Huffington Post
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) on Tuesday signed what is being called the nation's most pro-Second Amendment law, but one that could face constitutional challenges. The Second Amendment Protection Act exempts all guns that were made in Kansas and have not left the state from all federal gun control laws.
Last week, Brownback had signed a law to expand concealed carry of guns in public buildings in the state. Both measures had been sought by pro-gun lawmakers as a way to promote and expand the firearms industry in Kansas.
"My understanding is, it is the strictest Second Amendment protection law in the nation," state Rep. Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee), a co-sponsor of the exemption legislation, told The Huffington Post.
"That is really great news. It creates a stark contrast with our neighbors in Colorado. I consider it a pro-job growth bill because of it encouraging the large gun manufacturers or those who make gun components to move to Kansas."
The hypocrites who want to trample states' rights with reciprocal concealed carry laws love this one. Let's hear the justification.
One result will be more of this and this. They should be proud.
I find the hypocrisy even more pronounced when you and other leftists scream about States' Rights when it comes to gun laws, but call people racists for saying anything about States' rights on any other issue.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there are ways to make these things jive. This type of law is striking back against the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause into the justification for Anything Congress wants to do. If States will push back like this on this issue and others issues, they can act as a check against Federal overgrowth.
Meanwhile, with the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the 2nd, an argument can be made for reciprocity protecting the bear part of keep and bear arms along with protecting people who are exercising their right to travel from being troubled as they pass through a new state. This would be an example of the Federal Government checking improper action by the state governments.
Checks and Balances go both ways. We need States' rights to prevent Federal Overreach, and we need Federal intervention on occasion to stop injustice committed by the state governments. There's nothing hypocritical about supporting each in its proper time and for the proper reasons.
Why do You and Your side support States' rights only when you can win more at the state level than at the national level, and otherwise want to demand that the Federal Government assert more control over the states like Tennessee that you can't win, mandating may-issue licensing, AWB, capacity bans, etc.?
Well stated, Tennessean. There is absolutely no hypocrisy, or even inconsistency, in supporting states' defense of their Tenth Amendment prerogative against federal usurpation of powers not delegated to Congress, and simultaneously advocating the rigid enforcement of the Second Amendment against state and local governments, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
DeleteIs there inconsistency? Maybe you thin-skinned gun guys take offense at the word hypocrisy. Let's call it inconsistent.
DeleteLet's call it inconsistent.
DeleteA) protect the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms from federal infringement (and simultaneously protect the states' Tenth Amendment prerogative to reject federal regulation where there is no Constitutionally enumerated Congressional power); B) protect the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms from state and/or local infringement (as mandated by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments).
Yep--that's "inconsistent," alright ;-).
Mikeb, why are you being difficult? Gun rights are enumerated as belonging to the people. It's not a question of states' rights. There is neither inconsistency nor hypocrisy in saying that the Federal government should defend basic rights.
DeleteMike, we're not as think skinned as you are--you started comment moderation just because Kurt called you names. When Anonymous (who then appeared as nick) constantly called us Gunsucks and any other name he could come up with, we laughed it off and just ridiculed him for not being able to use his words any more effectively than that.
DeleteSo no, it wasn't that the term "hypocrisy" stung too much for us to admit it. I told you Why it's neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for us to take these two positions. Kurt and Greg gave you the same answer. You just don't want to admit that we're internally consistent in our logical framework. It is possible for you to admit that without accepting our framework. You just don't want to since you prefer to accuse us falsely.
It's too late, the Second Amendment has been trashed long ago by popular neglect:
ReplyDelete"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
Here is an excerpt from Laci's quote above:
Delete"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia ..."
Thank you for emphasizing the goal of our modern government and people who support civilian disarmament (gun control).
Disarming the good citizens of our nation is NOT about security; it is about ensuring that the State can take away rights and liberties.
- TruthBeTold
And while we're at it:
ReplyDeleteJoseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91
1833
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
From Laci's quote above:
Delete"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers ..."
Apparently Laci is now against civilian disarmament because he is posting some of the best quotes available.
And for an example of this RIGHT NOW, please read the letters that the New York Sheriffs Benevolent Association and New York State Police Benevolent Association have written to the New York State Legislature and Governor. They know that the recent New York SAFE Act is unconstitutional and a blatant power grab. And they know that citizens are going to use their firearms to defend themselves when New York County Sheriffs and State Police show up to confiscate their property. And they know it is going to be ugly. Hence both the Sheriffs and State Police are urging the Legislature and Governor to repeal the SAFE Act.
