goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: star seed 7 on April 08, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
-
http://spreadlibertynews.com/kansas-bill-to-nullify-federal-gun-laws-goes-to-governor-brownback-for-signature/
this is interesting. would love to see a bill that said that gun rights only apply to those weapons available in 1861.
-
also interesting is this was linked on my facebook as a "recent article about kansas state university".
-
awesome. TSC!
-
“Passage of SB102 means that 2nd and 10th Amendment are alive and well in Kansas.”
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
For those who didn't read the article, those quotes aren't a rant from some psychopathic gun nut dropout from Doniphan County but were actual passages from the bill.
I wonder what those people who voted for this like Virgil Peck would think if I walked into the Capitol building or Cedar Crest with a fully loaded AR? How long would I be in jail? How much would I have to post for bail? Would I even get bail?
I love Kansas with all of my heart, I really don't know why people are okay with self-serving lawmakers constantly embarrassing the state? Kansas isn't close to the most conservative state in the country, but we Kansas seems to have a disproportionate amount of frankly insufficiently educated attention whores in Topeka.
-
So can we ignore the 19th amendment now too since in 1861 it was understood women wouldn't be allowed to vote? Kinda pulled the ol' bait and switch on us with that one.
-
“Passage of SB102 means that 2nd and 10th Amendment are alive and well in Kansas.”
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
For those who didn't read the article, those quotes aren't a rant from some psychopathic gun nut dropout from Doniphan County but were actual passages from the bill.
I wonder what those people who voted for this like Virgil Peck would think if I walked into the Capitol building or Cedar Crest with a fully loaded AR? How long would I be in jail? How much would I have to post for bail? Would I even get bail?
I love Kansas with all of my heart, I really don't know why people are okay with self-serving lawmakers constantly embarrassing the state? Kansas isn't close to the most conservative state in the country, but we Kansas seems to have a disproportionate amount of frankly insufficiently educated attention whores in Topeka.
well from a purely legal perspective that is probably the most laughable, worthless and unenforceable "laws" I think I've ever read.
and the reason we have a bunch of insufficiently educated attention whores in topeka is because this state is made up of a whole shitload of insufficiently educated mouthbreathers. people are okay with them doing what they're doing because they're pandering to their constituents. it's convenient to blame the politicians but the reason they act like they do is because it gets them votes.
-
“Passage of SB102 means that 2nd and 10th Amendment are alive and well in Kansas.”
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
For those who didn't read the article, those quotes aren't a rant from some psychopathic gun nut dropout from Doniphan County but were actual passages from the bill.
I wonder what those people who voted for this like Virgil Peck would think if I walked into the Capitol building or Cedar Crest with a fully loaded AR? How long would I be in jail? How much would I have to post for bail? Would I even get bail?
I love Kansas with all of my heart, I really don't know why people are okay with self-serving lawmakers constantly embarrassing the state? Kansas isn't close to the most conservative state in the country, but we Kansas seems to have a disproportionate amount of frankly insufficiently educated attention whores in Topeka.
well from a purely legal perspective that is probably the most laughable, worthless and unenforceable "laws" I think I've ever read.
and the reason we have a bunch of insufficiently educated attention whores in topeka is because this state is made up of a whole shitload of insufficiently educated mouthbreathers. people are okay with them doing what they're doing because they're pandering to their constituents. it's convenient to blame the politicians but the reason they act like they do is because it gets them votes.
Yeah, almost nobody who voted for this bill would have had a shot in hell of being reelected had they voted against it.
-
MiR already exposed the source of the retardation in Topeka
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25050.msg694816#msg694816
Self interested individuals gonna self. /Ayn Rand
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
-
Well, correct me, they don't need to sneak it in under commerce clause because of Heller.
more importantly, I love the language as pointed out alread
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
Yeah because there wasn't anything right after 1861 which slightly changed the relationship of Federalism.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
If signed into law, SB102 would nullify a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas.
false. also :lol:
This mass noncompliance with an unconstitutional federal act is both constitutionally sound, and very effective.
:facepalm: I mean jesus christ.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
-
Libtards going nuts in this thread
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
HELLER!
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
HELLER!
LOUD NOISES
-
Typical Kansan: "NO ONE IS GONNA TAKE MAH GUNS!!!"
Reasonable Kansan: "No one is trying to, but do you really need an AK-47?"
Typical Kansan: "YES!!! AND IT'S MY RIGHT!"
Reasonable: "For what?"
Typical: "TO PROTECT MAH PROPERTAH!"
Reasonable: "From what?"
Typical: "INTRUDERS AND OBAMA!"
Reasonable: "1. Do you really need a fully automatic weapon to protect your front lawn 76 Chevy collection? 2. Presumably by Obama you mean the federal government. Allow me to introduce you to a little group that the federal government controls, the United States military. You're gonna take them on with an AK? Good luck."
Typical: "...PROTECT ME GUN!!!"
-
Shut up, yoman.
-
Another misguided effort at the state level.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
-
Well, correct me, they don't need to sneak it in under commerce clause because of Heller.
