Archive for Thursday, May 2, 2013

U.S. Attorney General Holder tells Brownback new gun law is unconstitutional

May 2, 2013, 9:47 a.m. Updated May 2, 2013, 5:18 p.m.

Advertisement

— U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told Gov. Sam Brownback that a new Kansas law that criminalizes federal enforcement of gun laws was unconstitutional.

Holder also warned that the federal government “will take all appropriate action including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law.”

Letter by AG Holder to Gov. Brownback

Letter by AG Holder to Gov. Brownback

Related document

Senate Bill 102 ( .PDF )

The dispute is over Senate Bill 102, which Brownback signed into law last month. The Second Amendment Protection Act excludes from federal regulation any gun made or owned in Kansas. It will allow law enforcement in Kansas to charge and convict federal authorities with crimes if they try to enforce action against a Kansas-protected gun.

Holder said in a letter to Brownback, “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers S.B. 102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.” Holder said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas would continue to enforce federal firearms laws and regulations.

Brownback signed the bill on April 16. The law became effective April 25, and Holder sent the letter one day later.

Supporters of the bill, including the Kansas State Rifle Association, said it was necessary in light of attempts by the federal government to adopt new gun restrictions and regulations.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach who was one of the co-authors of the law defended it, saying the law will withstand any legal challenge.

“With respect to any litigation, we will happily meet Mr. Holder in court,” Kobach said.

Since the law governs guns that remain in Kansas, they are exempt from the interstate commerce power of the federal government, he said.

“While some federal regulations of firearms are permissible exercises of the interstate commerce power, others clearly are not. One of the things that the federal government cannot do is regulate firearms that have never travelled in interstate commerce and that have no substantial effect on interstate commerce — firearms covered by SB 102,” Kobach said.

But U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom issued a statement calling the state law, “illegal, unenforceable, and also bad policy.”

Grissom said the statute threatens federal officers who are trying to keep the keep the United States safe. “These hard-working federal employees cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution and the continued performance of their federal duties,” he said.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has said it would cost $625,000 to defend legal challenges against the law, according to a memo from the Kansas Legislative Research Department.

The bill was approved by wide margins in the Legislature: 35-4 in the Senate and 96-24 in the House. Among Douglas County legislators, only state Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, and state Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence, voted against the final bill.

Meanwhile, Kansans continue to apply for concealed-carry permits in huge numbers.

The state attorney general’s office received 3,462 applications for permits in April, which was slightly down after three consecutive record-breaking months.

A year before, the state processed 1,442 applications in the month of April. In the past four months, 14,274 Kansans filed new concealed-carry applications. There are now 55,988 active concealed-carry licensees in Kansas.

Comments

avarom 2 years ago

Well, Well....Mr. Attorney General....What the heck took you so long???

Larrytown 2 years ago

Not sure I would use the cherry pick card on this article. As you would say...this is kinda of a big deal given the response (unconstitutional) by the US Attorney General. This story will only get bigger if this goes to litigation....where my money says the State loses decisively.

jhawkinsf 2 years ago

Oh, the irony. "Fast and Furious" Eric Holder opining about guns.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Holder was not part of Fast and Furious (see below comments).

NotImpressed 2 years ago

When you said "directly responsible", you revealed your over-zealous underpinnings. Expecting POTUS to "pick up the phone" also reveals a lack of knowledge of how the government works, especially interaction between WH & DOJ. You must be thinking of the W administration and their entrenchment in that era's DOJ. Or Nixon.

Larrytown 2 years ago

I did a quick research and messed up on the date. I stand corrected (per my below post). Nevertheless, the gun trafficking from 2006-2011 (both operations) was a bad idea. Guns lost...lives lost.

All my other comments throughout this link....I stand by 100%.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Yep...just political posturing (chest-thumping) by the Kansas legislators along with Brownback. It'll be interesting to see if the Feds decide to litigate this. If so, the real losers in all of this will again be the Taxpayers of Kansas. Lost Taxpayer's dollars (attorney fees) along with a court decision favors the Feds.

