sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Obama Continues his Assault on the Bill of Rights

The Obama Administration continues its assault on the Bill of Rights. This time it's the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that Attorney General has set his sight on. 
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Soon after Barack Obama became president, vowing to restrict, or to eliminate to the extent possible, privately owned firearms, Montana passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Drawing on the Ninth, Tenth and Second Amendments, which are essential components to the Bill of Rights, they crafted a law wherein firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government," as Madison put it. And comes Mr. Obama and his creature, Attorney General Eric Holder, who feel as if ALL POWER should be placed in the hands of the Federal Government in defiance of Constitutional Law.

Montana is not the only state to enact a firearms freedom statute. 

These States have Firearms Freedom Acts:

Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, Arizona and Kansas

These States have introduced Firearms Freedom Acts which have not yet been ratified:

New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Which brings us to Kansas

The Kansas Firearms Freedom Law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items. According to the bill a federal agent convicted for the first time under the Kansas law could serve up to six months in prison, although probation would be the more likely sentence.
(Fox News) What happens in Kansas stays in Kansas. At least that's what Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is telling Attorney General Holder about guns sold to residents of the state. A new state law contends that guns purchased in the state to Kansans were free of any federal regulations and federal agents who try to enforce the federal laws will be committing a felony. 
The Federal government's regulation of gun/gun accessory sales is based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution which regulates interstate commerce, but it is the states contention that the guns are produced, sold, and remain in Kansas so the interstate commerce clause does not apply.
Getting ready for what will be a long draw-out court battle Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt as asked the state legislature to increase its budget by $225,000 over the next two years to cover the extra litigation costs that will come up with what the Kansas believes will be a legal showdown with the United States Government.


8 comments:

  1. I was going to blog about this. I would think its a moot point (charging a federal agent), except for the purpose of making the point. I agree with this law completely.

    What makes it moot? How many federal gun laws are enforced, and prosecuted? Of course I am thinking about federal agents making cases against bad guys. HOWEVER, when you bring in the ATF, targeting otherwise non-criminals, on some sort of federal weapons violation...all bets are off.

    (I believe DOJ already sent a letter to Brownback that this will not fly, federal agents are protected. However, an FBI Special Agent was charged recently in Puerto Rico with a state law after a blue-on-blue incident. The FBI brought him to state court and represented him in his due process - ultimately prevailing in that he could NOT be charged (supremacy). But they went through the motions. There is now proposed legislation to stop even "going through the motions" as it 1) cost the taxpayers a lot and 2) put the agent through unnecessary hell. )

    If you are a federal law enforcement officer in Kansas, and you find yourself afoul of this law...you need to find better things to do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that we see this the same way.

      The State of Kansas wanted to make a point that it has the Constitutional right to regulate intrastate commerce. It's not about going after bad guys and charging them with a federal crime for doing bad things. It's designed to protect law abiding citizens of the State of Kansas who own firearms made in Kansas and carry ammunition made in Kansas from the unlawful and unconstitutional POTENTIAL behavior of federal law enforcement officers.

      Kansas likely wants to take this to the Supreme Court simply to clarify things. So far, there haven't been federal law enforcement people running around arresting good people for mere firearms ownership.

      The Obama Administration has generated a lot of bad will when it comes to its handling of the Bill of RIghts and some states are reacting predictably. People fear the government more now than in any other time in recent history (hope and change). That's why the shelves of gun stores are empty and you can't buy ammo.

      Delete
  2. Leftie-wonks feel the Constitution should be cut up and burned. Such concerned, fine people, who care so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama, the Constitutional scholar, joins with the "progressives" with the notion that the portions of the Constitution that conflict with their ambitions should be 'set aside' (scrapped).

      Delete
  3. Red states need to protect themselves as much as possible. And who knows. All this activity might distract Holder from sending more guns to more cartels, or some such activity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the cartels are now importing fully automatic AK-47's and rocket propelled grenades into the US (more profit than drugs), that market may have shifted out from under Obama and Holder... But you're absolutely on track with the need for Red States (also called Free States) to hold onto what bits of sovereignty that they have left.

      Delete
  4. The same as States that declared themselves U.N. FREE.
    Feds showed up at their meetings (to declare U.N. Free), and tried to shut down the meetings (with arrest bulling talk),
    the States told the Feds to leave or the States would call
    an Emergency Grand Jury- and arrest the Feds.
    So, the Feds left.
    It does work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it does.

      And the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

      Delete

It's virtual - it's a mirage - it's life