I'm not sure Heller is really the right way for the State to defend this bill. I would be up to hear why you think so though.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
-
kansas says "eff you" to itself: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/kansas-s-self-destruct-button-a-bill-to-outlaw-sustainability.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/kansas-s-self-destruct-button-a-bill-to-outlaw-sustainability.html)
-
kansas says "eff you" to itself: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/kansas-s-self-destruct-button-a-bill-to-outlaw-sustainability.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/kansas-s-self-destruct-button-a-bill-to-outlaw-sustainability.html)
LMFAO. That bill never made it to the floor, though. It just might next year.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee. When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
lol wut
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass :dunno:
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee. When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.
red herring
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee. When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.
red herring
How is it a red herring? The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause. I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass :dunno:
has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee. When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.
red herring
How is it a red herring? The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause. I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.
Not surprising that KS legislature doesn't have a firm grasp on the Constitution. First a lot of older regulations were through the commerce clause. So if this was prior to Heller you might be able to make a convoluted case about the Fed overstepping its 10th amendment abilities. But since Heller[/i ] the 2nd was applied to the states, sort of since it was D.C. Now the Fed can work through that nexus to apply gun measures it sees fit.
Also the issue here is nullification, which a bunch of rough ridin' retards, no offense retards, think is a viable means to challenging constitutionality. This issue was kinda put to rest 150 years ago.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass :dunno:
has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb
They just don't want East Coasters storming through telling them how to live and raise crops and stuff. Don't really blame them. They're the ones trolling the Liberal's use of "sustainability" and "going green" et al.
-
sustainability. Don't want/need.
LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.
sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.
Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass :dunno:
has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb
They just don't want East Coasters storming through telling them how to live and raise crops and stuff. Don't really blame them. They're the ones trolling the Liberal's use of "sustainability" and "going green" et al.
Yeah, let's make it illegal for the state to fund worthy energy projects on the basis that they are sustainable just because we are afraid that east coasters will somehow infiltrate our state legislature and fund similar projects if we don't. That makes sense.
-
The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce. The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations. There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.
the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.
I actually just clicked on the link and read the article. what a laughable pile of crap.
I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.
just stop. you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.
So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.
goddammit.
the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas". in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it. well no crap. the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't. that's what we have a supreme court for. so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.
You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee. When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.
red herring
How is it a red herring? The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause. I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.
Not surprising that KS legislature doesn't have a firm grasp on the Constitution. First a lot of older regulations were through the commerce clause. So if this was prior to Heller you might be able to make a convoluted case about the Fed overstepping its 10th amendment abilities. But since Heller[/i ] the 2nd was applied to the states, sort of since it was D.C. Now the Fed can work through that nexus to apply gun measures it sees fit.
Also the issue here is nullification, which a bunch of rough ridin' retards, no offense retards, think is a viable means to challenging constitutionality. This issue was kinda put to rest 150 years ago.
1. you can't magically prevent the scotus from invoking the commerce clause simply by saying the commerce clause doesn't apply
2. just because a few dumbfucks in kansas decided to reference the commerce clause when they were writing this idiotic "law" doesn't mean it has anything whatsoever to do with the commerce clause.
the bottom line is that it's a meaningless and pointless "law" written by a bunch of diphits. arguing about something like the commerce clause legitimizes this charade in a way that it doesn't deserve. it would've been a better use of their time to declare kansas the king of all state and home of the easter bunny.
-
I was really tired of the massive amounts of quotes. Rams, I agree with you. I think this law is pointless and will be a huge waste of state resources when the AG defends the law against a lawsuit. I'm merely saying that IMO during that inevitable lawsuit the AG will make a commerce clause argument. It is not a winning argument and it is one that should get laughed out of court, but it will happen.
-
don't mind rams, he is just angry. Like any of us are actually going to worry about this bill and its dumbass writers. :dubious:
And the point about the commerce clause which Rams and Kansas are missing is that is the old passe way of regulating guns. Post Heller its a new ball game.
-
Ednksu you seem to be giving the state of KS too much credit. You actually think they know the ballgame has changed. :lol:
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.
So who was held accountable for the failed War on Drugs or the lack of WMD in Iraq? Accountability in government, that's a good one.
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.
Well I agree. We shouldn't really fund anything IMO.
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.
Well I agree. We shouldn't really fund anything IMO.
I think we should be funding large scale projects, energy and otherwise, that will spark economic growth in Kansas. We should also be trying to use these projects to get federal funds to Kansas. Good luck getting federal funding for any project that has absolutely no sustainable energy and wildlife components, though.
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
-
I mean, you guys, they want to ban the use of public funds on anything that does this:
“development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come."
I mean, really.
Really?
Really.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
Yeah, spending money on things that save money in the long run is socialism. The state should only buy the shittiest, cheapest equipment and buildings no matter what.
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Failing to join in just gets projects funded that you can't benefit from.
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Why on earth would you disagree with programmable thermostats?
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Why on earth would you disagree with programmable thermostats?
when i got a new one for my house, the non-programmable was more expensive :horrorsurprise:
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Why on earth would you disagree with programmable thermostats?
when i got a new one for my house, the non-programmable was more expensive :horrorsurprise:
IT'S NON-PROGRAMMABLE FOR YOU, KANSAS. WE DON'T WANT NO "meetin' human needs while preservin' the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come" IN THESE PARTS.
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Why on earth would you disagree with programmable thermostats?
when i got a new one for my house, the non-programmable was more expensive :horrorsurprise:
IT'S NON-PROGRAMMABLE FOR YOU, KANSAS. WE DON'T "meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come" IN THESE PARTS.
:lol:
-
People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.
Federal pork will be spent regardless of what Kansas does. We can either compete for it or let our tax dollars go to use in other states.
