5/04/2013

Kansas' new law to nullify federal gun controls faces challenges, asks for original interpretation of Constitution & Bill of Rights

My take is that the people who wrote the US Constitution and who voted for the Bill of Rights would support Kansas' new law.  It seems very clear that in that sense Kansas is in the right.  The problem is that in the past the US Supreme Court has ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and have so misinterpreted the Commerce clause as to make it meaningless.  Will Eric Holder or the Courts rehabilitate these parts of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution?  Don't hold your breath.  

Some important parts of the Kansas law are as follows:

(a) The tenth amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees to the
states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in theconstitution and reserves to the state and people of Kansas certain powers as they wereunderstood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861. The guaranty of those powers 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.
(b) The ninth amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Kansas certain rights as they were understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861.  The guaranty of those rights 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 wasagreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (c) 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. . . .
This discussion of the Commerce clause doesn't make the same defense of how it should be read, but clearly they are just assuming that people understand that it should be read as it was up until the Roosevelt court.

From The Hill newspaper:
The Obama administration is on a collision course with the state of Kansas over a new law that claims to nullify federal gun controls.
Attorney General Eric Holder has threatened litigation against Kansas over the law in what could the opening salvo of a blockbuster legal battle with national ramifications.
“This is definitely a case that could make it to the Supreme Court,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said Friday afternoon. “There is nothing symbolic about this law.” 
Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, helped craft the statute, which bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines. . . .
There is a later discussion in The Hill newspaper piece that quotes Mr. Winkler in support of Holder's position.  Given that the Federal government has complete regulation these days to regulate  everything by claiming that everything has some impact on interstate trade, Winkler is right.  However, it would be nice if just as newspapers fell that it is necessary to identify experts as "conservative," it would be nice if they would identify people such as Winkler as liberal or at least someone who consistently supports gun control.

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

It's about time that an entity such as a State has stood up for the Constitution.

5/06/2013 1:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home