Godsgunman
Member
Again, makes me mighty proud to live in Kansas. Good job boys!
Holder Threatens Kansas Over New Gun Laws
- Thread starter Bruno2
- Start date
- Status
SilentStalker
Member
I might have to leave Alabama for Kansas.
SSN Vet
Member
So Kansas is actually going to have to enforce the law by taking action against a Federal agent (i.e. an ATF agent raiding a Kansas maker of full autos)
but to do that the Federal officer is going to have actually make the raid.
but to do that, someone is going to have to go out there and make full autos in Kansas, being very carefull to make sure not one ounce of metal ever crossed the states borders..
Hmmm.... somehow I don't see a long line of Kansans queueing up to be the guinea pigs....
No party affected by the law, nobody has standing to challenge the law...
So, I'm having a hard time not seeing all of this as hot air and political theatre, on both sides of the issue... entertaining as it is.
but to do that the Federal officer is going to have actually make the raid.
but to do that, someone is going to have to go out there and make full autos in Kansas, being very carefull to make sure not one ounce of metal ever crossed the states borders..
Hmmm.... somehow I don't see a long line of Kansans queueing up to be the guinea pigs....
No party affected by the law, nobody has standing to challenge the law...
So, I'm having a hard time not seeing all of this as hot air and political theatre, on both sides of the issue... entertaining as it is.
There will always be someone willing to take the chance for Freedom's sake. Just like when NY passed the SAFE law there were people intentionally getting caught so the law could be challenged. Even with higher stakes for the NFA items I bet someone will toe the line.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"IE creating a de facto government inside the US other than the fed. Is this sedition?"
"No, It's called the 10th Amendment to our Constitution"
Not since the Civil War has it worked this way (the way it's supposed to) and for good reason, since we wouldn't have held together through the "rough patch" of Reconstruction has the southern states retained their full sovereignty. IIRC, it was about that time our nation went from being officially referred to as 'the united States of America" to "The United States of America" and "The Union"--a subtle distinction, but important.
Trung Si, you're from Texas as well, you should know better than folks from most other states how much we are required to submit to federal direction in our affairs. Only recently has the legitimacy of this subjugation even been called into question (SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act)
"but to do that, someone is going to have to go out there and make full autos in Kansas, being very carefull to make sure not one ounce of metal ever crossed the states borders..."
All it takes is a Bubba making a MG, as Bubba is want to do, and "getting away with it" because the LEO/DA did not press charges or forward the report to the ATF. Much like what happened with marijuana, you get a "creeping legalization" as more and more people get away with more and more violations. The trick is knowing when or if the crackdown comes down from on high.
The truly strange thing is that the NFA is, at its core purpose, a tax code. State laws with regards to machine guns are not tax laws, but criminal laws. There is no jurisdiction conflict, as is implied by the threats to stop federal agents from performing their enforcement. All this new law amounts to is Kansas saying it will not have its justice system forward NFA cases to the federal authorities; a refusal to comply, also known as "nullification" (also known as Uncle Sam's "psycho switch'
). Since most people report MGs, SBRs, silencers, etc. to the local fuzz, this is likely to be decent protection until Bubba posts his MG build on here or Youtube for PRISM to see.
Whereas the federal government has been willing to look the other way on MJ, they absolutely will not screw around when it comes to private machine gun manufacture. The powers within the ATF are utterly dedicated to preventing their proliferation among the plebians, and the powers that hold the leash of the ATF even more so. There will be zero tolerance of NFA violations.
Still, it would be unwise to mess with a state with this hung in their capital building;
I'd like to think that the horrific events of some 150 years ago would give pause to both state and federal leaders regarding an issue as existential as this one, but that was wishful thinking in the past, as well (in regards to the grievances sparking the Revolutionary War.)
TCB
"No, It's called the 10th Amendment to our Constitution"
Not since the Civil War has it worked this way (the way it's supposed to) and for good reason, since we wouldn't have held together through the "rough patch" of Reconstruction has the southern states retained their full sovereignty. IIRC, it was about that time our nation went from being officially referred to as 'the united States of America" to "The United States of America" and "The Union"--a subtle distinction, but important.
Trung Si, you're from Texas as well, you should know better than folks from most other states how much we are required to submit to federal direction in our affairs. Only recently has the legitimacy of this subjugation even been called into question (SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act)
"but to do that, someone is going to have to go out there and make full autos in Kansas, being very carefull to make sure not one ounce of metal ever crossed the states borders..."
