General Categories > Newsworthy

Kansas

(1/1)

Les:
I didn't realize Kansas had such a law, interesting.  Also interesting although not surprising the former Justice Department felt like prosecuting. http://www.gunowners.org/alert03112017.htm

Merl:

--- Quote from: Les on March 14, 2017, 04:09:58 PM ---I didn't realize Kansas had such a law, interesting.  Also interesting although not surprising the former Justice Department felt like prosecuting. http://www.gunowners.org/alert03112017.htm

--- End quote ---

Actually most states could take this position if they wanted.  Federal Laws regulating manufacturing fall under the commerce clause i believe most having to do with interstate transport and business.  If one is not doing business outside of their state of residence or selling product manufactured outside their state of business it could be said that only the state has a right to regulate the actions of that business or person.  This is the way it is supposed to be but because most states have sold their powers for federal tax dollars, the feds believe they are the all powerful OZ....

Kendahl:
The Commerce Clause has been misapplied to justify overreach by the federal government into state and local affairs. Instead of applying only to goods that actually cross state lines, it has been applied to any activity or lack of activity in one state that affects another state. If a Kansan buys a suppressor made in Kansas, it affects another state because he didn't buy one made there.

The situation came to a head during the Great Depression after the US Supreme Court blocked several of FDR's New Deal programs. In response, FDR threatened to expand the Court to 15 justices and pack the additional seats with enough supporters to ensure that anything he wanted would get through. Intense opposition made FDR back down on expansion but the Court decided not to annoy him further. Like many ill considered solutions to short term problems, the adverse consequences affect us still.

Mali:
Montana also has this same law and they have been willing to stand up against Big Brother several times on various subjects.

AAllen:
These laws started with Montana and about a dozen other states have passed laws based upon theirs. Gary Marbut started the ball rolling on this and championed it in court, with his case falling apart after funding issues Federal Lawsuits are very expensive and time consuming. Four years ago the NFOA had a similar bill introduced in our legislature, this had multiple purposes: first show support for and help push the lawsuit forward which had stalled in the appeals court (our having a bill introduced in encouraged several other states to propose these bills and a couple of them got them passed, I believe Kansas was one of them). This renewed interest in the law pushed the appeals court to make a ruling sending the case back to the lower court for a hearing that had been dismissed previously. This also brought up many other issues and information gained is still helping our lobbyists as they work on issues in the legislature. As others have pointed out this is not strictly a 2A issue but,ore a Commerce Clause verses the 10th amendment issue. With having had many discussions with Federal Cival Rights attorneys we need to recognize that the federal courts will not back these claims, the Supreme Court has extended the powers of the Feds under the Comerece Clause well beyond its intended reach, without a Supreme Court interested in ignoring its own case law and rewriting the rules these cases are dead.

Navigation

[0] Message Index