EDITORIAL: Firearms Protection Act doesn’t protect people

Posted 1/31/13

We do understand that many Wyomingites feel strongly about their rights to possess and bear firearms, and that is their constitutional right. We also understand people’s concerns about safety following the school shooting in …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

EDITORIAL: Firearms Protection Act doesn’t protect people

Posted

OK, we’ll be the first to admit it. We don’t understand.

We don’t understand how passing House Bill 104, which would block any possible federal restrictions on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, makes any kind of sense.

We do understand that many Wyomingites feel strongly about their rights to possess and bear firearms, and that is their constitutional right. We also understand people’s concerns about safety following the school shooting in Connecticut.

However, it is difficult for us to fathom how we are supposed to feel safer knowing that people in Wyoming would have access to these weapons of destruction when people in the rest of the country wouldn’t, if Congress were to pass a ban on assault weapons.

These aren’t hunting rifles we’re talking about. These weapons were designed to kill with brutal force.

If the federal government did put a ban on assault weapons and Wyoming blocked the ban, that would make the state a target for anyone — including criminals — who wanted to buy them.

The bill’s major sponsor, Kendell Kroeker of Evansville, argues the bill could lead to economic development by attracting gun manufacturers. We contend it is more likely to attract fanatics and criminals who will make us feel far less safe.

HB 104, also known as the Firearms Protection Act, goes so far as to make it a crime for federal employees to enforce a federal law banning assault weapons, should Congress pass one.

The presumption seems to be that anyone who obtained assault weapons in Wyoming would be of good character and sound mind. But we know that won’t always be the case. And, while one of the arguments for the bill is that criminals will find ways to get assault weapons regardless of any law, it’s also true that making it easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase assault weapons also makes it easier for people who have no intention of obeying the law.

Even if the bill were to pass, that effort likely would prove to be a waste of lawmakers’ time. The Legislature’s own advisers in the Legislative Service Office issued a legal analysis saying the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes federal laws as the supreme law of the land.

“When there is a conflict between a state law or Constitution and a constitutional federal law, the federal law trumps or pre-empts the state law,” the analysis states.

We hope the majority of representatives in the full House will take a more rational view of the proposal.

Comments