Posted on 05/11/2006 10:42:47 AM PDT by 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.
The happiness of a half-cooked frog...
Not in most states.
Not quite.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
--Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
The oaths vary from state to state and federal agency to agency, and have indeed also been changed over the years. The oath for US Marshals now no longer requires support and the defense of the U.S. Constitution, but obedience to the federal judiciary instead.
And there's also a loophole for those in the executive departments of most states. You post your state's relative oath for public officials, and I'll show you how they can legally parse and violate it with impunity- as many do.
Think back to neighboring Idaho, and what happened to the murder charges against FBI womankiller Lon Horiuchi. But since no trial took place, charges for either the murder or for the deprivation of the victim's civil rights can still take place. And as we've seen of late, such charges can be brought even thirty or forty years after the fact.
Too, you'd do well to check out the following FReeppost. Should NooYawk politicians try to infringe upon the rights of Wyomingites, I don't think they'll be at all happy about the results.
Who brought the chips?
I need to move someplace more conservative. This looks promising.
Info for you *here.*
Webforum *here*.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.