"Hey look! Them folks are doing something I disagree with but might-could benefit from! Might as well join in!" :flush:
Why on earth would you disagree with programmable thermostats?
when i got a new one for my house, the non-programmable was more expensive :horrorsurprise:
IT'S NON-PROGRAMMABLE FOR YOU, KANSAS. WE DON'T "meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come" IN THESE PARTS.
most commercial buildings already have HVAC controls similar to a programmable thermostat, so the thermostats is probably a bad thing to harp on.
8manpick can give more details.
-
most commercial buildings already have HVAC controls similar to a programmable thermostat, so the thermostats is probably a bad thing to harp on.
8manpick can give more details.
Yeah, not really the point. They are saying they are explicitly opposed to the idea of something like programmable thermostats. It's not the actual execution, it's the intent of this bill that is unbelievably stupid.
-
most commercial buildings already have HVAC controls similar to a programmable thermostat, so the thermostats is probably a bad thing to harp on.
8manpick can give more details.
Yeah, not really the point. They are saying they are explicitly opposed to the idea of something like programmable thermostats. It's not the actual execution, it's the intent of this bill that is unbelievably stupid.
I'm sure the actual execution would be unbelievably stupid as well
-
And I really hope I'm interpreting this wrong, and the State of Kansas isn't explicitly banning things like the purchase of a more fuel-efficient state auto fleet or Leed certification on buildings or recycling programs in state offices.
-
i just wanted to give 8manpick a shout-out :D
-
And I really hope I'm interpreting this wrong, and the State of Kansas isn't explicitly banning things like the purchase of a more fuel-efficient state auto fleet or Leed certification on buildings or recycling programs in state offices.
Well, you are just interpreting an abbreviation of the bill from the article. If you read the actual language on the bill, it's far worse than you are assuming. This would make it illegal for the state to even promote sustainability over the radio or through fliers, or to participate in a federal grant program promoting sustainability.
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2366_00_0000.pdf
It's very extreme in its language.
-
I don't think you guys are seeing both sides of this sustainably bill.
-
I don't think you guys are seeing both sides of this sustainably bill.
perhaps you're right.
-
Wow, it must be lawyer take your daughter to work day. Nice work the pit posters
:slow clap:
-
i just wanted to give 8manpick a shout-out :D
Thanks seven! But yeah, there are tons of government buildings that don't have programmable stats (or they aren't being used appropriately) or other HVAC controls. Commercial buildings are a bit better, because they seem to care a bit more about the bottom line, but not nearly as good as you would expect. I haven't read the article linked here yet, but the idea that Kansas would want to defund ESPCs as suggested by recent posts in this thread, is pretty ignorant and short-sighted.
-
i just wanted to give 8manpick a shout-out :D
Thanks seven! But yeah, there are tons of government buildings that don't have programmable stats (or they aren't being used appropriately) or other HVAC controls. Commercial buildings are a bit better, because they seem to care a bit more about the bottom line, but not nearly as good as you would expect. I haven't read the article linked here yet, but the idea that Kansas would want to defund ESPCs as suggested by recent posts in this thread, is pretty ignorant and short-sighted.
I don't think Kansas really wants to do that. This is just discussion of some horrible bill that didn't make it to the floor this legislative session that would basically make it illegal for Kansas to do or speak about anything improving sustainability.
-
i just wanted to give 8manpick a shout-out :D
Thanks seven! But yeah, there are tons of government buildings that don't have programmable stats (or they aren't being used appropriately) or other HVAC controls. Commercial buildings are a bit better, because they seem to care a bit more about the bottom line, but not nearly as good as you would expect. I haven't read the article linked here yet, but the idea that Kansas would want to defund ESPCs as suggested by recent posts in this thread, is pretty ignorant and short-sighted.
I don't think Kansas really wants to do that. This is just discussion of some horrible bill that didn't make it to the floor this legislative session that would basically make it illegal for Kansas to do or speak about anything improving sustainability.
Sounds kansas-y
-
i just wanted to give 8manpick a shout-out :D
Thanks seven! But yeah, there are tons of government buildings that don't have programmable stats (or they aren't being used appropriately) or other HVAC controls. Commercial buildings are a bit better, because they seem to care a bit more about the bottom line, but not nearly as good as you would expect. I haven't read the article linked here yet, but the idea that Kansas would want to defund ESPCs as suggested by recent posts in this thread, is pretty ignorant and short-sighted.
I don't think Kansas really wants to do that. This is just discussion of some horrible bill that didn't make it to the floor this legislative session that would basically make it illegal for Kansas to do or speak about anything improving sustainability.
please interact with more KS legislatures, your opinion will change.
Also all HVAC controls should be run by a hyper elite NEST thermostat.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
You realize that is ignorant, right?
-
Also all HVAC controls should be run by a hyper elite NEST thermostat.
They are pretty cute thermostats for home or small office use
-
<--- has signed an NDA with NEST and has heard some of their super awesome future plans
-
<--- has signed an NDA with NEST and has heard some of their super awesome future plans
Let's just hope they don't have plans in Kansas. That crap can just stay away from our state. Non-sustainables only!
-
I've got an idea for a furnace that runs on Galapagos tortoise heads and white rhino horn that should see some good sales volume in KS.
-
<--- has signed an NDA with NEST and has heard some of their super awesome future plans
Let's just hope they don't have plans in Kansas. That crap can just stay away from our state. Non-sustainables only!
