Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 27, 2013

House committee approves bill that supporters say will protect Kansas gun rights

February 27, 2013

Advertisement

— A House committee Wednesday approved a bill that could lead to the imprisonment of federal authorities who try to enforce federal gun laws in Kansas.

House Bill 2199 was approved on a voice vote without opposition by the House Federal and State Affairs Committee and will next be considered by the full House.

Called the Second Amendment Protection Act, the measure 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 prison time.

The Kansas attorney general's office noted problems with this provision, saying if Kansas officers tried to prevent federal authorities from enforcing federal gun laws, the Kansas officers could face charges of obstruction of justice.

But the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Rubin, R-Shawnee, disagreed with that analysis.

Rubin, however, did agree to strike from the bill an earlier provision that would have prohibited doctors from inquiring whether a patient owns a gun.

The Kansas Medical Society opposed that provision, saying that sometimes physicians seek information about guns at home as a safety precaution when treating patients who may be depressed or taking medications.

Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, said the provision needed to be removed to make the legislation more acceptable.

"We want this to go out with the band playing and the colors flying," Brunk said.

Even though the provision was removed, several committee members indicated they wanted to bring up the physician prohibition later as an amendment to the bill or possibly in another bill.

Comments

Greg Cooper 1 year, 10 months ago

Great! Pass this bill, then set up a huge bail fund and contract with a bunch of out of state lawyers to defend the idiots who arrest a federal officer in the conduct of his duty. This is a tremendous way to spend the time, dollars, and political capital of the dingbats who think the United States Constitution does not apply to Kansas Republican Wannabes.

Wow. Just.............wow.

Bruce Bertsch 1 year, 10 months ago

I guess these bozos have never read the US Constitution vis-a-vis the "Supremacy Clause". On the other hand calling them bozos is an insult to clowns.

Jason Johnson 1 year, 10 months ago

Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Ergo, laws trying to undermine, oh say, the 2nd Amendment, are illegal and the States should let the Feds know that we won't stand up to that crap.

parrothead8 1 year, 10 months ago

What federal laws do you think "undermine, oh say, the 2nd Amendment?"

Gina Becker 1 year, 10 months ago

"Federal statutes and other federal laws are, of course, "supreme" only if made in pursuance of the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall used this language in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to support his argument that the Constitution contemplates judicial review. Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised. "

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

Hooligan_016 1 year, 10 months ago

This gave me a headache (trying to go through the mental gymnastic logic they're using). If even passed, the courts are going to strike it down immediately.

Alyosha 1 year, 10 months ago

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Rep. Rubin disagrees with the Constitution, not any "analysis."

I'd like to see a bill passed and signed into law that would require legislators who vote for bills, and governors who sign them, to pay out of their own pockets for the legal challenges to said bills, should they prove to be unconstitutional.

Gina Becker 1 year, 10 months ago

"Federal statutes and other federal laws are, of course, "supreme" only if made in pursuance of the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall used this language in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to support his argument that the Constitution contemplates judicial review. Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised. "

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

Greg Cooper 1 year, 10 months ago

Perfectly valid point. HOWEVER.....

The Second Amendment has been interpreted over and over again, and never has any portion of those interpretations been held to mean that states can ignore the law in any form.

Sorry you're wrong.

Liberty275 1 year, 10 months ago

Federal laws are found unconstitutional on occasion. This is a shot across the federal bow letting them know Kansas intends to press the issue because they have deemed the current round of proposals banning weapons for trivial reasons as constitutional violations of the citizens of Kansas.

chootspa 1 year, 10 months ago

Can we pass an amendment to that bill that holds the legislators personally financially responsible for funding all the legal expenses when it is overturned in court?

lawslady 1 year, 10 months ago

Sure they could pass that kind of law. But why would they? Better to have tax payers fund their experiments.

ksjayhawk74 1 year, 10 months ago

If you're thinking of committing gun crime, do it in Kansas. The State of Kansas will protect criminals from Federal law.