Greg Cooper 2 years ago

So, is not sedition against the US not a recallable offense against the "Governor"? If we're looking for a reasoin, this should be it.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Actually, Fast and Furious program started in 2006 (Alberto Gonzales was the AG at that time...under George W. Bush) and ran into 2011. Holder became aware of the program in early 2011 and was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Spin it however you want (i.e. tightly controlled and monitored)....

The operation was risky and ultimately backfired. You put more guns out there...time goes by...bad things are eventually going to happen. Tracking the guns become more difficult as time passes by. That's basic common sense.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Then explain to me why a majority of the guns went missing once they got into Mexico. This was under Operation Wide Receiver.

That doesn't sound like it was tightly controlled/monitored.

koman 2 years ago

...and no one died from the 9/11 attacks on Obama's watch. What's your point?

optimist 2 years ago

Fast and Furious began under the Obama Administration. A similar program existed under Bush where guns were actually tracked to bad guys and arrests made. After Holder took over changes were made to the program which allowed weapons to flow into Mexico with no means whatsoever to track them until they showed up crime scenes. Don't let the facts get in the way here though.

Larrytown 2 years ago

My bad...I thought Fast and Furious started in 2006. Operations Wide Receiver was right before that during the 2006-2008 timeframe. Both were bad moves....lost guns...many deaths.

bad_dog 2 years ago

The "means" to check the whereabouts of the weapons were there for both programs. Much of the difference in the two as I was told was that the gun traffickers were more sophisticated the second time around. They learned RFI tracking devices had been inserted into the weapons so they just waited until the aircraft tracking them had to leave to refuel. The traffickers then departed for their actual destinations.

fairylight 2 years ago

I admit confusion. What does Little Sammy Brownback think he is protecting Kansas from? What are the big bad feds supposed to be getting ready to do to we Kansans and our guns? I have not been keeping up it seems.

jwljpm 2 years ago

Good point. The Congress can't even pass a budget, much less something as "controversial" as reasonable limitations on the ability to possess weapons of mass destruction.

sciencegeek 2 years ago

Due to the irrational allegations stated by May_Day, and having never hear of the Daily Caller, I did some research. Daily Caller was founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political commentator, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Comments can be taken more seriously when based on sources that are at least remotely unbiased.

koman 2 years ago

Standard fauxnews/kochhead response - create a false equivelancy. Indoctrinated nut jobs spewing crap is not journalism. Can we all agree that fox and msnbc are entertainment networks that pander to folks to lazy to think for themselves or who need their own delusional thinking reinforced? Please?

Liberty275 2 years ago

Sure, as soon as you admit Comedy Central is the Democrat News Network.

Keith 2 years ago

Sometimes, as in the case of the Daily Caller, I just let the medium discredit itself.

Left_of_Lawrence 2 years ago

In such a "Taker" state as Kansas is, do we really want to upset the Feds?

Phoghorn 2 years ago

Kansas also has some major military installations. That is a large part of why we are perceived as a "taker". Additionally, a high percentage of residents are retirees drawing Social Security (this is even more of an issue in Sun Belt states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona).

While I want to see accountability for military spending, the name "taker" is a bit of a misnomer.

deec 2 years ago

Let's not forget those agricultural takers, either.

$15.4 billion in subsidies 1995-2011.

$9.07 billion in commodity subsidies.

$2.96 billion in crop insurance subsidies.

$2.27 billion in conservation subsidies.

$1.13 billion in disaster subsidies.

Kansas ranking: 6 of 50 States

32 percent of farms in Kansas did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA

. Ten percent collected 70 percent of all subsidies.

Amounting to $8.67 billion over 17 years.

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=20000

Phoghorn 2 years ago

Deec:

I have been involved in agriculture my whole life, and I am dead against farm subsidies. They do need to be factored into the "taker" idea though.

The subsidies might have been intended to help farmers, but the unintended consequence is that equipment prices, and other expenses have risen as well due to increased demand. This is a classic example of where a government program has caused more problems than it could have ever solved.

Unfortunately, many people, both right and left, do not see these unintended consequences. We would all be better off if the government would get out of the subsidizing nonsense and let the market reset itself. There will be some temporary pain, but it will be better in the long run.