All it takes is a Bubba making a MG, as Bubba is want to do, and "getting away with it" because the LEO/DA did not press charges or forward the report to the ATF. Much like what happened with marijuana, you get a "creeping legalization" as more and more people get away with more and more violations. The trick is knowing when or if the crackdown comes down from on high.
The truly strange thing is that the NFA is, at its core purpose, a tax code. State laws with regards to machine guns are not tax laws, but criminal laws. There is no jurisdiction conflict, as is implied by the threats to stop federal agents from performing their enforcement. All this new law amounts to is Kansas saying it will not have its justice system forward NFA cases to the federal authorities; a refusal to comply, also known as "nullification" (also known as Uncle Sam's "psycho switch'
). Since most people report MGs, SBRs, silencers, etc. to the local fuzz, this is likely to be decent protection until Bubba posts his MG build on here or Youtube for PRISM to see.Whereas the federal government has been willing to look the other way on MJ, they absolutely will not screw around when it comes to private machine gun manufacture. The powers within the ATF are utterly dedicated to preventing their proliferation among the plebians, and the powers that hold the leash of the ATF even more so. There will be zero tolerance of NFA violations.
Still, it would be unwise to mess with a state with this hung in their capital building;
I'd like to think that the horrific events of some 150 years ago would give pause to both state and federal leaders regarding an issue as existential as this one, but that was wishful thinking in the past, as well (in regards to the grievances sparking the Revolutionary War.)
TCB
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Two completely different approaches:
1. We bent the Commerce Clause past the breaking point in the name of civil rights. Now the Commerce Clause is broken for all purposes.
2. We declared that the First Amendment simply does not apply to child pornography and the courts have steadfastly refused to expand this narrow exception to anything else, including animal torture videos. The First Amendment remains effective in all other contexts.
How much better would it have been to use approach #2 in the case of civil rights?
Mike
1. We bent the Commerce Clause past the breaking point in the name of civil rights. Now the Commerce Clause is broken for all purposes.
2. We declared that the First Amendment simply does not apply to child pornography and the courts have steadfastly refused to expand this narrow exception to anything else, including animal torture videos. The First Amendment remains effective in all other contexts.
How much better would it have been to use approach #2 in the case of civil rights?
Mike
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"The First Amendment remains effective in all other contexts."
I will agree that we have more freedom to libel one another without consequence than we used to, but we also must now remember not to speak too unkindly of our leaders, seeing as the walls have ears everywhere we turn
"How much better would it have been to use approach #2 in the case of civil rights?"
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, I'm guessing it's something to the effect of "should the Feds have simply let Jim Crow slide out of respect for States' rights?"
The Federals had no problem looking the other way for some 100 years, so I doubt the altruistic intentions they claimed when dismantling Jim Crow. Especially considering how with both Reconstruction and the Civil Rights legislation, the practical effect was to disempower southern states for decades. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was forced upon the reclaimed states though a Hobson's Choice (ratify it in its entirety or lose Congressional representation) that the concept of "Equal Protection" under the law was explicity incorporated into our system. I believe it was implicit in our nation's legal theory beforehand, and was certainly held by folks like Jefferson when the important rules were being written, and yet it was omitted from explicit enumeration at the end of the day. Possibly because it is easy to see how such "override" authority of State law by mere congressional action (as opposed to years of legal effort ending at the SCOTUS) would lead to abuse. When the 14th was passed, our nation was more concerned with survival than with a principled Great Experiment in liberty, and passed laws that had unintended consequences (not unlike the Patriot Act in more recent times). In 1868, we were convinced that survival was won by reclaiming the rebelling states, and that that could not happen while slavery was in effect there. So we passed a law to that effect. I doubt they anticipated all the ways the words "due process" and "equal protection" have been used subsequently.
Where this ties back into gun issues is that I feel we should work to return the subject back to the domain of the States. I applaud Kansas' affirmation of their authority, and mourn Colorado's strict new laws.
But both were passed by State governments (perhaps under somewhat dubious circumstances in Colorado's case), and should be seen by all as legitimate expressions of the people's will, until the States' leaders are replaced by their constituents
or until courts agree the statutes violate our legal framework. But it shouldn't be the realm of federal law-writing, pro gun or anti, to decide these things. Though I hate to admit it, the Anti's are right to focus their redoubled efforts on State action, because that is where these fights should take place. The more I hear calls from our side for sweeping pro-gun laws like Natl CCW and anti-gun-law-laws rolleyes, the more I become aware of how easily measures could be reversed in 2 or 4 years. Seeking the use of Federal authority to override duly passed State laws restricting guns makes us no better than them (Constitutionally, not logically )
TCB
I will agree that we have more freedom to libel one another without consequence than we used to, but we also must now remember not to speak too unkindly of our leaders, seeing as the walls have ears everywhere we turn
"How much better would it have been to use approach #2 in the case of civil rights?"