But there might be! :runaway: In fact, probably are! :horrorsurprise:
-
I've got an idea for a furnace that runs on Galapagos tortoise heads and white rhino horn that should see some good sales volume in KS.
I don't know, this bio stuff sounds awfully green. Do you burn the heads and horns on top of coal?
-
I've got an idea for a furnace that runs on Galapagos tortoise heads and white rhino horn that should see some good sales volume in KS.
I don't know, this bio stuff sounds awfully green. Do you burn the heads and horns on top of coal?
you don't even burn them. you just use them to level off the ground to mount a huge ass kettle full of hot tar that's on fire.
-
:lol:
-
I've got an idea for a furnace that runs on Galapagos tortoise heads and white rhino horn that should see some good sales volume in KS.
I don't know, this bio stuff sounds awfully green. Do you burn the heads and horns on top of coal?
you don't even burn them. you just use them to level off the ground to mount a huge ass kettle full of hot tar that's on fire.
That sounds like it has some potential, as long as you make sure nobody can do anything to reduce the amount of exhaust.
-
STOP IT I CAN'T BREATHE! :lol:
-
that little exchange produced some lol tears. nice work fellas.
-
<--- has signed an NDA with NEST and has heard some of their super awesome future plans
:thumbs:
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
You realize that is ignorant, right?
programmable thermostats suck man. Way too hard to figure out, so no way the government could use it right.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
You realize that is ignorant, right?
I don't think you understand the point he's making. Probably because you're ignorant as to how something is blessed as "sustainable".
-
<--- has signed an NDA with NEST and has heard some of their super awesome future plans
sounds like a very cool opportunity. I've only heard good things about them. Maybe you can share some details about new elite tech coming? :thumbs:
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
You realize that is ignorant, right?
programmable thermostats suck man. Way too hard to figure out, so no way the government could use it right.
That's why they pay people to take away their control.
-
Well Eric Holder has officially told the Governor that the new gun law is unconstitutional. Nothing we didn't really know.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/may/02/us-attorney-general-holder-tells-brownback-new-gun/
-
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked the Legislature for $625,000 to defend legal challenges against the law.
Oh, good rough ridin' grief.
-
Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.
I don't even
programmable thermostat? energy efficient windows?
sounds like a bunch of liberal buzzwords to me.
correct
You realize that is ignorant, right?
programmable thermostats suck man. Way too hard to figure out, so no way the government could use it right.
That's why they pay people to take away their control.
That is an option between the customer and the power provider, not a requirement. Just say no and do what you want with your programmable device.
Also, LOL at programmable devices being hard to figure out. Most govt buildings around here are not govt buildings but are owned by some development/management group and the govt leases the building. That gives the govt the space and no responsibility for maint. In most of the cases that I have dealt with in KC, the fed govt rents the building and part of the rental agreement is that the building owner provides a building management/maint team who takes care of all such things. Therefore the EPA, FBI, etc doesn't need to bother themselves with how to understand how they work. They just call jerry in maint.
-
Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy? Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects? Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?
wut
What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?
What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.
Well I agree. We shouldn't really fund anything IMO.
Yeah, let's just sit back and watch bridges crumble and buildings fall apart. No funding for education, health care, environmental protection, etc, etc.? No problem. Sounds like a great quality of life.
:facepalm:
-
Well Eric Holder has officially told the Governor that the new gun law is unconstitutional. Nothing we didn't really know.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/may/02/us-attorney-general-holder-tells-brownback-new-gun/
wgaf what Holder says?
-
I never would have known that sustainability was a controversial subject for butthurt conservatives until I read this thread.
:facepalm:
-
I never would have known that sustainability was a controversial subject for butthurt conservatives until I read this thread.
:facepalm:
just as Kansas "Big Timing" the Fed gov is butthurt for Libtards
-
I never would have known that sustainability was a controversial subject for butthurt conservatives until I read this thread.
:facepalm:
Only when it increases taxes or the cost of energy, beems.
Good technology lowers costs, lazy technology raises costs.
-
I don't think "lazy," is the right term. "Immature" is more appropriate, IMO.
-
I never would have known that sustainability was a controversial subject for butthurt conservatives until I read this thread.
:facepalm:
Only when it increases taxes or the cost of energy, beems.
Good technology lowers costs, lazy technology raises costs.
this bill would ban the government from using good, cost lowering technology. (if the technology is "sustainable")
-
^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.
-
^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.
It's linked in this thread. You could read it.
-
^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.
It's linked in this thread. You could read it.
In English, no less! Which makes it even more baffling that you can't understand it.
-
^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.
It's linked in this thread. You could read it.
In English, no less! Which makes it even more baffling that you can't understand it.
explain it
-
Why?
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
You don't understand it, that much is obvious. I want to know why you want me to explain it to you.
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
You don't understand it, that much is obvious. I want to know why you want me to explain it to you.
...so he can understand it?
-
Help the dude out FSD.
-
wow, m-cat just called FSD's bluff and now FSD got caught with his pants down.
what will happen next? STAY TUNED!
-
sorry if luked
Politics
Kansas gun law is under fire
May 2
By BRAD COOPER
The Kansas City Star
Tensions are flaring between U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Kansas over a new state law shielding guns made in the state from federal regulation.
Order Reprints
John Milburn Brownback
‹ ›
Related News
Nullification: How states are making it a felony to enforce federal gun laws
Missouri Senate OKs guns-in-schools bill
Editorial: State lawmakers hard at work for gun lobby
Yael T. Abouhalkah: Brownback should ignore Holder's gun letter
More News
Austerity: Cure or illness?