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

actually he is doing his job, unlike our governor who should have vetoed the bill. we are a union of states or we are not under a federal system. nullification did not work in 1861 and it will not work now.

optimist 2 years ago

A union of "States". State is defined: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign (Webster’s). That's right, Kansas is a sovereign state. The federal government's authority to regulate firearms in this country is founded in the commerce clause (many would say that the use of the commerce clause is abused by the federal government). The commerce clause relates to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. Intrastate commerce is regulated by the state. While it is apparent that the Attorney General perceives his authority to extend beyond the constitutional limitations, his writing a letter stating his perception of the law does not make it law. If the federal government takes the authority over intrastate commerce then the existence of the State will cease to be. There is little purpose to state boundaries at all. I implore all of you to read some of the FEDERALIST PAPERS to try to gain perspective about what the intentions of the authors of the Constitution were and why. This overreach is precisely what the citizenry feared when the Constitution was being debated as the replacement to the Articles of Confederation. The intent of the Constitution was to give the federal government only that authority which it needed to meet the objectives of the "unified states" but the intent was very clearly to preserve the supremacy of the State. Federal Supremacy was intended to be exercised very narrowly and was defined very narrowly in the Constitution. The courts have broadened that interpretation over the last century and a half but Constitutional that doesn’t make. The law Kansas passed pertained to firearms manufactured and possessed within the State of Kansas negating even the most liberal of interpretations of the commerce clause. While today the issue may be guns and many of you don’t like them and feel the need to prevent your fellow law abiding citizen the pleasure of owning them. I caution you that it may some day be something that you value in the cross hairs of the federal government. I’m betting you’ll want support from the rest of us to prevent such government overreach regardless of our personal feelings on the issue. No matter, with a disarmed society the government will have no fear of the citizenry and therefore no restraint.

boltzmann 2 years ago

Of course, the Supreme Court (which is part of the Constitutional branches of government and tasked with interpreting the Constitution) has ruled that goods that, as a class, are part of normal interstate commerce can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, even for goods in that class that are produced, bought or sold solely within a state because that activity will affect the interstate commerce in those good. Now one might not agree with that interpretation, but only the Supreme Court decision matters, and until such day as that decision is overturned, the new state law is unconstitutional no matter how much whining you do about the federalist papers (which are not part of the Constitution).

The paranoid fear that modest gun control will lead to tyranny is just that - a paranoid fear. A quick trip to either Europe or Australia will tell you that. Actually, I have far more fear of heavily armed right-wing gangs than I do of the federal government.

NotImpressed 2 years ago

Reminds me of the kid who says, "Dad said no, but he meant..."

The Federalist Papers, while providing some historical insight, is not a governing document.

I highly doubt this society will become disarmed. That's just crazy talk.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"Reminds me of the kid who says, "Dad said no, but he meant...""

That's a good analogy, but not really accurate. It's more the kid standing up to his father over something they disagree about.

I agree about being disarmed. It won't happen.

Linda Endicott 2 years ago

Schmidt really ought to be requesting those funds to have Brownback's head examined...and the heads of most of the Kansas legislature...

bad_dog 2 years ago

By "He", are you referring to a deity?

If so, I would hope :He" could pass a background check...

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

what is scary about this, is a law school grad supported it. no wait a minute what am I talking about? I am beginning to believe there is a national conspiracy to suborn our federal system. Look at other states doing the same thing.

overthemoon 2 years ago

you're just beginning to think that?

Carol Bowen 2 years ago

Good news for KUs law school. Its graduates will have employment.

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

we have always had knuckleheads in the state legislature. right now we have a lot of them.

Larrytown 2 years ago

My understanding is the the US Supreme Court (which is very conservative...compared to past courts) found the Affordable Health Care act constitutional. Is that correct?

FlintlockRifle 2 years ago

Who got holders bacon out of the fryig pan and hushed ever thing up??Some little king in D.C

Anthony Mall 2 years ago

Funny... The federal govt can force Obamacare(meanwhile making congress and Obama exempt) down peoples throats yet calls this unconstitutional? Pot kettle theory once again for this administration.

overthemoon 2 years ago

Congress and Obama are NOT exempt. In fact, the ACA specifically states that they aren't. And states were given huge latitude in implementing insurance and health care reforms. Kansas decided not to take that option and is now subject to the federal implementation of the plan. Brownback blew an opportunity to have more control.

