect that more folk would be leaving (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob

        than wanting to enter.

        Maybe they could change the name:

        Prepperland?

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:23:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My first time traveling through Wyoming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg

          I was on my way from San Francisco back to New York so the state seemed pretty much like one of those places you have to pass through to get to where you really want to go.

          I've been back a number of times since then, either to visit Yellowstone or the Buffalo Bill Cody Museum. Parts of the state are in fact quite lovely. Some of their elected officials unfortunately...not so much.

          •  Only visited once, and briefly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sfbob

            I had to get a photograph of my motorcycle next to the replica of the Liberty Bell, in Cheyenne.

            I rode right across Nebraska just for that picture, then all the way down through Colorado and back into Oklahoma via New Mexico.

            It was quite a trip. ... 1700 miles in 30 hours including 6 hours in a motel :)

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:46:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  You realize Montana already has this law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    Worded almost exactly the same.  It is designed to protect Montana gun manufacturers, or anyone that wants to manufacture guns and accessories in MT.  The stipulation is the guns and accessories must remain in the state of MT in order to remain within the law.  It was signed into law by Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer.

    •  Oklahoma also has a law (0+ / 0-)

      holding manufacturers safe from liability.

      It is civil law and not at all the same thing.

      What the Wyoming proposal does is make any duly enacted  Federal Law illegal, and would create felons of Federal employees enforcing federal law.

      It is not the same.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:51:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You need to check out the MT law (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        The premise is that Federal gun laws cannot be enforced in Montana because the guns and accessories that are made in Montana (that's high capacity magazines) do not cross state lines.  
        Also, anyone can sell firearms manufactured in MT to residents of MT without a Federal firearms license and without a background check.  

  •  Rap Music will Blare from a Cowboy's Ass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    before the Wyoming legislature gets irony.

    The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

    by alain2112 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:09:30 AM PST

  •  Wingnutia has been spoiling for a Civil War for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    so long, maybe they'll eventually get their wish. Prior to the Civil War, the threat of secession was nearly constant. The cry for war from Southerners, despite their woefully inadequate level of industrial and economic development, was absolutely fever pitch. The backward wingnut states of today are no less unprepared, but nonetheless, they are super enthusiastic for a fight. So, someday they may get what they've been asking for. Then they can spend the next 150 years claiming they really didn't lose the 2nd Civil War, and that the "Wingnuts will rise again!"

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:00:47 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site