Have you heard  the media buzz about Obama saying he is backing away from the “assault weapon ban”
The truth is Obama said he has “not backed off at all” on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban.
[CNN News]

This combined with his latest strategy to ratify a international arms treaty is alarming.
[The New American]

He said he will “push the Senate to ratify a  treaty signed by Bill Clinton in 1997″
[Summary] of the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms

This treaty has to be accepted by the states and from our recent experience with our D.C. lawmakers to pass “un-read” legislation, we certainly don’t want  this style of action when it comes to our gun rights.

Obama anounced his plan to the Mexican President during his recent trip to Mexico.

“We know that it is a politically delicate topic because Americans truly cherish their constitutional rights,” Mexico President Calderon said.

This is no surprize that Obama is speaking to Mexico President Calderon about giving up our constitutional rights.

We must tell Senators Barrasso and Enzi that we will not accept this treaty or any gun-control stemming from this latest attack on the Second Amendment and ask them to use their influence to convince as many other states of as well.

Our state sovereignty is of great importance and we must claim the Tenth Amendment when it concerns any treaty with other Nations or imposing gun-control on U.S. citizens.
The tenth Amendment states that powers not granted to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the “States” or to the “People”

Senator John Barrasso Contact [By Phone]  [By email]

Senator Mike Enzi Contact [By Phone]  [By email]

Posted 11:40pm MT 3-19-09

From the Washington Post
Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A09

By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=moreheadlines 

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule.

The three groups that brought the suit — the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees — argued that the Bush action violated several laws.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government’s process had been “astoundingly flawed.”

She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not “authorize” environmental impacts. Calling this a “tautology,” she wrote that officials “abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation” to evaluate environmental impacts and “ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts” of the rule.

Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the department could not comment because of “ongoing litigation.”

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.

In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places.

Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is “extremely pleased” with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule’s environmental impact. “This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors,” Faehner said.

 

(a)� The sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use and possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition shall be authorized, regulated and prohibited by the state, and regulation thereof is preempted by the state. Except as authorized by W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), no city, town or county shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use or possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter. This section shall not affect zoning or other ordinances which encompass firearms businesses along with other businesses. Zoning and other ordinances which are designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or manufacture of firearms or ammunition as a method of regulating firearms or ammunition are in conflict with this section and are prohibited.

For the record, here is state law on concealed carry:

6-8-104 (a)� A person who wears or carries a concealed deadly weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both.

Very interesting to note the $750 fine as mentioned by officer Brian Yeomans in the newspaper article has to do with state concealed carry. Look exactly at what he stated in the article, an arrestable offense with a mandatory court appearance and a minimum $750 fine. “This is a weapons violation and considered a high misdemeanor,” Yeomans explained.”

This officer should not be entrusted to interpret the law or implement town policy, clearly his inability to understand the law is evident here.

Continued

You should be offended that a Wyoming town has accepted the philosophy that a disarmed public is somehow safer.

All evidence proves otherwise, if you control the guns of law abiding citizen’s you have an open invitation to the thugs. What you are really saying about this community is “we are a gun-free zone”. That has been done outside of Wyoming and clearly gun-control never controls crime, in fact it does just the opposite.

The Wyoming Constitution clearly states, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.”

It appears that the powers that be in Pine Bluffs would just as well re-write our constitution and other state laws that grant the rights to Wyoming citizens.

8-115 (a) (d) is specifically about concealed carry and has nothing to do about open carry and it should be noted that Pine Bluffs has ignored the fact that just 40 miles away in Cheyenne there is a similar law in place, however it has been interpreted properly and open carry is permissible in city limits.

Why would Pine Bluffs support the out-of-state anti-gun agenda?, Mayor Leonard Anderson and the Town Council should take great care when it comes to your constitutional rights.

A new website, pinebluffswy.org will explain the anti-gun agenda to the general public, also WyGO has made preliminary agreements with land owners to place billboard signs on both sides of the town on I-80, No Guns - No Money, Drive thru Pine Bluffs, ultimately we hope that they reconsider before it comes to that.

Pine Bluffs Police (307) 245-3777

The Gun Control Agenda has reared up and shown it’s ugly head here in Wyoming.

While most of us would like Alaska style carry or broader concealed carry reciprocity, our State Attorney is working to do just the opposite.
Bruce Salzburg was appointed by Gov. Freudenthal another Gun Grabber at heart. Gov. Freudenthal campaigned for Obama in other States on our dime, and told them that there was no confirmation that Obama would enact gun control.
http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2008/10/08/news/news/news188.txt

 We are at great risk of loosing CCW Reciprocity with many other States including Colorado and Montana.

Call Gov. Dave Freudenthal 307-777-7434 and tell him you are not happy about this or any gun control.

See Memo from the State Attorney’s office Below.
State of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal, Governor
Office of the Attorney General
Division of Criminal Investigation Bruce A. Salzburg
Forrest C. Bright, Director Attorney General

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Wyoming Sheriffs
All Wyoming Chiefs of Police

FROM: Forrest C. Bright, Director

DATE: February 12, 2009

RE: Concealed Firearm Permit Reciprocity

I am writing to let all the agencies in Wyoming know of substantial changes resulting from review of other states’ concealed firearm criteria. The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office recently completed examination of the other 49 states statutes for the purpose of honoring concealed firearms permits issued by another state, or reciprocity.

Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-401(a)(iii), Wyoming will recognize a permit from another state that “has laws similar to the provisions of this section, as determined by the attorney general . . ..” The Wyoming Attorney General has determined that with the exception of 8 states, presently all the others concealed firearm permit statutes are not sufficiently similar to Wyoming ’s. Specifically, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104(b)(v) prohibits issuance of a permit to any person who has been convicted of a controlled substance violation, felony or misdemeanor in any jurisdiction. Most other states’ analogous statutes do not.

The Wyoming Attorney General holds that if a misdemeanor drug conviction disqualifies a Wyoming resident, it also needs to disqualify an out-of-state permit holder. Due to the difference in how each state handles controlled substance convictions, Wyoming is also limited in our ability to maintain reciprocity with states we may have previously.

Accordingly, as of March 1, 2009, Wyoming can only honor concealed firearm permits issued by the following states: Connecticut, Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma, Maryland, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Utah.