Wyoming targets ATF in suit over gun rights

CHEYENNE - Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank has sued the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, saying the agency is relying on a "hyper-technicality" to refuse some Wyoming residents - people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence - the right to bear arms.

"We really are arguing about what is an 'expungement' - that is the critical question here," Crank said Wednesday.

"Essentially, what the dispute involves is the meaning of the word 'expungement' and how it is applied to firearms disability under federal law," said Eric Epstein, division counsel for the ATF field office in Phoenix.

Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing a firearm. In 1986, Congress amended that 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 passed 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.

Furthermore, Wyoming's law stated that a record of the "expunged" conviction would be kept by the state Division of Criminal Investigation and could be used to enhance penalties for future convictions.

Correspondence between ATF and Crank's office show ATF doesn't feel the Wyoming statute "expunges" the records.

In August 2004, shortly after Wyoming's law was passed, ATF Special Agent Lester Martz wrote to Crank, saying the federal law applied only to convictions that were completely eliminated. Citing a 1991 opinion from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Martz wrote: "The word 'expunge' generally means the physical destruction of information."

You familiar with Wyoming's Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis? If not, you might find the results of a websearch to be interesting.

Indeed. Thanks for the heads-up.

Sheriff boots Feds from his county By Phil Hamby Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming said this week that as a result of Case # 96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.
After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, None whatsoever.
He explained by saying, They know they do not have jurisdiction in my count unless I grant it to them.
Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled the state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.
Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. Put another way, Mattis said, if the sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave.
Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the wordsovereign, which is defined by Webster’s as paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State. Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.
As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.
Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen s real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.
Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county. He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.
As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.
Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.
Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.
Copyright 1997 The Knoxville Journal
-- copied from http://www.eoffshore.com/uia/sheriffBootsFeds.htm

You familiar with Wyoming's Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis? If not, you might find the results of a websearch to be interesting.

Indeed. Thanks for the heads-up.

Sheriff boots Feds from his county By Phil Hamby Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming said this week that as a result of Case # 96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.
After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, None whatsoever.
He explained by saying, They know they do not have jurisdiction in my count unless I grant it to them.
Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled the state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.
Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. Put another way, Mattis said, if the sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave.
Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the wordsovereign, which is defined by Webster’s as paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State. Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.
As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.
Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen s real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.
Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county. He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.
As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.
Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.
Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.
Copyright 1997 The Knoxville Journal
-- copied from http://www.eoffshore.com/uia/sheriffBootsFeds.htm

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 Big Hole County should refuse to enforce it.

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.