Skip to main content

Because, well, we are this batshit crazy in my state I suppose:

Topeka — The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced gun bills that could produce a standoff between state and federal law officers, and open up campuses, classrooms and the Statehouse to concealed weapons.

Supporters said the bills would make Kansas safer and assert the constitutional right to bear arms. Opponents said the measures would endanger public safety and lead to costly litigation.

Honestly I wish I could say this surprises me, but it doesn't.  The following part, however, does surprise me just a little:
The most heated debate surrounded HB 2199, which says that any personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured in Kansas and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law. And under the bill, federal authorities trying to enforce any kind of rule on such a firearm would face possible arrest and criminal charges.
Emphasis mine.

Oh boy, oh boy!  Gunfight at the OK Corral between the Feds and State law enforcement agencies.  Woohoo!  Grab me some popcorn and a bullet-proof vest so I can watch the shootout!  Nothin' like a good confrontation between the State and Feds to help curb gun violence and ensure personal safety!

Yes, this still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by Brownback.  But with these Wingnuts in charge, you gonna try to convince me this WON'T happen?

Originally posted to MisterOpus1 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Heh- In this case, we're supposed to feel that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patrick Costighan

    a "State's Rights" argument is bad.

    In the case of WA and CO marijuana laws, we're supposed to feel that a " State's Rights" argument is good.

    Just " Heh".

    •  Not sure if those marijuana laws entails (5+ / 0-)

      allowing the state law enforcers to arrest federal law enforcers and have them face potential criminal charges/jail time.

      But you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I tend to think this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison of yours.

      Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

      by MisterOpus1 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure that holds up (3+ / 0-)

      It is my understanding that the Feds still believe individuals in those states are violating federal law, they just aren't enforcing that right now.  The state is saying that, under state law, it's ok.

      Kansas' law would actually have the head to head conflict, similar to AZ's immigration law.  I think most courts would side with the Feds on that issue.  

      •  It's not so simple. (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, there's the supremacy clause that pushes federal laws to override state laws, but that clause doesn't make a blanket statement of all federal laws being supreme. It's a clarified statement. It's laws made in pursuance of the constitution.

        So what laws are pursuant to the constitution? Well, that would be laws that are in alignment with the powers that are specifically granted to the federal level. Example: The feds could not constitutionally levy an income tax until that power was specifically granted to the feds. The constitution didn't mention such a power, and so by default that power was denied to the feds. But once that change was done by the amendment process, and the constitution specifically granted that power to the feds, THEN the irs could be created and so began the 1040 tax form.

        Then you toss in the prohibition of infringement phrasing in the first amendments. The actual text is phrased "Feds May Not Fuck With X" which is an active restraint, like handcuffs on the federal government regarding things like right to peaceably assemble. Before the feds can fuck with the right to assemble, they have to slip free of those handcuffs, and they do so by calling the infringement a "national security issue".

        And to make it more complex, there's the tenth. It explicitly breaks ties between the federal government and the state government regarding what was left unlisted - meaning anything unlisted in the Articles or Amendments belongs to a state government or its people. In the case of pot, the power to legislate it isn't granted anywhere - the dea prohibition is born of a prohibition on interstate/international smuggling, which falls under the interstate commerce clause.

        Where the marijuana states are coming into the picture is that the DEA's power arises from the crossing of state lines. Well, if no state lines are crossed then the source is not smuggling... If the source isn't smuggling, then it's not interstate commerce... If it's not interstate commerce then the DEA branch of the department of justice does not have the power to touch those sources (read: pot growers in pro-weed states). Remember, the power to handle interstate commerce was specifically granted, not all commerce.

        And in a conflict between a federal law that is reaching outside of it's territory and a state law, the tenth amendment gives the victory to the state... at least as long as you have judges with integrity. Those are getting fewer and farther between, and that's bad for everyone.

        Many would like judges to ignore the constitutional command of the tenth when the gun laws of wyoming use the handcuffs of the second amendment to take charge of that issue, thus allowing the feds to do things otherwise illegal...
        but that same crowd will scream in pain when that exact same judge could then ignore the constitutional commands of the tenth and fourth when the warrant laws of any state are destroyed, thus allowing the feds to do things otherwise illegal....
        It's a case of live by the sword, die by the sword.