To avert layoffs, public defender retires early
Kansas gun law is under fire
Biden, Kerry honor fallen diplomats
Nullification: How states are making it a felony to enforce federal gun laws
Read more Politics
Holder recently wrote to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, saying the new law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution by potentially putting federal authorities in a legal bind.
“Federal officers … cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their duties,” Holder wrote in a letter dated April 26.
Holder threatened legal action against the state, saying the federal government would do what’s necessary to prevent Kansas from interfering with agents enforcing federal law.
The state is already bracing for litigation. State Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked the Legislature for $225,000 for the next two years to defend the law.
Swept up in a states’ rights fervor, Kansas and Missouri were two of 31 states this year that considered bills to nullify federal gun-control laws discussed in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“We are standing our ground,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association. “We are not only supporting the Second Amendment, but we’re supporting state sovereignty here.
“It is high time that this discussion take place.”
Kansas is believed to be the only state to enact such a law, although a similar measure is awaiting the signature of Alaska’s governor.
The Missouri House passed a bill in late April that made it a felony for federal officials to enforce federal gun laws. It now awaits action in the Senate.
At issue in Kansas is a bill Brownback signed April 17 called the “Second Amendment Protection Act.” It passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.
The law makes it illegal for federal authorities to apply federal laws to firearms commercially or individually built and owned inside Kansas, as long as the gun stays in the state. The law also protects ammunition and gun accessories from federal law.
Federal agents violating the law would face the lowest-level felony in Kansas, carrying a prison sentence ranging from five to 13 months.
Yet Holder said that under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Kansas cannot prevent federal law enforcement from carrying out its responsibilities.
“And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities,” Holder wrote.
Brownback responded to Holder on Thursday with a letter, saying the law reflected the will of Kansans to protect the sovereignty of their state.
“The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,” Brownback wrote. “The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right.”
The bill’s primary sponsor, Republican Rep. John Rubin of Shawnee, lashed out at President Barack Obama’s administration as being “wrong on the law.”
He criticized the administration, which he characterized as being more interested in undercutting the rights of law-abiding citizens than rooting out terrorists like the Boston bomber. Rubin, for instance, criticized federal authorities for not classifying the suspects in the case as enemy combatants.
“I wish the Obama administration had the same zeal to go after the true enemies of the United States … that they seemed to have reserved for going after United States citizens standing up for our rights.”
Rep. Emily Perry, an Overland Park Democrat, was one of just 24 House members who voted against the bill. She said testimony from an assistant state attorney general indicated the bill might present legal problems. She also was concerned about the cost of defending the law.
“As a lawyer, I just didn’t feel like I could vote for something that I didn’t think was constitutional,” she said.
Many legal scholars don’t believe states can outright nullify federal laws the way Kansas is trying to do with guns and ammunition.
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation put out a fact sheet titled: “Nullification: Unlawful and unconstitutional.”
Although the think-tank’s paper doesn’t address guns specifically, it states, “There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally.”
Daniel Weddle, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, agreed with Holder’s interpretation.
Although the Kansas law may only apply to guns manufactured in Kansas, Weddle said it potentially would have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, which would allow it to be regulated.
For instance, the law would give Kansas gun manufacturers an advantage in the market since their products would be exempt from gun-control laws imposed on out-of-state competitors.
“Kansas has figured out a way to put (gunmaker) Smith & Wesson at an economic disadvantage,” Weddle said.
Looking across the country, Weddle thinks states are miscalculating with laws like this.
“They’re going to cost a good deal of money to defend,” he said, “and I don’t see any way they’re going to win.”
To reach Brad Cooper, call 816-234-7724 or send email to [email protected].
Deal Saver Subscribe today!
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/02/4215553/kansas-gun-law-is-under-fire-now.html#storylink_mainstorystack#storylink=cpy
-
What a fun and expensive game of chicken :bwpopcorn:
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
You don't understand it, that much is obvious. I want to know why you want me to explain it to you.
...so he can understand it?
As soon as he tells me why he wants me to explain it to him, I will consider explain I g it to him.
-
FSD admits he can't read the bill. Shock
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
You don't understand it, that much is obvious. I want to know why you want me to explain it to you.
...so he can understand it?
As soon as he tells me why he wants me to explain it to him, I will consider explain I g it to him.
because it makes Kansas look like a bunch of dumbfucks, and I would actually like for someone to explain why my interpretation is wrong because I don't want Kansans to look like a bunch of dumb fucks. I was asking for an explanation long before you made your glorious appearance.
And I really hope I'm interpreting this wrong, and the State of Kansas isn't explicitly banning things like the purchase of a more fuel-efficient state auto fleet or Leed certification on buildings or recycling programs in state offices.
-
I think it makes Kansas look pretty awesome.
-
Why?
You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?
You don't understand it, that much is obvious. I want to know why you want me to explain it to you.
...so he can understand it?
As soon as he tells me why he wants me to explain it to him, I will consider explain I g it to him.
because it makes Kansas look like a bunch of dumbfucks, and I would actually like for someone to explain why my interpretation is wrong because I don't want Kansans to look like a bunch of dumb fucks. I was asking for an explanation long before you made your glorious appearance.
And I really hope I'm interpreting this wrong, and the State of Kansas isn't explicitly banning things like the purchase of a more fuel-efficient state auto fleet or Leed certification on buildings or recycling programs in state offices.
