Wyoming sues feds over gun rights

The Casper [WY] Star-Tribune ^ | May 10, 2006 | TOM MORTON

[archy]

Wyoming sues feds over gun rights

By TOM MORTON

Star-Tribune staff writer

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Wyoming is suing the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, centers on whether its the federal government or the state that has the final authority to restore gun rights to those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.

Under federal law, people convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence used to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. In 1986, that changed: Those convicted could own a gun if their records were expunged.

A new Wyoming law, passed in 2004, set up a process for letting people convicted of misdemeanor offenses -- including, but not specifically, domestic violence acts -- regain their gun rights. The state, however, used a different definition of "expunge," setting off a series of battles with ATF.

In July 2005, ATF said it would notify federally licensed firearms dealers that concealed weapons permits from Wyoming were invalid unless the state changed its law.

Monday's lawsuit is the state's most recent response.

"The BATF's actions are an illegal attempt to force BATF's will upon the Wyoming Attorney General and Wyoming's duly elected legislature," wrote Attorney General Pat Crank and Senior Assistant Attorney General C. Levi Martin.

[tertiary01]

Yeah and I can see you are an expert on everything.

Buh bye.

[Celtman]

There is a shadow government left by the Clintoons, I am convinced.

      Left by, but hardly started by.

[eastforker]

If you have a cc permit the gun dealer does not have to call the FBI to check out the buyer, so, by disregarding a CC permit the dealer would have to call the FBI for a purchase.

[archy]

This article is not clear. It references several different issues but does not explain any of them well enough for someone not keeping track of Wyoming's disputes to understand just what the conflict is.

The following FReeppost contains the Associated Press report on the matter, as published in the Rocky Mountain News.

It is hopefully more clear for you than the CST piece.

[planekT]

I read another take on this and what the ATF has a problem with Wyomings' definition of "expunged".

Apparently Wyoming does not physicaly destroy the records, and in fact they could be used to increase penalties should the person commit another offense in the future.

AFT is being pretty picky here imo, but then again I'm of the opinion they shouldn't even exist along with junk unconstituional gun laws like the Lautenberg Act.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thank you. Interestingly the US is claiming that the retention of the information about the conviction by the State means the record has not been truely expunged. That seems to be true.

I wonder in what order the federal laws where passed so that the expungement order came before or after the fed law regarding domestic violence?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Seems as though the ATF is correct on this one and that the intention of the Congress is that there be no record of these convictions kept. If the State can dreg it up again it is not expunged by definition.

[archy]

Seems as though the ATF is correct on this one and that the intention of the Congress is that there be no record of these convictions kept. If the State can dreg it up again it is not expunged by definition.

What the feds are after is the power to *erase* past state records of misconduct by their own officers and agents, so that they need not fear state action for their own past misconduct or conspiracies to commit same.

If they don't get that, they're not going to let the peons of whom they feel they are the masters enjoy any such relief either.

[tpaine]

An unconstitutional Federal 'law' prohibits anyone convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing a firearm.

In 1986, Congress amended that bogus 'law' to allow states to set rules for restoring gun rights to people who've been pardoned or whose convictions have been "expunged, or set aside."

In 2004, Wyoming's legislature compounded, and agreed with the federal infringement by passing a 'law' meant to govern how such convictions could be expunged:
"-- Individuals would have to wait one year after completing their sentence; they would not qualify if their misdemeanor conviction involved the use or attempted use of a firearm; and they could not have any other convictions that prohibit them from owning guns. --"

The US Constitution is clear in that no level of government can infringe on our right to bear arms. -- A fiat prohibition on a persons RKBA's for "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is clearly an unreasonable regulation regardless if written by fed, state or local 'lawmakers'..

That sheriff in Bighorn County should refuse to enforce it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Huh? There are no federal officers charged with crimes to be expunged.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Until the Supreme Court overturns it it is still the law of the land. I doubt it has even been challenged until now. But even now its constitutionality is not being challenged merely technicalities wrt its implimentation.

I do agree it is an unnecessary infringement and, if the current court doesn't throw it out, the next with more Bush appointments might.

[tpaine]

The US Constitution is clear in that no level of government can infringe on our right to bear arms. -- A fiat prohibition on a persons RKBA's for "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is clearly an unreasonable regulation regardless if written by fed, state or local 'lawmakers'..

Until the Supreme Court overturns it it is still the law of the land.

Not true. "-- 'Laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. --" Justice Marshall, 1803.

I doubt it has even been challenged until now.

Sad comment on how the gun grabbing position is accepted. [Actually, the USSC refuses to hear any challenges]

But even now its constitutionality is not being challenged merely technicalities wrt its implimentation.

Bull, - your seeing it as a merely "technical" infringement is typical of the 'reasoning' why it hasn't been challenged.

I do agree it is an unnecessary infringement and, if the current court doesn't throw it out, the next with more Bush appointments might.

Hell of an endorsement, - our USSC "might" see it as an infringement.
-- It's easy to see why our Constitution is being ignored.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is the Supreme Court which decides what laws are "null and void" not tpaine or justshutupandtakeit.

What gives you the impression that I had anything to do with the State challenging over technicalities? I did not file this suit.

It is our Constitution which set up the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over "all Cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,...."

There is no other authority which can declare a law to be unconstitutional. Not even tpaine.