Anthony Mall 2 years ago

Sorry, congress is just trying to make themselves exempt (WSJ, Forbes, Wash Post) shows me they have all the confidence in the world that Washington knows whats best... After all, the only people allowed to give away illegal guns (fast and furious) and buy millions of rounds of ammunition without question is Washington. I feel healthier all ready.

Liberty275 2 years ago

When did Holder become the SCOTUS?

bad_dog 2 years ago

Feel free to submit your amicus brief at any time.

NotImpressed 2 years ago

What do you think AG's do when a similar state issue arises? The same thing - warn the offending party of possible litigation.

Liberty275 2 years ago

OK, I get that. But there is enough vague language in the second amendment that the federal government really has no jurisdiction regarding arms because it was originally "well regulated" by the states, so it should be now unless state regulations are found to infringe on citizen's rights. That or whatever legal basis is for due process to decide, not for a prosecutor to proclaim.

jafs 2 years ago

My understanding is that the feds use the ICC to give them authority to regulate here. The argument against that is that the law is only about guns made and sold in KS, so interstate commerce isn't involved.

The only problem with that is that the SC has ruled that intrastate commerce can be regulated under the ICC.

I disagree with that decision, but it's the decision relevant to this legislation.

Holder is probably aware of that decision.

Liberty275 2 years ago

The commerce clause is badly abused by the federal government. It's time states stood up and told the federal government they will litigate at every opportunity.

jafs 2 years ago

That makes no sense given the SC decision I mentioned.

The states will always lose, and spend a lot of time, energy and money to do so.

If one wanted to change the SC decision, the only way I'm aware of to do that would be to pass a constitutional amendment. Or, of course, one could try to get the issue there again for reconsideration, but I think the court is generally wary of doing that, and gives past decisions a lot of respect.

bad_dog 2 years ago

Try as one might, it is very difficult to prevent Don Quixote from tilting at windmills.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I think Brownback wants to force reconsideration. The makeup of the court changes, and so will the opinions of the justices. The Kansas gun law is not unlike the various medical pot laws around the country in that it is in opposition to federal law. I don't hear people complaining about that state legislation.

jafs 2 years ago

Perhaps, but only if the court is willing to hear the case.

States can pass such laws, but this one is different in it's attempt to criminalize federal law enforcement efforts.

I'm not aware of any of the pot laws including provisions that federal law enforcement that attempts to enforce federal laws regarding marijuana will be treated as criminals by those states.

It's interesting, because the issue is the same - the feds use the ICC to prosecute marijuana users, even in states that have legalized it. In fact, the original case that stretched the use of that so far was a marijuana case. I think it was Rausch.

There may be any number of people complaining about legalization of marijuana, actually.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"States can pass such laws, but this one is different in it's attempt to criminalize federal law enforcement efforts."

What if the attempt is successful by virtue of federal law, as prosecuted by the federal government is found unconstituional by today's judges? Should the feds still be able to prosecute such a law?

This is a good way of forcing the supreme court to rule while it is controlled by the right.

Robert Greenwood 2 years ago

The Governor took an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

After taking that oath the Governor stated:

"An oath required by and pledging fealty to our Constitution, for ours is a government of laws, not men."

How about upholding the US Constitution rather than signing bills which violate the US Constitution?

Liberty275 2 years ago

Brownback is going to bat for the 2nd amendment which is part of the constitution.

bad_dog 2 years ago

Something about the word "ding" comes to mind when you mention B-back and "bat" in the same sentence.

Larry Sturm 2 years ago

Spending millions of dollars defending bogas laws is a crime in itself.

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

"are we all bozos on this bus?" I told a friend and fellow attorney about this. He got all hot and bothered about the over reach of the Federal government. I assured him that if I was still in the intelligence community I would land in his backyard in a black helicopter and take him to an off the books site for interrogation.

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

you don't understand humor do you?

Jean Robart 2 years ago

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

oldbaldguy 2 years ago

my helicopter days started with hanging out of UH1s going in to LZs. they ended with flying around in UH60s over Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

NotImpressed 2 years ago

Thank you for your service. Flew in a few CH-46's myself

Liberty275 2 years ago

Thank both of you. I wouldn't get in a helicopter for less than $10,000, payed to my wife before the trip. Too much moving stuff that will break to suit my taste.