First of all, take two deep breaths and calm yourself. No reason to get all worked up about this.
Second, you say the bill would ban Kansas from using anything "sustainable". It doesn't and that's obviously not the intent.
Third, the bill didn't even leave committee and never was going to. To say it makes Kansas look stupid makes you look stupid, because the people that rep Kansas didn't make the bill a law. If you think it's stupid, and it very arguably is, fine, but call its sponsor stupid not the whole rough ridin' state. There are plenty of states that actually make stupid laws that makes the whole state look stupid. Michigan is a great example.
Finally, I think you and I got off on the wrong foot. I don't like your snarky holier than though pseudo intellectual schtick and you don't like my sarcastic abusive bad person schtick. I'm not sure if this is reconcilable, so I think you should stop posting here.
-
Second, you say the bill would ban Kansas from using anything "sustainable". It doesn't and that's obviously not the intent.
so what's the intent?
And I love your macho mean guy schtick, by the way.
-
I love both of you
-
And I love your macho mean guy schtick, by the way.
I'm not really going for macho, but thanks anyways.
I think the intent was to prohibit the use of public funds to promote/proplgate "green" initiatives and projects. It is a terribly worded, vague and overbroad statute.
-
And I love your macho mean guy schtick, by the way.
I'm not really going for macho, but thanks anyways.
I think the intent was to prohibit the use of public funds to promote/proplgate "green" initiatives and projects.
oh, well that sounds like a great idea. obviously my interpretation was way off, dumbshit.
-
This has been a really great thread.
Fantastic work fellas. :thumbsup:
-
And I love your macho mean guy schtick, by the way.
I'm not really going for macho, but thanks anyways.
I think the intent was to prohibit the use of public funds to promote/proplgate "green" initiatives and projects.
oh, well that sounds like a great idea. obviously my interpretation was way off, dumbshit.
You're interpretation was wrong, sorry. To the extent there are degrees of wrong, I'll leave that up to you. No reason to shoot the messenger. You seem to be a very closed minded, stubborn and foolish individual.
-
And I love your macho mean guy schtick, by the way.
I'm not really going for macho, but thanks anyways.
I think the intent was to prohibit the use of public funds to promote/proplgate "green" initiatives and projects.
oh, well that sounds like a great idea. obviously my interpretation was way off, dumbshit.
You're interpretation was wrong, sorry. To the extent there are degrees of wrong, I'll leave that up to you. No reason to shoot the messenger. You seem to be a very closed minded, stubborn and foolish individual.
you interpreted it exactly like I did.
-
Wow. I mean, wow. :facepalm:
-
can we get back on track to the real embarrassment Kansas' government has caused the state?
-
and Kansas has double downed on stupidity
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhtmlimg2.scribdassets.com%2Fdsnzf28g02d7jq3%2Fimages%2F1-f2044869f4.jpg&hash=7a0384d1c4dd9c2e4646b0251f37f9e8e996efa4)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhtmlimg2.scribdassets.com%2Fdsnzf28g02d7jq3%2Fimages%2F2-e50d0243d9.jpg&hash=10efbbcb06093f8d9b23087e7d8d250637d860ab)
-
Bringing up fast and furious was a total pro move.
-
Bringing up fast and furious was a total pro move.
No doubt. He should change his title from Secretary to Stud of State.
-
So Kansas is trying to just do away with background checks for gun owners? Is there some other reason for wasting taxpayer money on this, or are background checks just that big a deal to gun nuts?
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
Yeah, spending more than half a million dollars on legal fees to ensure that mentally unstable people can still get their guns seems pretty awesome. :dunno:
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
Yeah, spending more than half a million dollars on legal fees to ensure that mentally unstable people can still get their guns seems pretty awesome. :dunno:
Kansans need guns
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
Yeah, spending more than half a million dollars on legal fees to ensure that mentally unstable people can still get their guns seems pretty awesome. :dunno:
Kansans need guns
It's not hard to get them. What is the point of spending the money?
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
Yeah, spending more than half a million dollars on legal fees to ensure that mentally unstable people can still get their guns seems pretty awesome. :dunno:
Kansans need guns
It's not hard to get them. What is the point of spending the money?
Trolling the Federal Government, I guess.
-
Typical Kansan: "NO ONE IS GONNA TAKE MAH GUNS!!!"
Reasonable Kansan: "No one is trying to, but do you really need an AK-47?"
Typical Kansan: "YES!!! AND IT'S MY RIGHT!"
Reasonable: "For what?"
Typical: "TO PROTECT MAH PROPERTAH!"
Reasonable: "From what?"
Typical: "INTRUDERS AND OBAMA!"
Reasonable: "1. Do you really need a fully automatic weapon to protect your front lawn 76 Chevy collection? 2. Presumably by Obama you mean the federal government. Allow me to introduce you to a little group that the federal government controls, the United States military. You're gonna take them on with an AK? Good luck."
Typical: "...PROTECT ME GUN!!!"
Being that the SCOTUS had deemed the right to bear arms an "Individual Right", you don't get to ask why someone would need an AK.
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
Yeah, spending more than half a million dollars on legal fees to ensure that mentally unstable people can still get their guns seems pretty awesome. :dunno:
Kansans need guns
It's not hard to get them. What is the point of spending the money?
Trolling the Federal Government, I guess.
Well, I guess I'm just too fiscally conservative to support this. Maybe if I were a social conservative, fiscal liberal like you, I would think it's awesome, too.
