Legislators Considering Law on State-Made Weapons
Associated Press - Tue 10:56 AM 02/05/2013
The Kansas House is considering a bill that would exempt firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made in the state from federal regulations.
The Kansas House is considering a bill that would exempt firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition made in the state from federal regulations.
The "Made in Kansas" bill also would prevent physicians - other than psychiatrists - from asking patients if they have firearms in their homes.
The bill has 50 sponsors from both parties. Supporters say it is aimed at protecting both gun owners' rights and states' rights.
A similar bill introduced last session passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
An initial hearing in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee is expected to be held next week.
---
Associated Press information from: The Hutchinson News
Comments must stay on topic and be respectful. Comments that are personal attacks, make unfounded accusations, or are for the purpose of "trolling" or inciting others will be removed. Offending users will have their profile suspended.
Post a comment Log in or Register to comment
ShadowCipher
Tuesday 5 February 2013 13:03 Report this comment
Can somebody enlighten me on how a state-level bill can make federal regulations exempt? I am very much a pro-firearms person, but I guess I don't quite understand how the state would have more push in this situation.
failed_logic
Tuesday 5 February 2013 13:55 Report this comment
10th Amendment. One has to realize that ever since the 30s the Federal Government has decided IT is the supreme being, NOT the states. This country was founded as one of states first, bound together with a federal level. This bill is simply using the power it's had all along to tell the feds to go F*** themselves. Much the same way those states have legalized marijuana. This bill is basically saying the state and other agencies under it can't enforce the federal law, should one be enacted.
retired
Tuesday 5 February 2013 14:26 Report this comment
ShadowCipher is right. It would never hold up in court if the Feds challenged it. Just another case of the Kansas legislature wasting time.
KooKooKaChew
Tuesday 5 February 2013 14:35 Report this comment
Sorry SC and retired, you are laboring under a misconception. The 10th gives the states those rights not specifically given to the Federal government. There has been an encroachment over the last few decades that SEEM to contradict that. Things have now reached a point where the States are re-asserting their rights. As an aside, all current federal weapons laws claim their authority from the Constitution's Interstate Commerce clause. A stretch, if there ever was one. Please find some older history books (pre-1960) and read what the American Revolution was really about. It might be enlightening.
retired
Tuesday 5 February 2013 16:04 Report this comment
Hey Cuckoo. I always say everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong they are.
dmore
Tuesday 5 February 2013 18:05 Report this comment
From Article VI of the Constitution of the United State of America: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The state legislators are just wasting time and money.
ShadowCipher
Tuesday 5 February 2013 19:21 Report this comment
Very interesting! Thank you for the replies.
Aurora.
Tuesday 5 February 2013 23:02 Report this comment
My doctor asks me about having a gun he better dive for cover.
failed_logic
Wednesday 6 February 2013 07:16 Report this comment
dmore...yes they are the law of the land, BUT if the law is unconstitutional in the first place, the state and the people have a duty to disobey that law.
tracr
Wednesday 6 February 2013 08:37 Report this comment
ShadowCipher, the federal government enacts laws regulating ownership and transfer of specific items based on the Commerce Clause, which applies to interstate commerce only. So, since the Kansas bill is stating that items manufactured in Kansas are exempt from federal law, they are actually passing a law that is already in existence, but because it specifically mentions firearms, it is making a statement to the feds that we, as Kansans, reject the premise that the federal government has power over INTRAstate manufacture and sale of firearms and related items.
tracr
Wednesday 6 February 2013 08:47 Report this comment
dmore, also from the second amendment of the Constitution of the United State of America, the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Militia being defined as: Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years. The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[124] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." The supreme court also ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the second amendment is an individual right, not just those in the militia.