        End result, there's going to be some huge legal battles, and if the judges / justices can't plainly explain their ruling using the copies of the constitution that are in most libraries, then people will lose even more faith in our rule of law itself. I hope the obama administration acknowledges that the feds have limits to their jurisdiction, because lots of people feel over-managed and under-respected.

  •  There is a blockade option. Walmart has to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    be restocked every 3 days.

    So how long does the interstate have to be closed. On ramps, off ramps all through Kansas. See how much fun it is to use the back roads.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51:57 AM PDT

    •  Umm, uhh, huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick Costighan

      Did I miss something here?

      Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

      by MisterOpus1 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:58:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Didn't you hear?  A bill is moving through the Kansas legislature.  So...civil war!

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No federal authorities, no National Highways (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        And under the bill, federal authorities trying to enforce any kind of rule on such a firearm would face possible arrest and criminal charges.
        See how much fun it is to be a state without any fed.

        guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

        by 88kathy on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't work that way. (0+ / 0-)

          The federal level pays, the state level deals with the personnel.

          No way the kansas state police close down the interstate highways. There's not enough cops in kansas to do that.

          And who knows if the feds would even be allowed to shut off the money! Kansans pay federal taxes, of which some funds return allocated for highway maintenance, in a sort of revolving door movement. It would be illegal for the federal level to collect money at a tax rate X (where X includes highway expenses) and then hold onto that portion of money. It would be like you paying your full cable tv bill and then having the cable company decide to turn off your channel 6 while keeping the money.

          So, doesn't work the way you think it does.

          •  Jersey barriers on every on and off ramp otta (0+ / 0-)

            make it miserable enough.

            We are still driving through Kansas, we just aren't stopping.

            guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

            by 88kathy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:02:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There aren't enough of those in existence. (0+ / 0-)

              Maybe you're perception of interstates is a bit off, depending on how acclimated you are to an urban setting, where just about every inch of interstate highway has some sort of fencing that's been overgrown by climbing shrubs and bushes. Outside of the megalopoloid areas, that is not the status of interstate highways. No fences, no ditches, no lines of trees spaced just a bit too closely for a four wheeled vehicle to get away from the roadway.

              Driving I80 across pennsylvania... toward the east end everything is all separated into it's own space with fencing as a border line between road and field and so on. But leaving the shadow of the northeast megalopolis, the status of the roads gives way to a highway without guard rails to the right and just a grassy space that is never mowed between the opposing lanes.

              Same sort of thing driving up through new hampshire, the cattle chute style of road design starts to de-escalate the further north of boston you go, until there is literally no barrier at all between the road and a wandering moose.

              Barriers at on/off ramps mean less than a pile of dogshit when you can just exit through a field in between ramps. There aren't enough cops, there aren't enough barriers, and many of the normal pickup trucks of today have the strength to pull a jersey barrier out of the way if you've got a length of heavy chain.

              It's just a heavy chunk of concrete, not an immovable magic spell.

              And with that, my point stands.

  •  Actually, in this case, I would have to think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

    that Kansas can pass such a law but worded differently.  If they were to say that Kansas militia allows for all citizens of the state of Kansas can possess these guns as described in the diary without undergoing any further restrictions, I could see the argument that this is how Kansas chooses to regulate its militia, and therefore meets the requirements of the 2nd Amendment.  At some point, there needs to be a determination of just what "well-regulated" means, and if states like Kansas (my birth state and where I still care about people live) choose to try and make it a free-for-all, I don't know that there's a good argument against it.  However, preventing the feds from carrying out federal laws - yeah, there's Constitutional Amendments saying feds trump states.

    Kansas Republicans should be smarter and maybe they'd get their way.  But these are Republicans, so that's not going to happen.

  •  Toto, I've a feeling Kansas isn't in Kansas, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MisterOpus1, LilithGardener

    any more. Was this bill thought out to where state officials get taken into federal custody, proving that Kansas is in the U.S.A.?

  •  Bleeding Kansas, Redux. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

    by jayjaybear on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:15:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site