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
yeah trolling....except that Kansas is slashing needed money for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens who need state services under the guise of no money.
So this crap isn't funny or something that should be joked about. People see Kansas as a bunch of idiots who don't understand the constitution and are willing to let people in need get put in precarious position all for this bullshit. Just wait for when someone is discharged from Osawatomie because they don't have the budget to hold them and they shoot up a school or mall.
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
yeah trolling....except that Kansas is slashing needed money for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens who need state services under the guise of no money.
So this crap isn't funny or something that should be joked about. People see Kansas as a bunch of idiots who don't understand the constitution and are willing to let people in need get put in precarious position all for this bullshit. Just wait for when someone is discharged from Osawatomie because they don't have the budget to hold them and they shoot up a school or mall.
Yeah, I wish we were one of those states that didn't have any money and increased services. That's where we want to be.
As far as knowing what's constitutional, the obama administration probably has less credibility than Kansas, so its kind of a criple fight here.
LOL, at spending a couple hundo to protect your law as usurping public funds. LOFL. Red herring of the month there.
-
At least the majority of of expenditures on services provide some sort of public benefit, economic or otherwise. Kansas is spending hundred of thousands of dollars trying to uphold a law that will most likely decrease gun sales, hurting the economy, while at the same time making it easier for people who can't even pass a federal background check to obtain weapons, reducing public safety.
-
How does this law decrease gun sales and what rough ridin' federal background check are you talking about?
Seems like the dumbfucks in Kansas are the people preemptively butthurt about all this crap.
Guess what, if the federal govt sues you, you have to defend yourself. #thanksobama
-
The koch bros are trolling all of us
-
A law like this is likely to decrease gun sales for the same reason Obama being in office has increased them. Most of the people buying them are idiots who only want them because they are afraid they might not be able to get them in the future.
-
what rough ridin' federal background check are you talking about?
This one.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf (http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf)
-
Well, I guess I'm just too fiscally conservative to support this. Maybe if I were a social conservative, fiscal liberal like you, I would think it's awesome, too.
Red Herring. If anything blame the Feds for trying to push the issue.
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
People see Kansas as a bunch of idiots who don't understand the constitution and are willing to let people in need get put in precarious position all for this bullshit.
Even if this is true, IDGAF what smug assholes from San Francisco and New York think of us. They're idiots in their own rights for fucks sake. This whole 'Facepalm towards Kansas" thing in the Pit just wreaks of insecurity.
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
yeah trolling....except that Kansas is slashing needed money for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens who need state services under the guise of no money.
So this crap isn't funny or something that should be joked about. People see Kansas as a bunch of idiots who don't understand the constitution and are willing to let people in need get put in precarious position all for this bullshit. Just wait for when someone is discharged from Osawatomie because they don't have the budget to hold them and they shoot up a school or mall.
Yeah, I wish we were one of those states that didn't have any money and increased services. That's where we want to be.
As far as knowing what's constitutional, the obama administration probably has less credibility than Kansas, so its kind of a criple fight here.
LOL, at spending a couple hundo to protect your law as usurping public funds. LOFL. Red herring of the month there.
Low constitutional, american history, sovereignty, federalism IQ on display here folks.
The other great irony here which really brings FSD's ignorance home is that Kansas and Kobach specifically cite the Fugitive Slave acts in their letter which ended with the SCOTUS emphatically saying that states can't do exactly this.
-
Well, I guess I'm just too fiscally conservative to support this. Maybe if I were a social conservative, fiscal liberal like you, I would think it's awesome, too.
Red Herring. If anything blame the Feds for trying to push the issue.
bullshit. the Feds should always smash the opinions of ignorant state leaders, especially when it has the potential to interfere with the due course of the justice system.
-
So Kansas is trying to just do away with background checks for gun owners?
Not exactly.
-
So Kansas is trying to just do away with background checks for gun owners?
Not exactly.
What is the goal of this law, then?
-
So Kansas is trying to just do away with background checks for gun owners?
Not exactly.
What is the goal of this law, then?
To send a message. FWIW, only applies to stuff made/sold/kept in KS. I can't think of a single gun manufacturer located in KS. Maybe a couple custom shops?
-
Kansas doubled down on awesome. Just trolling the Federal government and driving Libs nuts.
yeah trolling....except that Kansas is slashing needed money for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens who need state services under the guise of no money.
So this crap isn't funny or something that should be joked about. People see Kansas as a bunch of idiots who don't understand the constitution and are willing to let people in need get put in precarious position all for this bullshit. Just wait for when someone is discharged from Osawatomie because they don't have the budget to hold them and they shoot up a school or mall.
Yeah, I wish we were one of those states that didn't have any money and increased services. That's where we want to be.
As far as knowing what's constitutional, the obama administration probably has less credibility than Kansas, so its kind of a criple fight here.
LOL, at spending a couple hundo to protect your law as usurping public funds. LOFL. Red herring of the month there.
Low constitutional, american history, sovereignty, federalism IQ on display here folks.
The other great irony here which really brings FSD's ignorance home is that Kansas and Kobach specifically cite the Fugitive Slave acts in their letter which ended with the SCOTUS emphatically saying that states can't do exactly this.
I like how Edna skips the srawman and goes straight for the jugular on the position you've never taken. Very efficient pit bbs'ing.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
-
Well, I guess I'm just too fiscally conservative to support this. Maybe if I were a social conservative, fiscal liberal like you, I would think it's awesome, too.
