Posted on 05/04/2013 12:24:44 PM PDT by drewh
The Hill reports that Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback just signed into law a statute that "bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines."
Moreover, the new law makes it a felony for federal authorities to attempt to enforce federal gun control laws, treaties, or rules related to firearms within Kansas state lines. Federal agents would not be arrested but will be prosecuted on "a complaint-and-summons basis."
Naturally, U.S. Attorney general Eric Holder is furious. Already he has sent a letter to Brownback promising, “The United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing the law.”
Holder cites the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives supremacy to federal laws over state laws. Kansas, however, is citing the Interstate Commerce Clause, "contending that Washington has no right to regulate guns that were made in Kansas and never cross state lines."
The play Kansas is making is to keep its gun business within the state, which they believe nullifies the federal government's legal right to regulate. Guns and ammunition would be manufactured, stored, and sold only in Kansas.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, helped to write the law and says that the bill is not symbolic; it was written carefully and with the purpose of surviving a court challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I agree with you. But, speaking as a lawyer (i.e., telling you what the law is and not what I think it should be), the current interpretation is that Congress can regulate all commerce, even if it's not interstate (e.g., minimum wage laws), and can regulate anything interstate, even if it's not commerce (e.g., possession of a gun made in another state) . But Congress can generally not regulate something that's neither (Lopez and the Affordable Care Act cases say that, but Raich seems to contradict even that limit).
Oh, Gosh, I could write you a book on that.
Short answer: all over. According to the courts, the Necessary and Proper Clause justifies laws against bribing or killing federal agents or officials. The Tax Clause justifies criminal penalties for tax evasion. The power to establish the Post Office justifies laws against committing fraud by use of the mails. The 13th Amendment justifies laws against human trafficking. The Commerce Clause justifies the law against interstate shipment of obscene movies. And so on.
Some don’t like him for immigration, but honestly, with immigration we are basically screwed either way in term of getting the voters to back our position.
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Montana already had a law just like this?
Seems to me that those interpretations walk rough-shod over the 10th Amendment. How do they get around the 10th Amendment? Where are those powers enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution?
Time to help Texas get in the game.
Time to make some noise and let the reps know we are watching.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/
********** GENERAL STATE CALENDAR **********
HOUSE BILLS
SECOND READING
HB 1076 Toth / Klick / Springer / Phillips / Bonnen, Dennis / et
al.
Relating to certain firearms, firearm accessories and firearm ammunition
within the State of Texas; providing an exemption from federal regulation
and providing penalties.
HB 1314 Creighton / Price / et al.
Relating to the unlawful seizure of a firearm by a governmental officer or
employee; providing penalties.
HB 1304 Sheets / Fletcher / Fallon / Paddie / Isaac / et al.
Relating to the intentional display of a handgun
HB 972 Fletcher / Flynn / Lavender / Burkett / Bell / et al.
Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the premises of and
certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education.
The second reading was today. It was pretty rough going for the main bill.
HB 1076 ON SECOND READING
(by Toth, Klick, Springer, Phillips, D. Bonnen, et al.)
HB 1076, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to certain firearms, firearm accessories and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas; providing an exemption from federal regulation and providing penalties.
You can read the actual back and forth word for word here...
http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/83r/pdf/83RDAY65FINAL.PDF#page=90
Scroll down to page 2448 (no it is not really that big, its just the page numbering)
The donks are trying to zero out the funding for AG Greg Abbot to enforce it, as well as putting in DEA and other fed exemptions in the bill to make it meaningless.
Representative Neva´ rez offered the following amendment to HB i 1076 :
Amend HB 1076 (house committee report) on page 2 of the bill, between lines 7 and 8, by adding the following:
2448 83rd LEGISLATURE — REGULAR SESSION
(f)ii It is an exception to the application of this section that the person ’s seizure of a firearm was:
(1) iiinitiated by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force overseen by the United States Department of Justice;
(2) iiinitiated by the Safe Streets Violent Crimes Initiative overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ; or
(3) iipart of a joint initiative between a federal law enforcement agency and any law enforcement agency of:
(A) ii this state; or
(B)iia political subdivision of this state.
This one was tabled. It must have been obvious what was going on.
The other "amendment" (nullification) via defunding was shot down. Representative Toth moved to table Amendment No. 2. The motion to table prevailed by (Record 550): 82 Yeas, 33 Nays, 2 Present, (0) not voting.
It came from yet another donk...
Full Name: Chris Turner
Birthdate: 10-10-1972
Hometown: Grand Prairie
Race: White
Occupation: Public Relations Consultant
Education: B.A., The University of Texas at Austin
Representative Toth moved to table Amendment No. 2.
Folks, this thing might not get through without some real support.
Do we want to join Kansas in standing up to the communist in the White House?
Or will we fail to uphold the proud history of Texas?
It is now out of committee and needs to be scheduled for a vote in the House.
one more time...
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/
.
Where do they get the EPA from, or any of the “czars” and federal jurisdiction for any of those things? The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws established by Congress. But if Congress has no authority to tell a farmer he has to pay fines for his cows farting, then how can the EPA have that authority? How can the feds say that if I’m going to have a doctor see me in my own hometown I have to first sign a statement saying that the clinic has permission to tell the feds anything they want to know about what they learned about my body? How can the feds record every phone call I make?
See, none of that seems to be an enumerated power. So where do they get all this from?
Sigh....
They're not "donks" they're Jackasses!
Forgive me, I am but a mere undereducated, intellectually challenged, unsophisticated, dirt chewing peasant in the backward State of Texas.
At best, I could manage "asses."
However, they seem to react "strongly" to that one... donk goes right by them unnoticed.
:-)
.
I hear you about Scalia. He was of course in the 5-4 majorities in US v. Lopez (1995) and US v. Morrison (1999) when the SCOTUS struck down federal laws (gun free school zone act- Lopez and violence against women act- Morrison) for Congress exceeding their authority under the commerce clause.
The Raisch case was a good chance for the court to stay strong.
If I recall correctly, it was 6-3 with Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor in the dissent.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion and tried to distinguish the cases.
I have read it a couple of times and my only conclusion (sadly) is that he lost sight of his job because he supports the war on drugs.
Kennedy too.
But that’s not what it is.
No no no...It was a term deriding Andrew Jackass, er Jackson. The Party of Jackson. Coined by a newspaper editor.
Nullification.
I love it!
The statement and stand are far more important than any business model...
Just think of all the possibilities - moonshine, gas, health care.. the list will grow!
My hope - that would be a MONUMENTAL victory with wide ranging benefits!
Alas, in this day and age - that's a bridge too far...
Unfortunately true. That's the same kind of "logic" that says some unstated constitutional right to privacy allows a woman to kill a child.
“Is there a Ft. Sumter in Kansas?”
“No, but even better, there is a town of Lexington in KS.”
Excellent.
IMHO
And may the Lord Jesus bless Governor Brownback and all those who stand against the evil satanic forces of the regime who hates all Americans who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and families as God ordained.
(With God, nothing is impossible.)
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.