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, I'm guessing it's something to the effect of "should the Feds have simply let Jim Crow slide out of respect for States' rights?"
The Federals had no problem looking the other way for some 100 years, so I doubt the altruistic intentions they claimed when dismantling Jim Crow. Especially considering how with both Reconstruction and the Civil Rights legislation, the practical effect was to disempower southern states for decades
. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was forced upon the reclaimed states though a Hobson's Choice (ratify it in its entirety or lose Congressional representation) that the concept of "Equal Protection" under the law was explicity incorporated into our system. I believe it was implicit in our nation's legal theory beforehand, and was certainly held by folks like Jefferson when the important rules were being written, and yet it was omitted from explicit enumeration at the end of the day. Possibly because it is easy to see how such "override" authority of State law by mere congressional action (as opposed to years of legal effort ending at the SCOTUS) would lead to abuse. When the 14th was passed, our nation was more concerned with survival than with a principled Great Experiment in liberty, and passed laws that had unintended consequences (not unlike the Patriot Act in more recent times). In 1868, we were convinced that survival was won by reclaiming the rebelling states, and that that could not happen while slavery was in effect there. So we passed a law to that effect. I doubt they anticipated all the ways the words "due process" and "equal protection" have been used subsequently.Where this ties back into gun issues is that I feel we should work to return the subject back to the domain of the States. I applaud Kansas' affirmation of their authority, and mourn Colorado's strict new laws.
But both were passed by State governments (perhaps under somewhat dubious circumstances in Colorado's case), and should be seen by all as legitimate expressions of the people's will, until the States' leaders are replaced by their constituents
or until courts agree the statutes violate our legal framework. But it shouldn't be the realm of federal law-writing, pro gun or anti, to decide these things. Though I hate to admit it, the Anti's are right to focus their redoubled efforts on State action, because that is where these fights should take place. The more I hear calls from our side for sweeping pro-gun laws like Natl CCW and anti-gun-law-laws rolleyes, the more I become aware of how easily measures could be reversed in 2 or 4 years. Seeking the use of Federal authority to override duly passed State laws restricting guns makes us no better than them (Constitutionally, not logically )TCB
Telekinesis
Member
Remember, there's no need to jump head first into machine guns to make a test case. A private individual manufacturing a single shot .22 with a 15.5" barrel will do exactly the same thing and be much more palatable to a jury.
No, a machine gun test case will need to happen. If a machine gun is made, and the feds try to do something about it, and the state intervenes, successfully, then anyone will feel free to build a machine gun. Until that time, the ATF still has the specter of prosecution that they use to intimidate people into submission.
If someone builds a SBR or SBS, it is possible that the ATF may look the other way for a while, so as to avoid a test case happening right away.
If someone builds a SBR or SBS, it is possible that the ATF may look the other way for a while, so as to avoid a test case happening right away.
Telekinesis
Member
Yes, a machine gun test case will need to happen, but it shouldn't be first. That's why you force the issue for the test case with the just barely illegal SBR (maybe call the ATF and say "I have an unregistered SBR and will be arriving at your office with my lawyers and a reporter to turn myself in"). That way you have a much easier case to win with a rifle that is not in the least bit scary. I'm sure you can see how much easier it'll be to convince a jury of non gun owners that a .22 single shot with a 15.5" barrel should be just as legal as a 16" barreled version. Good luck doing that with a machine gun. Hell we can't even get gun people to agree that MGs should be non-NFA, how are you going to convince a bunch of people off the street?
If you win on the SBR, you have the case law that says that at least part of the NFA is unenforceable. And once you have that, it is much easier to argue that the entire NFA is unenforceable.
If you win on the SBR, you have the case law that says that at least part of the NFA is unenforceable. And once you have that, it is much easier to argue that the entire NFA is unenforceable.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"A private individual manufacturing a single shot .22 with a 15.5" barrel will do exactly the same thing and be much more palatable to a jury."