Thomas Bryce 2 years ago

I am Glad the Kansas Legislature Has a New "Prayer Room" at their disposal. Let us see if they can Pray Their way out of THIS.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

The most entertaining point of all of this is: all of the anti-gun liberals in Lawrence are actually going to help pay to protect the 2nd amendment.

Larrytown 2 years ago

Yep...Lawrence along with the rest of the state will be picking up the tab. What's going to be more entertaining is watching the State get their arse handled to them in Court. I hope the Feds move forward with litigation.

Speaking of litigation...can't wait for the Kansas Supreme Court decision on the school financing case. Should be a big victory ($$$) for those pro-public education liberals (i.e. teachers) in Lawrence (along with the remainder of the State). :)

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

According to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment, gun regulations don't belong at the federal level at all.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years ago

WHAT??

The Second Amenement says "a WELL -REGULATED MILITIA"!!!

What part of that do you not understand??????????

tomatogrower 2 years ago

Yeah, and we pay for your wars, and the babies you don't have the money to raise, and for your farm subsidies. We also pay for the roads you drive on, the police who give you speeding tickets and the fireman who doesn't ask if you are for or against government employees as he saves your family. You're welcome, now quit whining and pay your taxes.

jwljpm 2 years ago

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Just curious. To which well regulated militia have you volunteered your service, mister conservative strict interpreter of the constitution?

Leslie Swearingen 2 years ago

"Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen."

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

Gunpowder being volatile in those days was stored in a common power magazine and when General Gage ordered the seizure of several hundred pounds to deprive the colonists that really put the cat among the pigeons.

I have to say I agree with the intent of Governor Brownback on this as it does to me to be an overreach of authority, but as the Supreme Court has the last say, not me...

coleja 2 years ago

Well.. does this surprise me? Not in the slightest. Our so called "governor" and most of the legislature are a bunch of clown idiots. I personally think it's Brownback's personal mission to make national headlines daily. Clown! We should all take this opportunity and STRESS why it is so important for people to exercise their right to vote so that clowns like Brownback don't end up in office!

ridiculous

voevoda 2 years ago

Until the Kansas government can guarantee that guns manufactured or sold in Kansas will remain in Kansas, their claim that only intrastate commerce is involved is specious. And that would require a degree of government regulation and control far beyond anything the Federal government has ever proposed.

jafs 2 years ago

That's an interesting point.

But, if they did, wouldn't the ICC be irrelevant?

Unless items are in fact sold across state lines, they're not part of interstate commerce, right?

KSManimal 2 years ago

Not that I agree with any proposed new federal laws, but how many guns are actually manufactured IN KANSAS? Any?

Wouldn't any and all guns be subject to the ICC, since they had to cross state lines to be sold or owned in KS in the first place?

jafs 2 years ago

I have no idea.

Not if they're manufactured here and sold here - then they'd be intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years ago

Wichita Arms, Inc is the only one I could find, and the Google Lady did try.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I can build a kit gun in kansas. I can load ammo in kansas,

Mark Currie 2 years ago

No, anyone can legaly build a gun for their own use. I would advise staying within ATF guidelines, but it can be done. The only part of a gun that is considered a gun is the receiver. It would not take a machine shop with CNC mills too long to start making AR 15 lower receivers. AK receivers are even easier as they are stamped. Everything else could be imported as only the receiver is the gun. To do this to sell may take a license. It did before this law was past. Give me a milling machine and a lathe, and I am pretty sure I could make an AR lower. Probably take me a few times to get it right. Just saying.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years ago

Now that is interesting, I had no idea. Thank you.

riverdrifter 2 years ago

Here we go again with another 'fast 'n furious' retread. Facepalm.

hedshrinker 2 years ago

wow, if public officials got jailed for incompetence, we'd run out of jails real quick.

jayhawxrok 2 years ago

Brownback knew it when he signed it, but the crazed zealot doesn't care about constitutionality, just like he doesn't give a tinker's damn about the people of this state. It's all about his personal far, far, far right agenda.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

Actually it is the federal regulations that are unconstitutional. They just haven't been compared to the constitution in truth yet.