The Legislature and Governor passed laws in violation of their state and U.S. Constitutions and no arm of government has come to provide relief for the good citizens of New York. That task has defaulted to the armed citizens of New York. Fortunately they have both the determination AND the tools to provide relief for themselves. This is exactly why the Framers wrote the Second Amendment.
- TruthBeTold
And, of course, Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840):
ReplyDeleteTo make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.
Laci,
DeleteThank you for shooting your argument in both feet and then shoving them into your mouth.
Your argument seems to be as follows: We get to ban guns because the Second Amendment is null. Why is it null, well, because we have already destroyed the militia and set up the standing army that these quotes warn against! Past generations' failure to safeguard their liberties means that you cannot reassert them.
Frankly, that smacks of tyranny to me, and all I can say is Bring it, _____.
Your first two quotes make the case for why we need a militia. The first one even describes how tyrants' first goal is to destroy the ability to raise the Militia.
And based on that, you want us to say, "Oh well, the militia fell into disuse; rather than trying to return to that ideal and reign in the U.S. Government's military adventurism, we should let those in power disarm us so that the militia can never be formed again."
Instead, that quote, and the warnings in the next one, tell us that we should fight any attempts to take us further from the founders' concept of a militia, and that we should, instead, try to get back to that principle. Rather than giving up our rights to arms, we should be fighting to strengthen them, and we should be looking for ways to revive the well-regulated militia and to use it to replace our reliance on our overgrown money-pit that is the Department of Defense.
I also find it hilarious that you usually write posts accusing us of insurrectionism, and yet, in your quest to support gun control, you quote a passage that describes the militia as a protection against domestic usurpations of power--that's insurrectionist talk according to you!!!
Finally, yes, in Aymette the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that "bear arms" meant bear in a military context. There is a legitimate argument to be made that this antebellum court made the wrong call under the Tennessee Constitution, but I won't bore everyone with that since most folks live in other states.
Of course, this is the ruling of one state's court on the meaning of that term in it's state constitution. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has not weighed in on it's constitution yet. It could go in a different direction, or it could follow Aymette. Even if they go with Aymette, they could find that carrying a weapon is one of those rights that is not enumerated in the Constitution but is still recognized.
Please, keep making these inane arguments. You're a great supplier of useful quotes. Just like your quotes from Blackstone in the other thread, your quotes here make a point that is the exact opposite of the one you're seeking to make. It's really quite entertaining to watch!
Give it up, Laci. You lost Heller. The Second Amendment is an individual right and if you don't like it, you can shove it
DeleteThis doesn't trample on states' rights. Gun rights are specifically named as belonging to the people, not the states. In the same way, your articles that you linked to have nothing to do with concealed carry.
ReplyDeleteLaci, the more you talk, the more desperate you sound. More and more, states are moving my direction. A few are digging themselves deeper into your foolishness. Keep pushing. After all, the country surely isn't divided enough, right?
MikeB wrote, "The hypocrites who want to trample states' rights with reciprocal concealed carry laws ..."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the people who trampled states' rights with reciprocal driver's license laws?
- TruthBeTold
Or those who trampled States Rights by ending slavery and Jim Crow?
DeleteStates' Rights protect the states' rights to do whatever wasn't delegated to the Federal Government under the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. They end when the states decide to violate the guaranteed freedoms of their citizens.
It really warms my heart to see states passing laws (like Kansas SB 102--the bill we're talking about here) that criminalize enforcement of some federal gun laws in the state, under some circumstances.
ReplyDeleteNot that there isn't room for improvement. What I would dearly love to see is beefing up the law to stipulate that if the state is forced to fire shots in order to uphold laws like this--either the BATFE agents resist arrest or "try to escape"--the federal government will be billed for the ammunition used.
Ammo is expensive, you know.
Hey Mikeb, you always amuse me with your whining about whether Arizona or Florida is the "most baneful" (which apparently translates among decent, intelligent people to "least nannystatist") state. Could you honor Arizona with some additional "banefulness" over the new law (pending Governor Brewer's signature) banning the destruction of guns obtained via "buy-backs"--instead requiring them to be sold to dealers?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that cool? Even better, it really sounds like a buyer's market. If the cities have to sell them, they can't really be picky about their asking price, eh?
A win-win situation.
Yes, Arizona could easily take the Crown back, but no because of this one. I'm not really opposed to reselling the turned-in guns.
DeleteOk, you owe me for a tube of Preparation H, because I literally just shit a brick! A difference between you and other members of your movement that I didn't expect.
DeleteI "fleshed it out" in a new post today.
Delete