"I have an unregistered SBR and will be arriving at your office with my lawyers and a reporter to turn myself in"
While that would be absolutely hilarious to watch, such a test case will never go anywhere (well, unless the guy happens to also be a reviled mafia don, or something). No DA, ATF prosecutor, or bureaucrat would go out on a limb to try such a case. Yes, those types of actions help build a precedent against a law's enforcement, but real black & white test cases are needed for a strong judgment to be made. A machine gun is the most extreme example, but also the one most appropriate since it strikes at the core of the NFA's content. And don't forget that each time a case is brought to SCOTUS, the gavel can strike either way. The purpose of that body is not incremental change, but infrequent consequential change for purpose of settling legal issues "once and for all"
The good test case will be a shady guy with a criminal history unrelated to his NFA violations; the kind of person who the justice system would bother to prosecute, despite his crimes being victimless and his motivations without malice. I personally don't think it matters which NFA arm is involved, seeing as they are all treated the same under the law (though MGs are obviously feared the most) and regulated with the same stated intent and legal reasoning. Still, if we took SBRs to court and won, I'll bet they'd find some way to keep the others locked down in spite of that, and the whole ordeal (and chance of unfavorable court ruling) would have to repeat in another decade or two.
"If you win on the SBR, you have the case law that says that at least part of the NFA is unenforceable."
The real goal shouldn't be to demonstrate the NFA is unenforceable through state interference, it should be to show it unconstitutional in the first place. 80 years of history has shown that the NFA, like all weapons bans, is extremely enforceable in regards to the law-abiding public. If the state blocks federal officers from enforcing a law currently recognized as legitimate, their interference will quickly be found to be in violation of the supremacy clause and will be stopped by force. Think of the Little Rock 9 for a moment when envisioning state police or natl. guard interference in federal enforcement matters--we really want the courts firmly in our corner before pulling off a stunt like that.
TCB
"I have an unregistered SBR and will be arriving at your office with my lawyers and a reporter to turn myself in"
While that would be absolutely hilarious to watch, such a test case will never go anywhere (well, unless the guy happens to also be a reviled mafia don, or something
). No DA, ATF prosecutor, or bureaucrat would go out on a limb to try such a case. Yes, those types of actions help build a precedent against a law's enforcement, but real black & white test cases are needed for a strong judgment to be made. A machine gun is the most extreme example, but also the one most appropriate since it strikes at the core of the NFA's content. And don't forget that each time a case is brought to SCOTUS, the gavel can strike either way. The purpose of that body is not incremental change, but infrequent consequential change for purpose of settling legal issues "once and for all"The good test case will be a shady guy with a criminal history unrelated to his NFA violations; the kind of person who the justice system would bother to prosecute, despite his crimes being victimless and his motivations without malice. I personally don't think it matters which NFA arm is involved, seeing as they are all treated the same under the law (though MGs are obviously feared the most) and regulated with the same stated intent and legal reasoning. Still, if we took SBRs to court and won, I'll bet they'd find some way to keep the others locked down in spite of that, and the whole ordeal (and chance of unfavorable court ruling) would have to repeat in another decade or two.
"If you win on the SBR, you have the case law that says that at least part of the NFA is unenforceable."
The real goal shouldn't be to demonstrate the NFA is unenforceable through state interference, it should be to show it unconstitutional in the first place. 80 years of history has shown that the NFA, like all weapons bans, is extremely enforceable in regards to the law-abiding public. If the state blocks federal officers from enforcing a law currently recognized as legitimate, their interference will quickly be found to be in violation of the supremacy clause and will be stopped by force. Think of the Little Rock 9 for a moment when envisioning state police or natl. guard interference in federal enforcement matters--we really want the courts firmly in our corner before pulling off a stunt like that.
TCB
mgkdrgn
Member
We tried that kinda stuff here in South Carolina once ... didn't work out all that well.
BSA1
member
Remember what they say; "If at first you don't secede try, try again."
SimplyChad
Member
^^^^^ You sir owe me a new key board lol
Queen_of_Thunder
member
I would agree that it would be a great case for the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendmnt?
we are not amused
Member
All the non-sense about machine guns is moot, because the Kansas Law does not authorize the manufacture of machine guns, or any other full-auto or select fire weapon. They were specifically exempted.
At this point it is hard to see where any current Federal Law is in conflict with the new Kansas Law.
This could change if any new gun control laws make it through Congress.
It does however, spit in the eye of the Head of the Dept. of InJustice.
At this point it is hard to see where any current Federal Law is in conflict with the new Kansas Law.
