ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sean Parnell has signed a measure exempting firearms, accessories and ammunition made and kept in-state from federal gun regulations.That's it, one line, no fuss no muss.
I remember when the same issue was being debated in Montana, there were numerous news articles and reports. In Alaska, it doesn't take all that.
That's why Alaska is such a gun paradise.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This subject reminds me of a different but related subject.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading about a proposal if Heller had gone the wrong way. If the Court had perverted the language of the 2nd A and the intent of the Founders to find that the RKBA only applied to the "militia," states like AK and MT could enact a law stating:
"For purposes of the 2nd A, the militia of this state shall consist of all citizen over 21 who meet the following criteria (no felony conviction, etc.) who would be subject to voluntary callup by the state in times of emergency."
Thus the RKBA of that group (most citizens) would be protected from infringement by the fed govt. Gun control advocates would have to argue that RKBA may protect the state militia from the fed govt but the fed govt gets to decide who the militia is.
That would be like the old USSR, where their constitution guaranteed freedom of the press but the Party decided who was the press and who was not. Result: No freedom at all.
Of course, this "militia" proposal was made moot by Heller, and even before that most gunowner advocates did not comment on the proposal due to their confidence in the outcome of Heller.
This is being attempted in other states as well.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it fails on two fronts. First, very few of the guns sold in a given state -- not to mention the ammunition they fire -- were made in that state. Second, it won't pass Constitutional muster; can you imagine a state trying to exempt some industry from OSHA laws or child labor laws?
In reality, this law will have no effect since it won't affect any firearms and if, on the off-chance it does, it will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Of course, the sole purpose of this law is to play to the rubes he think they've achieved some major victory. I can guarantee you that Parnell and his idiots know this law carries no weight.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: Of course, it fails on two fronts. First, very few of the guns sold in a given state -- not to mention the ammunition they fire -- were made in that state.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that might change to some extent if such a law was passed and withstood court challenge.
JadeGold: Second, it won't pass Constitutional muster; can you imagine a state trying to exempt some industry from OSHA laws or child labor laws?
Proponents are trying to pass such laws precisely because they believe them to be Constitutional and welcome a resolution in court.
JadeGold may be right however, for the reason that he gives. Despite the homage to the Constitution paid by both liberal and conservative justices, I do not think that they are totally removed from consideration of the practical consequences of their decisions. Upholding such laws might set the stage for a drasic reduction of federal powers in other areas, and even a conservative-leaning court might not wish to go that far.
{{Proponents are trying to pass such laws precisely because they believe them to be Constitutional and welcome a resolution in court.}}
ReplyDeleteBaloney.
They are trying to pass such laws to placate gunloon rubes. It's like those idiots in GA who are passing laws to forbid the federal Govt. from embedding microchips in citizens.
Essentially, they are passing laws that apply to nothing and wouldn't pass court muster.
--JadeGold
Good. A victory for the 10th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI love this explanation:
ReplyDelete"They are trying to pass such laws to placate gunloon rubes. It's like those idiots in GA who are passing laws to forbid the federal Govt. from embedding microchips in citizens."
Thanks JadeGold.
Jadegold: "very few of the guns sold in a given state -- not to mention the ammunition they fire -- were made in that state."
ReplyDeleteSuch a word-for-word quote should probably credit the source:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/new_gun-rights_gambit_sweeping_nation_firearms_fre.php?ref=fpb
From the same article: As one group supporting the campaign writes, "The [Firearms Freedom Act] is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the "commerce clause," with firearms as the object - it is a state's rights exercise."
So for many supporters, their motive is more to re-assert the Tenth Amendment than it is about guns. They expect that they will be challenged in court but hope that they will prevail.
I don't believe that they will.
MikeB: “I love this explanation:
ReplyDelete"They are trying to pass such laws to placate gunloon rubes. It's like those idiots in GA who are passing laws to forbid the federal Govt. from embedding microchips in citizens."
Thanks JadeGold.”
Are you sure Jadegold said it? Could be another case of ctrl-c, ctrl-v.
with Alaska so remote and very few gun or ammo
ReplyDeleteshippers from the lower 48 serving Alaska made in Alaska
stands a good chance of working. at least to me
That certainly sounds more reasonable than when Montana says it.
ReplyDelete