Red Herring. If anything blame the Feds for trying to push the issue.
bullshit. the Feds should always smash the opinions of ignorant state leaders, especially when it has the potential to interfere with the due course of the justice system.
I don't think they're being ignorant. Just trolling the gov and protecting our rights, ya know.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
I don't think KS has the abundance of raw materials to make guns for a long period of time. At some point they will have to bring items in, when that happens it is interstate commerce.
-
it appears that 90% of the KS gov. time is spent on non-satirical Thanks Obama stuff.
-
or, like, when every other right wing state government official watches fox news they kind of chuckle and realize it's over the top but the KS guys are all "SEE YOU AT THE TEA PARTY RALLY! :upsidedownamericanflag: :snaketreadonmeflag: :fuckscience.gif:"
-
or, like, when every other right wing state government official watches fox news they kind of chuckle and realize it's over the top but the KS guys are all "SEE YOU AT THE TEA PARTY RALLY! :upsidedownamericanflag: :snaketreadonmeflag: :fuckscience.gif:"
Primary elections in western KS are a real treat. You get to hear radio ads about which republicans are secret liberals who take vacations. General elections are generally just a bunch of guys running unopposed, though.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
I don't think KS has the abundance of raw materials to make guns for a long period of time. At some point they will have to bring items in, when that happens it is interstate commerce.
"Manufacturing of a firearm" doesn't occur at the raw material stage.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
I don't think KS has the abundance of raw materials to make guns for a long period of time. At some point they will have to bring items in, when that happens it is interstate commerce.
"Manufacturing of a firearm" doesn't occur at the raw material stage.
True. I suppose the thought is if you have the raw materials in state you can certainly manufacture the item in state.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
-
Have any of you guys ever driven by a salvage yard? There's plenty of steel in Kansas to manufacture a few thousand guns per year. We don't need an abundance of iron and whatever else goes into steel (nickel?) to manf in state. The stock could be made from any number of native trees (walnut, etc)
Also I don't think ammo gets thrown into the analysis any more than the cardboard/plastic the box it comes in is made from.
-
Have any of you guys ever driven by a salvage yard? There's plenty of steel in Kansas to manufacture a few thousand guns per year. We don't need an abundance of iron and whatever else goes into steel (nickel?) to manf in state. The stock could be made from any number of native trees (walnut, etc)
recycling steel sounds a little "sustainable" for Kansas. Be careful, Kansas gun manufacturers.
-
:lol:
-
Raw materials aren't regulated by what they are made into. I don't get this line of hypothesizing.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
No on all the first crap.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
No on all the first crap.
Tell me why. Simply wholly assembling a gun in a state doesn't exempt it from the CC.
-
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
i think what you're describing is called "camping"
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
No on all the first crap.
Tell me why. Simply wholly assembling a gun in a state doesn't exempt it from the CC.
Sure it does, assuming the parts were manufactured in state. Doesn't matter where the raw materials came from.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
No on all the first crap.
Tell me why. Simply wholly assembling a gun in a state doesn't exempt it from the CC.
Sure it does, assuming the parts were manufactured in state. Doesn't matter where the raw materials came from.
My point was the parts won't be manufactured in the state. The bill is a loser, and like losers it will lose. KS tax payers will have the honor of funding it losing. Making them losers by association.
-
To the extent ConLaw is "certain" or "decided," I think Kansas loses on the throwing feds in jail and wins on the hypothetical "guns manf and sold within the state". The Obamatards might even manage to lose the feds in jail point on ripeness.
I think they lose on making guns because they will have to bring stuff in. Ripeness is decent point. Have to throw an ATF agent in the Wyco county jail to find out.
Thought about that. Two things: 1) guns are made from wood and steel, two things easily found in Kansas, 2) the obamatards couldn't establish healthcare was an instrument of interstate commerce and this seems more difficult.
I think Kansas is flat overreaching with the fed agent jail time and the immenent harm probably makes the issue ripe. I guess we'll find out in 2 years.
There will have to be a gun manufacturer willing to smelt steel, from Kansas ore, and build stocks from Kansas trees, and then manufacture gunpowder, lead and the brass all in the state from only state found materials.
I actually don't think the arrest thing is ripe until there is an ATF agent arrested. I get imminent harm as a reason, but not likely on this issue until there is a wholly self contained gun and ammo manufacturer in KS. The arrest issue is secondary to that. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions. I'm giving you credit for your analysis, don't try and be a dick.
No on all the first crap.
Tell me why. Simply wholly assembling a gun in a state doesn't exempt it from the CC.
Sure it does, assuming the parts were manufactured in state. Doesn't matter where the raw materials came from.
My point was the parts won't be manufactured in the state. The bill is a loser, and like losers it will lose. KS tax payers will have the honor of funding it losing. Making them losers by association.
I'm willing to concede that if the bill were here to stay that it wouldn't have much affect on anything. I doubt there is enough in-state demand on firearms to make a business case for starting/moving a company here to manufacture parts (from raw materials) and assemble and sell guns to Kansans.
What I was saying earlier is that if company A sells company B blocks of aluminum, it doesn't have to ask or know what they're going to do with it. And selling a block of aluminum to someone isn't illegal, even if they were going to do something illegal with it. Also, where is the competitive advantage for an in-state gun manufacturer vs out-of-state?
Are they arguing that the no background check offers competitive advantage?