This could change if any new gun control laws make it through Congress.
It does however, spit in the eye of the Head of the Dept. of InJustice.
Last edited:
SharpsDressedMan
member
Wonder if Holder is brave enough to show his face in Kansas..............
Deer_Freak
Member.
We have a similar law in NC that makes it illegal for local and state agencies to assist the federal government in gun confiscation. No one has challenged this law. We also have a bunch of sheriffs that signed a pact saying they will not assist the federal government in enforcing any law that is stricter than NC state law.
It's pretty easy to make these laws right now. But if the Federal government cuts off funding to local police departments they will comply with any federal demands.
It's pretty easy to make these laws right now. But if the Federal government cuts off funding to local police departments they will comply with any federal demands.
SharpsDressedMan
member
"en Kansas disappears in a series of mushroom clouds, we will know that Obama and Holder have responded."
Jim ................ HAHA! I'll bet Kansas has more nukes than Washington D.C.!
Jim ................ HAHA! I'll bet Kansas has more nukes than Washington D.C.!
Murphy4570
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 433
mgkdrgn said:
Things are different now, my johnny rebel friend. Muster your self reliance, along with your kin. Us Yankees sure aren't gonna be the ones to rock the boat, by the looks of things.
In other news, there is a reason why I plan to move west, Liberty being the prevailing one. You only need to see what I have in my signature to understand my sentiments towards this action by Kansas. God Bless Them.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"All the non-sense about machine guns is moot, because the Kansas Law does not authorize the manufacture of machine guns, or any other full-auto or select fire weapon. They were specifically exempted."
Yes, but it's easier to get those laws repealed (or overturned in court) than an entrenched federal bureaucracy. Would you take the heat for being the guy who struck down the ATF and got all its officers fired? Think about it. Huge momentum and focuses human will behind its actions, and a judge has nothing but highly-respected paper to back himself up--especially if his superiors are in disagreement with his rulings. If the courts push too hard--they are ignored.
My cynical side thinks this is more of a power/money grab by Kansas than anything (not that they don't deserve it more than the Feds in this case). By asserting authority to enforce the same laws as the ATF, while denying them their jurisdiction, all they've accomplished is to announce "I claim this law-enforcement responsibility in the name of Spain, as well as all its attendant financial support from On High."
After all, no need to fund those ATF guys if the State PD is doing the job, but the police will need the same guns, tanks, and pension plans as the ATF if we want them to be as effective (including Uncle Sam). Hell, they have the same black uniforms, M4s, bullet proof vests, APVs, helicopters, and drones as the ATF already, courtesy of DHS "giveaways"
"Us Yankees sure aren't gonna be the ones to rock the boat, by the looks of things."
I have to agree; it seems unlikely that supporters of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Whatever would take up arms--to stop us from taking up arms (let alone be effective with them )
TCB
Yes, but it's easier to get those laws repealed (or overturned in court) than an entrenched federal bureaucracy. Would you take the heat for being the guy who struck down the ATF and got all its officers fired?
Think about it. Huge momentum and focuses human will behind its actions, and a judge has nothing but highly-respected paper to back himself up--especially if his superiors are in disagreement with his rulings. If the courts push too hard--they are ignored.My cynical side thinks this is more of a power/money grab by Kansas than anything (not that they don't deserve it more than the Feds in this case). By asserting authority to enforce the same laws as the ATF, while denying them their jurisdiction, all they've accomplished is to announce "I claim this law-enforcement responsibility in the name of Spain, as well as all its attendant financial support from On High."
After all, no need to fund those ATF guys if the State PD is doing the job, but the police will need the same guns, tanks, and pension plans as the ATF if we want them to be as effective (including Uncle Sam
). Hell, they have the same black uniforms, M4s, bullet proof vests, APVs, helicopters, and drones as the ATF already, courtesy of DHS "giveaways" "Us Yankees sure aren't gonna be the ones to rock the boat, by the looks of things."
I have to agree; it seems unlikely that supporters of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Whatever would take up arms--to stop us from taking up arms
(let alone be effective with them )TCB
we just had two SCROTUS cases on the commerce clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
someone tell me why that doesn't already decide this issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
someone tell me why that doesn't already decide this issue?
Outlaw Man
Member
The only way it doesn't is jury nullification (or outright revolution, which I hope we're still a long way from reaching). Even that still doesn't technically change things - just lets that particular person off the hook.
Still, I like the gesture.
- Status