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

It doesn't look to me like they're forcing your doctor to ask you if you own a gun.

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

My understanding is that the original law, before the provision was taken out, said the doctor couldn't ask the question. Unless I missed something, there was never anything that said they have to ask the question.

ksjayhawk74 1 year, 10 months ago

Your doctor is not being made to ask if you have a gun... They took out a part of the bill that would have kept doctors from being able to ask if you have a gun, which is also denying the doctors' freedom of speech.

If you are showing signs of depression or suicidal tendencies, then your doctor should be asking about guns in your home because a doctor's job is to keep you from dying.

Also, if you had some issue that might be related to your diet, your doctor would ask what you are eating, because they are a doctor.

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

Way off the point, but some doctors certainly are trained in nutrition, or they might have a nutritionist on staff, or refer you to a nutritionist if they felt you needed one.

It seems to me that the current governor/legislature support less interference of government only when they don't want the interference, but they certainly want to interfere in the private relationship between doctor and patient.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 10 months ago

Up until the last few years, nutritionists were mostly very badly trained about nutrition-- why do you think the food in schools and hospitals has traditionally been so bad (and downright unhealthy.)

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

When even our AG's office finds problems with a law, you really have to wonder. All the gleeful in your face attitude speaks of a very childish set of mind.

gccs14r 1 year, 10 months ago

This is why post-secondary education is important for legislators. Without it, you end up with a bunch of morons passing unconstitutional laws.

voevoda 1 year, 10 months ago

The goal isn't to create a workable law. The goal is grandstanding to the gun lobby. The goal is expressing disdain for the Federal government. The goal is to create opportunities to pay pro-Brownback, pro-Kobach private law firms huge amounts of money to defend the state law, so that the pro-Brownback, pro-Kobach private law firms can then channel more money back into their favorite candidates' campaign treasure chests.

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

While I agree with most of what you said, I'm not really sure that a number of them don't think they could get by with it. Too many seem to have no idea.

question4u 1 year, 10 months ago

The Legislature seems to be giving the green light to Kansas counties and municipalities that might wish to declare that they are not subject to state law. That would seem to raise some interesting possibilities for the people of Lawrence.

Rep. Rubin will surely back them if they decide as a city not to observe the laws made in Topeka. After all, he's not a hypocrite, right?

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

Interesting thought. Very interesting indeed. If memory serves me, haven't they been trying to pass some laws that counties and municipalities couldn't pass certain laws?

lawslady 1 year, 10 months ago

It is called "Home Rule." Cities have it by Kansas constitution. Counties have it by statute. Both are limited in scope to things of a purely local nature (or that have not been specifically excepted out). There are lots of old cases and Attorney General opinions on the concept if anyone wants to read up.

tolawdjk 1 year, 10 months ago

What is a personal firearm under this legislation?

Can I legally obtain semi-automatic firearms outside the state and bring them here to convert to full automatic?

Sell them to other individuals? Are there reprocussions for me if a fully auto weapon left the state not in the hands of a licensed holder?

oldvet 1 year, 10 months ago

You can do anything you want to, as long as you are willing to be the test-case on this law. The state might not be willing to pay your personal legal fees...

William Weissbeck 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm surprised that the leglslature hasn't passed a bill to go back on the gold standard.

Larry Sturm 1 year, 10 months ago

I think everybody voting aginst gun controll laws should have to look at the pictures of the 20 6 year olds laying in pools of blood at Sandyhook school'

Jason Johnson 1 year, 10 months ago

I think everyone voting for gun control laws should read about the Battle of Athens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

If you wanted to save massively more lives, you would push for breathalyzer ignition locks on all vehicles. But you don't want to save lives, you just want to take guns.

Kathy Getto 1 year, 10 months ago

Oh, sweet lord! Other governors come to mind when these types of things arise. Remember George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Lester Maddox? Keep thumbing your nose at the Feds and the courts, Sam the Sham.

