Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 02/16/2010 6:42:04 PM PST by Jeff Head
>Wickard v. Filburn
A truly evil decision/ruling.
Verily. In the context of the times, FDR was raising unconstitutional holy hell with the SCOTUS. To their eternal shame, the SCOTUS folded like a cheap card table.
With exceptions for euthanasia and illegal pot.
Notice the word "substantial". It's because they're out to stop activity X, regardless of jurisdiction.
Raich ruled that ANY activity REDUCING demand in ILLEGAL interstate commerce could be regulated (and that justified a "dynamic raid" on a terminally ill elderly lady growing 6 pot plants under her doctor's care in accordance with CA state law).
See post 85 in this thread, everything imanates from that decision.
wow!!!!! Love it!!!!!
That and if a state cop arrested an ATF officer, he (the state cop) will do serious time in prison.
It has been settled law since the 1930’s that the Interstate Commerce clause applies to everything grown, made, or transferred. If it applies to wheat grown on a farm to be used only on that farm, it applies to firearms.
While I love the idea, this isn't the way to go. It will only land someone (and maybe some state officials) in federal jail, and the Supreme Court will side with the Fedgov. Guaranteed.
I remember reading about the farmer and his wheat...seems we have had dictators for decades....althought they have many heads, senate, House Of rep, president and the courts.
Sometimes the good guys win....I remember Kennedy at a press conference being asked a question about the commerce clause and he laughed at it....If wanted, anything now a days can fit under that restriction in the consitution..
5 HB0095 2010 STATE OF WYOMING 10LSO-0274 1 (a) Any public servant of the state of Wyoming, as 2 defined in W.S. 6-5-101, who enforces or attempts to 3 enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of 4 the United States government relating to a personal 5 firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is 6 manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that 7 remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be 8 guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be 9 subject to imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a 10 fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or 11 both. 12 13 (b) Any official, agent or employee of the United 14 States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any 15 act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United 16 States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm 17 accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially 18 or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within 19 the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, 20 upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not 21 more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten 22 thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
“The 50 IQ ghetto rappers expeditionary force who can’t hold a glock straight”
That wasist!
And, Birdman Weapon Systems won’t appreciate a negative comment on their fine HoMeBoy NyTe Sights.
You were correct, that was the original bill. However, before it was passed out of committee it was amended. (link here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/amends/HB0095HS001.htm)
I guess some in the committee got cold feet about charging feds with a felony for abridging our rights.
OK! That is the reason I mentioned the test cases. Gary has made it clear that he doesn’t want anyone to jump the gun and wind up being prosecuted by the feds.
I missed the part about the protection of citizens in New Hampshire. I stand corrected. Thanks
That’s just too bad. Hopefully, they will pass it and grow a pair later.
Thanks for the update, C.H.
LOL
Wow Jeff!
Saw this while work lurking yesterday- thanks for the ping - and now reading it. Mindblowing - in a very good way!!!
So very nice to see you posting and to see this miraculous effort underway!
God is so good!
Good to see you posting.
I’m not sure why they need to charge a Federal agent with a felony, any simple yet significant crime should be enough deterrence. Its not Like the Federal government is willing to have half their agents in jail, just so that some of them can illegally break the law.
The point is to create a confrontational with the Federal government and if necessarily make it not worth their effort to enforce that unconstitutional and unpopular law in our State.
Basically 2 things could happen here:
1: the Feds could just back off and not push their luck.
2: they coudl push their luck and one or more of their agents coudl get arested by the state. if that happens the agent will attempt to have the case bumped up to Federal cort where the other federal employees in black robes will try to give their co-workers “Solvergin immunity” to the state law, claming that any of their actions being athorized by federal law gives them imunity to any State law regardless of the Constitutionality of that Federal law.
Which they will insist is constitutional unquestioningly. In effect they will declare themselves above the law by virtue of being the excursive definer of their own law.
We have seen this before in the Ruby Ridge case, where the State of Idaho attempt to put the federal sniper on trial for the murder of a unarmed woman and her baby.
The State Must resist allowing the Federal Agents to be tried in the Federal court for several reasons:
1: The Obvious conflict of intrest for the federal goverment.
2: The the lack of Federal Constituionality of the agents actions, puts them beyond federal jerristiction. (the State can not legally recognize them as a legitimate federal agent for that matter)
3: The Constitutional requirmenet of the 6th ammedment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
To for the state to allow the federal agent to be bumped up to the Federal court in a case in which the State has already determined that their action are beyond the scope of the Power granted to the Federal Government, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
This is critical! They should stand trial in a State not Federal court, for breaking State not Federal law, and the trial must be by Jury. Preferably public, so that the Constitution and other relevant documents may be read to prove that this man is Not acting in accordance with legitimate federal powers.
In all Likelihood the Feds will seek to avoid this public “trial” and fate, as they do in fact have a lot to answer for. They must not be allowed to skirt the law. They must be reminded that they are not above the law and that we will no longer allow them to act as such.
>>Obama’s Lincoln?
Lincoln had an army that was loyal to him. I’m not so sure the same can be said for Comrade Chairman Obamski.
The difference is that Wyoming's statehood was achieved by the promise that the US Constitution would mean just what it says: that if the promise made with the then-existing X Amendment is no longer valid, [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] than neither is the claim in the XVII that This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitutional guarantee of Section 4 that "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." would also be suspect.
Thereby, if the contractural agreement was thereby secured by a fraudulent promise, then the contract is no longer in force, and is moot, invalid and defunct. That's basic constitutional and contractural law.
But don't take my word for it. See what the Montana Secretary of State had to say on the matter back when the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision had yet to be reached.
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.