Kansas gun case pits federal law against states’ rights

[Aim1]

Wonder how this one will be settled.



http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/21/kansas-gun-case-pits-federal-law-against-states-rights/

Kansas gun case pits federal law against states’ rights


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: November 21, 2016 at 10:48 pm |


Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has intervened to defend the state law’s constitutionality in the first criminal case that has used the Kansas law as a defense. Schmidt said in a statement that buyers’ reliance on the state law as a defense is “reasonable, and it is consistent with the State’s interest in ensuring the Second Amendment Protection Act itself is defended.”

That state law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws. It also made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them.

 

[Aim1]

From another article:


http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/22/this-lawsuit-could-shatter-all-federal-gun-laws/




This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

Posted at 12:43 pm on November 22, 2016 by Bob Owens

The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.

Put bluntly, this could be huge.



What most 21st Century Americans simply do not grasp is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to to give rights to the citizens of our then-new nation, but was instead written to tightly constrain the federal government.

 

[Aim1]

Above article also says this:


If the “Trump Court” is composed of a textualist majority and the cult of the “living Constitution” dies off, then there is a very strong possibility that the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the proposed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act—literally every federal gun law, both for gun rights and for gun control—will be thrown out in short order as unconstitutional laws Congress never had the authority to pass, or laws that the federal government has the authority to enforce.

 

[jmr40]

literally every federal gun law, both for gun rights and for gun control—will be thrown out in short order as unconstitutional laws

Be careful about what you ask for. Even if the state is found to be in the right there are potential problems we may not want to deal with. I'm not in favor of many of the oppressive laws at the federal or state level. But we already have a patchwork of senseless laws that vary not only from state to state, but within cities in some cases. We need some uniformity.

 

[Aim1]

Be careful about what you ask for. Even if the state is found to be in the right there are potential problems we may not want to deal with. I'm not in favor of many of the oppressive laws at the federal or state level. But we already have a patchwork of senseless laws that vary not only from state to state, but within cities in some cases. We need some uniformity.

True.


If the 2nd Amendment is ruled to be a fundamental right that deserves strict scrutiny that would stop a lot of these anti-2nd Amendment laws.

 

[JSH1]

I can't help but notice that the article leaves out the fact that Montana passed a similar law, which was struck down on federal court as unconstitutional, before Kansas did. The Kansas legislature knew full well when they passed this law that is would not pass muster but did so anyway for political gain. Now some poor sap pays the price.

 

[reddog81]

Good luck winning that case. I wish them the best but if they expected any other outcome it was wishful thinking.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

Here is some very good commentary on this case. Click the link and then press the play button at the top. They start discussing the case at about the 2:30 mark until about 27:00:

http://www.jasonstapleton.com/on-the-show-krisanne-hall-discusses-nullification-in-kansas/

The State of Kansas really hung these guys out to dry and exposed their legislation as nothing more than political theater. Nullification by the States is absolutely the best way to handle the Federal Govt, but it has no teeth if the States don't nut up and stand behind their citizens.

 

[Speedo66]

What's next, if you earn your money in your state, and only spend it there, you don't have to pay Federal income tax?

Seriously, somebody thought Federal law wouldn't apply? Of course, it makes you wonder why they will prosecute for this, but a Title One drug, marijuana, is being openly sold in several states in total disregard of federal law with no Federal prosecution. I'm not against adult use, but what's good for the goose.............

 

[barnbwt]

The State of Kansas really hung these guys out to dry and exposed their legislation as nothing more than political theater. Nullification by the States is absolutely the best way to handle the Federal Govt, but it has no teeth if the States don't nut up and stand behind their citizens.

You'd think there would be some sort of civil recourse to punish legislators who basically encourage/endorse the breaking of federal laws under the express notion they will protect their citizens from prosecution, then turn around and toss a citizen who commits an act in accordance with the legislation they just passed with great fanfare, to the federal wolves. I mean, they flat-out said the federal law would no longer govern the activities of citizens inside their borders, but from what I can tell have done absolutely nothing to contest federal prosecution for the same --this is a separate issue from federal pre-emption in my eyes, and more like enticement or entrapment on the part of the state legislature. You'd think there'ed be a law against passing laws that will land people in jail if followed. Or at least that the legislators would be on trial alongside these poor shmucks.

Would have been a great trick to disrupt the Underground Railroad back in the day; get a state to pass prohibition legislation and act as 'bait,' then bring the federal hammer down in the form of an act to catch fugitive slaves (a "Fugitive Slave Act" if you will). Surely upholding such a two-faced statutory mechanism in the courts would not lead to open warfare between the states, or anything (maybe Dred Scott would have survived future scrutiny if it had relied on 'interstate commerce' the way firearms laws do, lol)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

What's next, if you earn your money in your state, and only spend it there, you don't have to pay Federal income tax?

Lol, no. Unlike gun laws, which only have 'interstate commerce' as their justification for existence (at least until 'freedom to feel safe' becomes officially codified by judicial morons), our naive nation foolishly amended the constitution early last century to explicitly grant the federal government the power to levy, collect, and enforce, an income tax. There's no question about their authority to do so, after 3/4 of the states ratified the change. Donald Duck was later enlisted to help sell the 'withholding' scam on the American public so they would be less aware how much they were being taxed (prior to this, taxes were paid in lump sums upon filing), and a sharp point of inflection upward on the federal government's annual expenses began, that continues to this day.