Dan Eyler 2 years ago

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf? Dealing with Kansas is one thing dealing with 30 or more states is horse of another color. Funny how the "attorney general" see's the fight in Kansas as possible litigation. He would be wise to think twice should he think Kansas will hide under our beds as they did in Boston when the police came to illegally search homes with impunity. The next step for like minded states should be a self defense agreement. Holder knows how that will work. An attack on any freedom loving state is an attack on all freedom loving states.

Liberty275 2 years ago

It prevents state law enforcement from assisting federal law enforcement regarding gun laws. That's better than nothing.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"So if a Timothy McVeigh or Mohammed Atta clone is found with an unregistered machine gun, Kansas LE can't/won't notify the Feds?"

I think the same gun has to be registered under state law and the criminal could be as easily prosecuted by Kansas for that offense. A casualty in this in this latest round of attempts at further gun regulation may be states cooperating with the fed in such cases.

Jim Russo 2 years ago

Regardless of the constitutionality of this law, are any firearms or ammunition currently being manufactured in Kansas?

Michael LoBurgio 2 years ago

After Sam Brownback took an oath of office Sam Brownback gave a speech and the Topeka Capital Journal reported the following:

In his speech, Brownback said the central event of the day was his oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions.

"An oath required by and pledging fealty to our Constitution, for ours is a government of laws, not men," he said.

Armstrong 2 years ago

Eric Holder has zero credebility,

Larrytown 2 years ago

I guess I wasn't aware that Holder disliked the musical group Crede.

hipper_than_hip 2 years ago

Wide margins in the legislature passed this bill, and both of the Dem Minority leaders supported it.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years ago

This is what yu get when you elect officials who are intent on defying the black dude in the White House. It is no secret that the Kansas Legislature is doing everything it can to violate Federal law and the idiot governer is going along with it. We elected these people to represent us, not to pursue a vendetta against the Federal Government. What a waste of money! Brownback and Kobach have to go, they are totally not the sort of representatives we need in "Bleeding Kansas">

BlackVelvet 2 years ago

Has anyone here considered that the purpose of this law was simply to send a message to Washington, "don't try to bully us-leave our constitutional rights alone!" I think the folks who wrote and passed this law are not all the backwoods morons some here would like us to believe-I think they are smart enough to know that the State of Kansas cannot usurp Federal Law.....I think they just wanted to send a message. Nothing more. Think about it. Passing this law surely got more attention than if the legislature had stood outside on the steps of the Capitol building holding up signs saying "don't mess with our rights." A lot more attention. But then, I guess it's more "in" to simply say our lawmakers are all dolts and morons, huh..

jafs 2 years ago

That's a lot of our tax dollars being spent to send some sort of message.

I'd prefer it be spent differently.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years ago

Just who, what, and how are anyone's constitutional rights being abridged??

Gimme an example, if you can read the constitution. Let's have it, chapter and verse.

Cait McKnelly 2 years ago

Sammy may want to keep this little gem in mind.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years ago

Perfect! I love it. Does give one pause, does it not?

fiddleback 2 years ago

I'm deeply ashamed of Paul Davis and Barbara Ballard. How on earth do they defend voting for this constitutionally illiterate travesty? Of course there's no sound argument -- they simply don't want to be disingenuously smeared in the next election as being anti-2nd amendment. Apparently only Fransisco and Wilson have the courage of their convictions...

It reminds me of the Republican senators who put side personal support for the background check bill and voted against it simply for fear of the NRA and the frothingly far-right GOP base.

Our elected officials' behavior is screaming for us to create a new word to describe this mortifying mixture of abject cynicism and cowardice.

Armstrong 2 years ago

How about " Lawrence.... second worst performing small metro surrounded by Kansas"

oldexbeat 2 years ago

Paul Davis and Barbara Ballard voted for this idiot bill ? Damn. Time to start that third party. There is no reason to support Davis at all if he folds on this moron driven bill.

ps there must be a company (friends of Sammy Brownback and the Kochs ) that makes guns. Money always involved in Brownback istan.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.