Kentucky Senate passes anti-ban legislation

[KeithKSR]

On to the house.... http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/25/2531789/kentucky-senate-advances-proposal.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

[BigBlueBrock]

If the federal government were to outright ban certain kinds of firearms (they won't), this law wouldn't prevent them from confiscating them or doing a force "buy back." It looks good on paper, but has no teeth. The same way the DEA can still bust medical marijuana shops and growers in California, despite MM being legal in that state, the feds can absolutely enforce a gun ban without state help. And yes, this law would absolutely be unconstitutional, as well as being toothless.

[CitizenBBN]

If the federal government were to outright ban certain kinds of firearms (they won't), this law wouldn't prevent them from confiscating them or doing a force "buy back." It looks good on paper, but has no teeth. The same way the DEA can still bust medical marijuana shops and growers in California, despite MM being legal in that state, the feds can absolutely enforce a gun ban without state help. And yes, this law would absolutely be unconstitutional, as well as being toothless.

No I don't think we're to confiscation yet, but we know per their own statements that Feinstein and others would love to get there, and these sorts of votes while not long term binding do have the effect of making the position of the states and their citizens clear, and that is also a purpose of laws.

Yes it's symbolic, but symbols can have power and influence. When entire states vote such things it sends a message that gun owners are not some fringe minority and to individual gun rights supporters that they are not alone and that encourages them to hold that belief and stand up for it. Just like bandwagon marketing of products, it makes a difference when such strong statements are made.

Legally it won't do much, but as a symbol of a position it can be significant. What Stein calls "pandering" she no doubt calls "a proclamation of support" when she agrees with it.

No surprise Kathy Stein is against it. She's a liberal and separately not very bright, but she stays in office despite my embarrassment that she's my state Senator.

[CitizenBBN]

PS -- I'd like to have it in my back pocket when I went to try to talk Mossberg et al into leaving the blue states and finding a new home. :)

[KeithKSR]

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those things that Congress was granted the authority to regulate within the Constitution.

[BigBlueBrock]

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those things that Congress was granted the authority to regulate within the Constitution.

Only partially correct:


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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

See emphasized. And there's precedent for this particular use of the Supremacy Clause:




In Edgar v. Mite Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_v._Mite_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1), 457 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 624 (https://supreme.justia.com/us/457/624/case.html) (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#cite_note-3)




Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
"...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."




I would say this possible KY law meeting both of the above conditions could be easily argued and won by a competent Constitutional lawyer.

[KeithKSR]

A competent Constitutional lawyer could also easily argue that a huge number of federal laws that are not Constitutionally valid; which is why the Supreme Court used the wording "valid Federal statute." The Constitution gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce; if a company resides in this state and sells to people in this state that is intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce.

[BigBlueBrock]

A competent Constitutional lawyer could also easily argue that a huge number of federal laws that are not Constitutionally valid; which is why the Supreme Court used the wording "valid Federal statute." The Constitution gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce; if a company resides in this state and sells to people in this state that is intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce.

True and good points. At any rate, it's still a toothless law. I don't personally like "symbolic" legislation. I find it to be a grand waste of time especially when this state has real problems, like a **** public school system and budgetary issues. I'd prefer Frankfort spend this special off-session year accomplishing tangible things as opposed to passing legislation to counteract federal law that may never even come to pass and that wouldn't prevent the feds from enforcing that law, anyway.

[dan_bgblue]

Passage of the law makes the majority of the voters happy. What more could a politician wish for?

[BigBlueBrock]

Passage of the law makes the majority of the voters happy. What more could a politician wish for?

Also a very good point. /sigh

[KeithKSR]

Normally I am against symbolic legislation, but not when it serves the purpose of letting the voters will be demonstrated to others.

[CitizenBBN]

Also, this particular legislation didn't really divert us. there wasn't some other issue this hijacked, and it appears to have only taken about 6 hours. A lot in a short session admittedly, but it didn't require anyone using any political weight. If Stein and the 2 Louisville Senators had just sat down and shut up it looks like it would have taken about 10 minutes.

I'm for it when it sends a message beyond just making the base feel good. This does make the base feel good, but it also says to gun owners they aren't a minority or out of mainstream thinking, an impression the national media tries to create. Their desire to get a carry license or even own and shoot an evil assault weapon isn't deviant, at least not in Kentucky.

Not a fan of "feel good" legislation but this one doesn't negatively impact real policy goals and could at the margin encourage people to get on the right side of the issue, so I'm good with it in this narrow case.

An example of seriously dangerous feel good legislation is the Feinstein ban, which we have established does nothing to improve public safety but diverts us from possible solutions and impacts people's choices without need, all done to feel like we did something. This bill doesn't hurt anyone, the ban does. That's all the difference to me in how I feel about "feel good" legislation.