kansas says eff you to federal government

[michigancat]

I never would have known that sustainability was a controversial subject for butthurt conservatives until I read this thread. 


 

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")

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.

[michigancat]

^^^^^^^
Has no idea what the bill (which didn't leave committee) says.

It's linked in this thread. You could read it.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

^^^^^^^
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.

[michigancat]

^^^^^^^
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

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why?

[michigancat]

Why?

You said I don't understand the bill, and I want to. What are you afraid of?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[Shacks]

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?

[Dugout DickStone]

Help the dude out FSD.

[OK_Cat]

wow, m-cat just called FSD's bluff and now FSD got caught with his pants down. 

what will happen next?  STAY TUNED!

[Cire]

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

[jmlynch1]

What a fun and expensive game of chicken 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[Dugout DickStone]

FSD admits he can't read the bill.  Shock

[michigancat]

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.

[p1k3]

I think it makes Kansas look pretty awesome.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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. 

[michigancat]

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.

[jmlynch1]

I love both of you

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[sonofdaxjones]

This has been a really great thread.

Fantastic work fellas.   

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[michigancat]

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.