Wisconsin bill would bar police from enforcing any new Federal gun restrictions (Congress, interview)

[Little-Acorn]

It's about time the states started standing up and resisting Federla usurpation of their own authority.

Federal law trumps state law, of course...but only where the Fed govt has the authority to make those laws.

In the case of gun restrictions, the Feds clearly have no such authority. The 2nd amendment flatly bans any govt from banning or restricting people's personal weapons.

Wisconsin can't restrict people's weapons either. But they CAN make laws saying the Fed can't do it. And now they are.

Hey, Wisconsin! Nice job on "new federal gun restrictions"!

Now, how about the old ones, like the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act? Don't put your legislative pens away yet.....

BTW, the legislator's name in the article is Michael S C H R A A. Odd spelling, but that's what's in the article. Don't ask me why the system filter is blotting it out.

----------------------------------

Wisconsin bill would bar police from enforcing any new federal gun restrictions | Fox News

Wisconsin bill would bar police from enforcing any new federal gun restrictions

Published June 12, 2013
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. – Wisconsin police would be forbidden from enforcing any new federal gun and ammunition restrictions, bans or registration requirements under a bill a Republican lawmaker is circulating.

Rep. Michael S***** of Oshkosh, a first-term legislator and a member of the National Rifle Association, sent out an email Tuesday to his fellow lawmakers seeking co-sponsors for the proposal. He also issued a statement to the media saying the bill is meant to send a message that Wisconsin won't help the federal government restrict the public's constitutional right to bear arms.

"I'm not this cowboy, gun-toting legislator," S***** said in a telephone interview. "I just think it's ultimately important to protect our constitutional rights. When I raised my right hand on Jan. 7 and took the oath of office, I took an oath that I would defend the Wisconsin Constitution and the federal constitution. That's the motivating factor."

[djmilf]

Just trying something out here....

M i c h a e l S c h r a a

Michael S*****

Interesting....why is the congressman's last name being censored?

[Magnum Mike]

I'm sure a lot of other states will do the same thing.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by djmilf

Just trying something out here....

M i c h a e l S c h r a a

Michael S*****

Interesting....why is the congressman's last name being censored?

Apparently his last name is a city data dirty word. I wonder what he did to **** off city data.

[Little-Acorn]

At this point we can only speculate:

If this bill becomes law, and later the Fed puts, say, an "assault weapon" ban into place again, Wisconsin police refuse to do any enforcement, somebody sues sombody else, and the case makes its way to the Supreme Court...

What are the chances that the Supremes would rule that Wisconsin wins, on grounds that the Fed gun ban was unconstitutional, and so is null and void, and Wisconsin was right in banning enforcement?

If the Supremes were to rule that, then imagine what could follow.

Some other state rules that their cops cannot enforce an EPA ruling forcing some guy to not drain a swamp on his own private land.

Another state rules that the Federal Minimum Wage cannot be enforced.

Yet another makes a law saying it's OK to manufacture and sell 100W incandescent light bulbs in that state.

The list would go on and on.

Well, we can dream. For the above reasons alone, there is no way the Supremes would ever agree with Wisconsin. John Roberts would probably write a 5-4 opinion saying that Wisconsin legislators meant to write "must enforce", instead of the "must not enforce" that appears in the bill.

[Spaten_Drinker]

Exactly. State governments are not satellites of the federal government.

[texdav]

But I doubt its going to supreme court just as local and sate government have basically aided illegal immigrates ;passed marijuana law if they do not agree with federal law. In fact even at presidential level federal laws are often ignored.