Liberty275 1 year, 10 months ago

It's an unworkable law that has the effect of flipping off the feds. I like it.

Gina Becker 1 year, 10 months ago

All of you supporters of the ever-growing centralized power, think about this:

What if a majority of ultra-Christians got elected to congress and tried to pass a federal mandate that all schools must teach creationism? THEN, would you allow our state to assert its constitutionally granted independence against this unconstitutional federal power, to prosecute any federal enforcer of creationism in schools? Yes, it's possible that a popularly elected congress will pass an unconstitutional law by a majority vote. Yes, we can refuse to implement such laws, and in the end, it would probably go to the Supreme Court, or if bad enough or irreconcilable, there'd be secession.

And all who are citing the Supremecy Clause, you should note that it doesn't give the federal government power to act outside it's constitutionally enumerated (limited) powers: "Federal statutes and other federal laws are, of course, "supreme" only if made in pursuance of the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall used this language in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to support his argument that the Constitution contemplates judicial review. Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised. " http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

Orwell 1 year, 9 months ago

The main problem with your analysis is that it's the courts, not the Kansas Legislature, that get to decide whether a federal law is made in pursuance of the Constitution. Any legislator is free, on his/her own dime, to bring an action in federal court to enjoin enforcement of any federal statute he/she believes to be unconstitutional.

That's the system the Constitution created – or is your support of the Constitution entirely subjective and selective?

KNUCKLEDRAGGER 1 year, 10 months ago

Yes, it seems like our KS State legislators are too bored and they must have nothing to do. Except, they spend their time, (our time) passing stupid and meaningless laws as a way to thumb their nose at the intrusive, Socialistic, Obama Federal Government . Lets look at this , The denial of medicaid services to needy Kansans, the overly intrusive, sexual TSA patdowns of Ks residents of the (huge volume) of citizens at Booming KS Airports like Wichita, Dodge City , Hutch, Garden City , Liberal , etc wherever . The changing of Educational standards to stick it to the Liberal Elite and Liberal left who run our schools. Mr Kobach continues his personal crusade to fix the immigration issue for every state except his own.
Lets not forget the huge deficit that our Gov and his handpicked legislature have given us. They dont have the time to seriously address our own budget shortfalls - issues that they created yet they continue to throw stones at the Feds and the Obama Admin to pacify and give red meat to their rabid political base

UneasyRider 1 year, 10 months ago

Just can't for the fun. or more likely the fiasco when a KS law enforcement agent tries to arrest an ATF agent. Any bets on results or how many bodies will be spread around?

verity 1 year, 10 months ago

I somehow think our law enforcement officers are too smart to try that and Brownback et al are too cowardly to face a gun.

Mark Pickerel 1 year, 10 months ago

This is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation I've ever heard of.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 10 months ago

So what happens when all the state's law enforcement personnel have locked up all the federal LE, and vice-versa? Can they all effectively do their jobs from jail?

gccs14r 1 year, 10 months ago

If State agents try to arrest Federal agents in the exercise of their lawful duties, the next Federal agency to show up will be the U.S. Army. That will not end well for Kansas.

time2kill 1 year, 10 months ago

Too long have we endured oppression at the hands of the American tyrants. Finally Kansas shall rise up to claim its rightful place as a bastion of enlightenment and liberty. Hail Victory!

Idiots...

billbodiggens 1 year, 10 months ago

Arresting Federal Law Enforcement Officers? A prelude to insurrection? Just wondering.

William Weissbeck 1 year, 10 months ago

What's next, a bill to put Kansas on the gold standard?

Orwell 1 year, 9 months ago

If ALEC suggested it the current legislature would try to put Kansas on the mud standard. Only reason that hasn't happened is that Charlie & Dave haven't yet figured out how to make a buck from it.

BOULEVARDWHEAT 1 year, 10 months ago

I wish that more laws were left to the states. Many things are regional in popularity. Also if states made good or bad ideas, they could learn from each other.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.