[tpaine]

The US Constitution is clear in that no level of government can infringe on our right to bear arms. -- A fiat prohibition on a persons RKBA's for "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is clearly an unreasonable regulation regardless if written by fed, state or local 'lawmakers'..

Until the Supreme Court overturns it it is still the law of the land.

Not true. "-- 'Laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. --" Justice Marshall, 1803.

It is the Supreme Court which decides what laws are "null and void" not tpaine or justshutupandtakeit. It is our Constitution which set up the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over "all Cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,...."
There is no other authority which can declare a law to be unconstitutional.

Wrong. Every official in the USA is sworn to support & defend against Constitutional infringements, -- just as citizens have that same duty.

I doubt it has even been challenged until now.

Sad comment on how the gun grabbing position is accepted. [Actually, the USSC refuses to hear any challenges]

But even now its constitutionality is not being challenged merely technicalities wrt its implimentation.

Bull, - your seeing it as a merely "technical" infringement is typical of the 'reasoning' why it hasn't been challenged.

What gives you the impression that I had anything to do with the State challenging over technicalities? I did not file this suit.

Your position is typical of those who equivocate on these issues, allowing the Court to rationalize its refusal to act.

I do agree it is an unnecessary infringement and, if the current court doesn't throw it out, the next with more Bush appointments might.

Hell of an endorsement, - our USSC "might" see it as an infringement. -- It's easy to see why our Constitution is being ignored.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Officials do not get to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional or not. They may petition the Court to declare them so. George Wallace had no authority to argue that integrating the University is "unconstitutional". These quaint ideas are no longer respectible. The idea that the officials could "defend" the constitution from the legislature is just as laughable. That was never the Founders intention since they divided power among the Executive, legislative and judicial.

But in addition to all that there is no oath "to defend against constitutional infringements" rather it is to "support this constitution". It is the Supreme Court which has final say on WHAT that constitution is.

Your statement of my "position" is only that. It has no bearing on what my "position" is.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

Officials do not get to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional or not.

They are bound to support the supreme 'Law of the Land'. -- Laws repugnant to the supreme law are null & void, and not to be supported [or enforced].

They may petition the Court to declare them so. [and, they may refuse to support them while awaiting that declaration]
George Wallace had no authority to argue that integrating the University is "unconstitutional". These quaint ideas are no longer respectible.

Quaint point.. Wallace had every authority possible. He was sworn to preserve, protect & defend the Constitution of the USA, as well as of his State.

The idea that the officials could "defend" the constitution from the legislature is just as laughable. That was never the Founders intention since they divided power among the Executive, legislative and judicial.

The laughs on you. The division of powers was intended to foster 'checks & balances' on those very powers. You have some very quaint authoritarian ideas.

But in addition to all that there is no oath "to defend against constitutional infringements" rather it is to "support this constitution".

"-- preserve, protect an defend --" is in the Presidential oath. -- Quibble about that.

It is the Supreme Court which has final say on WHAT that constitution is.

Belied by the repeal of prohibition. The people prevailed, the Courts opinion was rejected.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Constitution in question is the one defined by the Court not State officials or federal officials or the local dogcatcher.

They have no capacity for judgment on what the Constitution says but must follow the Court's judgment as the Founders stipulated.

The rest of your post is more confusion and mistake.

The checks and balances established were not that state authorities had any say over decisions over constitutionality outside the right to take a law before the Court for a ruling. The checks by the states took other forms not by unilateral decisions on which laws to obey. Anarchy would be the result. Jefferson's theories were completely whacky.

[tpaine]

The Constitution in question is the one defined by the Court not State officials or federal officials or the local dogcatcher. They have no capacity for judgment on what the Constitution says but must follow the Court's judgment as the Founders stipulated.

Where is it 'stipulated' that SCOTUS opinions 'must be followed'?
You made that one up. - Remember Dred Scott?

The checks and balances established were not that state authorities had any say over decisions over constitutionality outside the right to take a law before the Court for a ruling.

State officials are pledged to support only Constitutional law. -- They are not obligated to enforce 'laws' that are repugnant to constitutional principles. -- As you say, they put it before the courts, -- and can ignore it while waiting resolution.

The checks by the states took other forms not by unilateral decisions on which laws to obey. Anarchy would be the result. Jefferson's theories were completely whacky.

Sure, Jefferson was wacky, not you.. Dream on.

[Supernatural]

I used to live in Wyoming.

Other than Alaska, probably the most self-sufficient people in the U.S. Not counting Native Americans, of course.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Court determines what the Law of the Land means. There in no way it can enforce its decisions if the Executive branch won't do it but that doesn't change what is the Law of the Land.

Dred Scott was the Law of the Land like it or not.

You keep pretending that state/fed officials have some mystical source to determine what is constitutional and what is not and have some authority to contravene Court rulings. They don't. Nor can they ignore the questioned law unless a court has stayed its operation which is often the case but not always.

Jefferson's Constitutional beliefs essentially denied that there was a Constitution. He was an excellent rhetoritician and a master manipulator. But as a political thinker he could not fill his great rival, Hamilton, inkwell. He did not even believe that the purchase of Louisiana was constitutional and Madison finally had to tell him tojustshutupandtakeit rather than pursue the folly of amending the constitution to satisfy this quibble. He was an excellent cabinet maker but was the most overrated President we have ever had.