Holder is basically threatening Kansas that federal laws always trump state laws, but Sam Brownback and Sec. of State Kris Kobach aren’t backing down.
Unconstitutional Federal laws never trump state laws. Good job for Kansas!
Unfortunately… it is being asserted IN THIS CASE that the ONLY reason these gun laws are unconstituional IN KANSAS is because the KANSAS ACT only protects guns made in Kansas and kept in state and not in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. In other words…Kansas accepts the FEDS ability to pass and enforce these laws AND ENFORCE THEM IN KANSAS…as long as the guns in question have been in interstate commerce (made in another state or country and/or brought into Kansas).
This argument will fail in court since it is not attacking Federal Gun Laws as unconstitutional… only as unconstitutional with regard to guns made in Kansas which stay in Kansas. Apparently Kansas leaders don’t believe such guns are in interstate commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by the Feds.
A guy named Roscoe Filburn thought the same about the wheat he grew for private consumption & use which never left the state way back in 1942. The Court found him wrong… his wheat AFFECTED interstate commerce since he didn’t buy any as a result of his growing…so the Feds could regulate it.
That ruling has formed the basis of many similar rulings for the past 70 years… including Obamacare (partially).
I think the original ruling SUCKED and paved the way for an expansion of FED Power beyond anything the Founders (ANY OF THEM!!) envisioned or the Consitution intended and has been awful for the country. Kindly do not confuse my acceptance of REALITY with APPROVAL.
I also think Kansas state officials are WELL AWARE of this ruling…especially since the Sec’y of State there is a Con Law Professor!
In my opinion there is ZERO chance of this Kansas law standing. In my further opinion…I think the administration in Kansas is well aware of this and this law is an expression of frustration and a politically motivated move without substance under law.
Funny because you use this acceptance as approval when it is a subject that you agree with to federal govt forcing the states to comply with.
I thought that particular argument was rejected for Obamacare?
Anyways, historically the Supreme Court really doesn’t like it when states try to nullify federal laws, they never have.
UNT…get a clue and don’t put words in my mouth. You’ve lied enough for one day.
RC… what I meant that the Filburn CASE was used to argue in the Obamacare case which is why I said partailly…since some of the justices AGREED with the proposition that you can FORCE someone into commerce if you are the feds and the government used that argument. This is the part of the Obamacare decision that Roberts got RIGHT…rejecting this notion and precluding the argument from being used for ANYTHING the feds want us to do. The part he got wrong was the "its a tax’ part of course…which formed the decision which sucked.
You seem prefectly fine letting the federal govt trample all over the states when its an issue that you agree with, you change your opinions on govt depending on if it supports your issue or not.
Unless you can specifically tie my opinion on THIS commerce clause issue to another commerce clause issue where I hold a different opinion it is rather difficult to respond to your once again broad brush sweeping generalizations.
So go find the words you say came out of my mouth or stuff your comments.
Of course now you’ll tell me you can’t be bothered right?
You support a federal law for background checks on intrastate private sales of firearms. You support using that court ruling that you supposedly are against to make a law that you support.
I support a law for background checks on intrastate sales based on the Commerce Clause as decided in Filburn??
News to me.
Please show me where I said that. I asked you to find the words that came out of my mouth. You simply made another unsupported non-factual statement and linked it to nothing.
The only way the federal govt has the authority to make the law is through the ruling.
You are walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, you do not have the right to be insulted when I call you a duck.