KEEP FREE REPUBLIC ALIVE!!!
PLEASE MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION TODAY!!!!
Posted on 05/04/2013 12:24:44 PM PDT by drewh
Texas has Austin. We have Lawrence. Unfortunately for both.
Excellent. Brownback needs to start making sure they have actual Kansas troops under state control, not federal control.
Maybe we can get Smith & Wesson to manufacture here. May be the only chance I ever have to get ahold of the M&P Shield.
Kobach also wrote Arizona’s landmark SB1070. If he were Attorney General America could be saved.
DAM% the tornadoes, I’m moving to Kansas!
But owning a gun is a right. It's Constitutionally specific - the same as the right to a fair trial. How could Holder decide the state has no rights because HE says so? Holder has no authority to violate a right. No one in the federal government does - but they're getting way with it because no one is stopping them.
They're doing the same thing with the first amendment. Today, there are words we're not allowed to say because of PC threats and intimidation. In some areas, people would get arrested for using "hate" speech (disagreeing with anyone from a left wing voting block). They're getting away with it because no one is stopping them.
How is this situation any different, in principle at least, from the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act and its demand that the Northern “Free Soiler” states return escaped slaves? The Act was part of the Compromise of 1850, if i remember correctly.
By telling Kansas they must obey federal gun laws, Holder is essentially saying that the states in 1850 who passed nullification laws to avoid the federal Fugitive Slave Act should have “followed federal laws” and returned his ancestors to their white slave owners.
I love irony.
Miffed that it is not the Wichita Shockers?
I have that t-shirt but mostly I’m a Jayhawk.
Just kiddin. I figured you were a hawk.
MFO
First shot in the upcoming civil war will likely be in Kansas, it appears.
“I like the idea, but are they really setting themselves up so that the products which are being manufactured in the state cannot be sold out of the state? That seems like a weak business model. “
If you want to eat the pie, you do it one bite at a time.
The Second Amendment prohibits ALL federal legislation that infringes on the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. All federal gun legislation is un-Constitutional.
The gun control advocates, usually Democrats, have alternately used the interstate Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause as a way to bypass the clear prohibition for the federal government to enact anti-gun legislation.
The contradiction is not in the Constitution. The wannabe tyrants, mostly among the Democrats, do not want to be constrained to the Article I, Section 8 enumerated powers of the Constitution, nor by the Bill of Rights in the first ten amendments, so they have to imagine and project their tyrannical agenda items through other impertinent parts of the document.
And Scalia BS’ing just like Wickard v. Filburn decision.
- - -
“The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one’s own property, to feed one’s own livestock, while neither “interstate,” nor “commerce,” is “Interstate Commerce.” As to whether this ruling “bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design,” University of Chicago Law School Professor Richard Epstein comments:
“ Wickard does not pass the laugh test.[6] ”
This “economic effects” theory of the regulation of interstate commerce resulted in every area of American life being subject to regulation under the clause of the U.S. Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. “
This ruling that purely local activity which is not commerce can be regulated by Congress under the “interstate commerce” clause meant that Congress’ power to regulate every aspect of American life was essentially without limit.
Nearly all of the regulation of modern American life is enacted under this principle and this expanded understanding of the “interstate commerce clause.” That is, had the Supreme Court maintained its prior rulings under the “Lochner Era,” most regulation in modern America would be struck down as unconstitutional. “
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn
- - - - - - -
There is an out for Scalia and rest of SCOTUS is that firearms are not wheat- that is a right via the 2nd Amendment. The high court can now contort back and untwist to the correct opinion at least when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Kansas is so lucky to have Kris Kobach as our Secretary of State!
What was the context for that quote? (It was a quote, wasn’t it?) Why was intrastate commerce considered necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective in that particular case?
But in Gonzales v. Raich (the medical marijuana case), the Supreme Court held (with Scalia concurring) that marijuana grown and consumed solely in California, and never sold anywhere to anyone, could be prohibited under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
But the feds only have jurisdiction to have a law about something if it is in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. To justify regulation of guns they have to fall back on either the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause. If the feds don’t get their authority from one of those clauses, then the 10th Amendment means the rights are reserved to the people or to the states. So before the Supremacy Clause can even be in effect, the feds have to have express Constitional authorization to MAKE LAWS on that particular issue; otherwise the 10th Amendment specifically says that the states and/or people have the rights and the feds have no say whatsoever.
There is a federal statute which says that any federal agent or employee prosecuted in state court for an official act can have the case transferred to federal court. So only federal judges will rule on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.