TCB

 

[CLP]

You'd think there would be some sort of civil recourse to punish legislators who basically encourage/endorse the breaking of federal laws...

Only if a similar and equitable recourse existed which punished federal legislators for overstepping their bounds and meddling/obstructing/interfering with states' rights.

 

[sarge83]

If cities can actively ignore federal law on regards to being sanctuary cities why can't a state ignore federal law in regards to firearms? If you are not going to enforce a law then remove it from the books.

 

[deadin]

If you are not going to enforce a law then remove it from the books.

It's not that the law is unenforced, but more that the Feds/State/County/City won't provide the funding to allow the law to be enforced. (i.e.Staff). There's all kinds of "Un-funded Mandates" out there.

 

[Dog Soldier]

The Feds no longer enforce the Laws regarding Marijuana. The states that violate the Federal Drug laws are passing more anti gun laws? It would seem the various states could ignore the NFA rules?

 

[yokel]

It's not that the law is unenforced, but more that the Feds/State/County/City won't provide the funding to allow the law to be enforced. (i.e.Staff). There's all kinds of "Un-funded Mandates" out there.

Not really.

Over the course of the summer of 2011, the Obama Administration began to address requests from illegal alien advocates, from grassroots community organizers to Members of Congress, relying on its ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion in deportation decisions.

Like all government officials, from the local traffic cop to the Attorney General of the United States, immigration officials must make decisions every day about how they exercise their power. It is within their discretion to determine whom to target for removal. For instance, by prioritizing “criminal aliens” over “non-criminal aliens,” DHS is exercising its authority to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue immigration cases. These decisions are exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

 

[RX-79G]

I think the Fed is ignoring pot laws because it knows that it will be legalized at a Federal level eventually, but that Conservatives who want "less government interference" aren't going to end the damaging "war on drugs". So those states are acting as test cases, much in the same way that "Don't ask, don't tell" allowed gays to be in the military when the law said they could not.

But these gun laws aren't an attempt to get a specific thing legalized - they are an attempt to invalidate virtually all interstate trade regulation by state fiat. Living through the day all interstate trade laws evaporate is not going to be fun or pretty.

Which is why it seems completely unlikely to happen. SCOTUS will find against the defendants, who will then turn around and sue the idiot Kansas state legislature for loss of liberty and income. They will not be able to sue the individual idiot legislators, because government employees are usually protected against personal lawsuit for doing their jobs - even incompetent legislators.

 

[TwoFirstNames]

Be careful about what you ask for. Even if the state is found to be in the right there are potential problems we may not want to deal with. I'm not in favor of many of the oppressive laws at the federal or state level. But we already have a patchwork of senseless laws that vary not only from state to state, but within cities in some cases. We need some uniformity.

Be careful what you ask for. Uniformity is generally not as nice as it sounds. In fact, it kind of runs counter to some of the founding principles of the nation and it always ignores situational variation. Far too often, uniformity is a synonym for lazy.

 

[RX-79G]

Be careful what you ask for. Uniformity is generally not as nice as it sounds. In fact, it kind of runs counter to some of the founding principles of the nation and it always ignores situational variation. Far too often, uniformity is a synonym for lazy.

That uniformity is the status quo. Enormous changes to the status quo are rarely without some pretty big downsides.

 

[Tirod]

Picking out the current lack of Federal prosecution on marijuana use isn't all that. NICS will deny your purchase if you were introduced into the database as a medical marijuana user and the new forum 4473 also asks that question. There is enforcement in it's way.

Now, compare that to the commerce clause and it's application to switchblade purchasing. It specifically states that interstate sales of spring loaded push button activated knives are restricted, and the law was amended to include importation of knives and parts from overseas. Yet there is about zero enforcement of it. What is different?

They aren't taxed, and that is where the teeth come in. Not paying taxes to the government is where this will fall. As for the vendor who took the state of Kansas' word on it, he took the risk and it's on him. So did his customers, who individually are going to be liable for their purchases and the $200 stamp. I suspect the ATF will just ask them to hand over their silencers and be done with it.

This case could well wind up circulating in the courts while the Hearing Protection Act is approved. Will the judge then throw it out, or does the calendar of events and jurisdiction still make it viable? Don't know. As for saying it could nullify the NFA or even all Federal Gun laws, no, not so much. The specific violation will likely be parsed to exclude a broad interpretation and focus on a singular transgression of law which has a number of cases behind it. The .Gov isn't going to defend the NFA with this, they are going to prosecute the lack of paying a Stamp fee and show it's been done since 1934 and that has precedent over State law.

I wouldn't look at it for much more than the Fed making sure they have jurisdiction to enforce and convict. It's not going to overthrow the NFA or 82 years of convictions on the subject unless the Federal prosecutor is told to lose the case. And that kind of political interference is exactly what we just voted to stop doing.

Did we not express a mandate to quit selectively enforcing laws, or discriminate against right wing issues, only to do exactly the same thing just because we want to get even? Where do you stand on the Rule of Law?