Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act?

[PatrioticDisorder]

http://www.startribune.com/ruling-kansas-gun-law-no-defense-to-federal-firearm-charges/497742841/

I remember hearing about this law being passed, I believe one or two other states have passed such laws. I sorta forgot about it. So yesterday I was looking into individual state gun laws and came across this law, it had me scratching my head at first, then I see a couple of guys were actually prosecuted for having unregistered silencers and cited this law as their defense. Their current status is they are on probation but convicted felons (now barred from firearm ownership) federally, 10th circuit recently rejected their appeal.

My question is, what are the chances this ends up in SCOTUS? Has anyone been following this? This case could have HUGE implications if it ends up in SCOTUS and not just in regard to 2a/RKBA but also 10a/states’ rights and commerce clause implications, yet I haven’t heard a word about this case.

[Bulletdog]

Seems like a classic case of states rights vs. the feds. I've long pondered this conundrum, as it can help or hurt us. Being here in CA behind enemy lines, I keep holding out hope that the Feds will come in and tell the commie criminals running my state that they can't trample people's rights and ignore the constitution and the right's it protects. On the other hand, I think its great that a state like Kansas wants to say that restrictive federal gun laws don't apply in their state.

In other words: I want it both ways when it suits me. As bad as that sounds, I rationalize it because what "suits me" in this case is maximizing personal freedom, escaping tyrannical unconstitutional laws both at the federal and state levels, and following the damn Constitution and Bill of rights. The problem comes when politicians on either side want to do the wrong thing, which has been frequent in our country's last few decades.

Maybe this is the right time for SCOTUS to see a case like this, given our two newest appointees. Maybe this could do us more harm than good if it doesn't go our way. I don't know. What I do know is that just a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have even entertained the thought of killing the NFA, or at least retain portions of it like suppressors. Now, with Trump in office, all of his appointees from the top down, and our new SCOTUS picks, this is a very real possibility.

[Naxet1959]

So let's look at this same situation but with a different product: Marijuana. Colorado says it's legal, Federal law says not so. When does the crackdown begin?

[MorphCross]

So let's look at this same situation but with a different product: Marijuana. Colorado says it's legal, Federal law says not so. When does the crackdown begin?

Both are victimless offenses thus both should be thrown into regulatory trash bins. Until prosecution can prove you are a known danger (such as reckless impairment while driving or an assault with a deadly weapon charge) there is no reason for these laws, restrictions, or regulations.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Seems like a classic case of states rights vs. the feds. I've long pondered this conundrum, as it can help or hurt us. Being here in CA behind enemy lines, I keep holding out hope that the Feds will come in and tell the commie criminals running my state that they can't trample people's rights and ignore the constitution and the right's it protects. On the other hand, I think its great that a state like Kansas wants to say that restrictive federal gun laws don't apply in their state.

In other words: I want it both ways when it suits me. As bad as that sounds, I rationalize it because what "suits me" in this case is maximizing personal freedom, escaping tyrannical unconstitutional laws both at the federal and state levels, and following the damn Constitution and Bill of rights. The problem comes when politicians on either side want to do the wrong thing, which has been frequent in our country's last few decades.

Maybe this is the right time for SCOTUS to see a case like this, given our two newest appointees. Maybe this could do us more harm than good if it doesn't go our way. I don't know. What I do know is that just a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have even entertained the thought of killing the NFA, or at least retain portions of it like suppressors. Now, with Trump in office, all of his appointees from the top down, and our new SCOTUS picks, this is a very real possibility.

I’d love to see 2a rights restored to California, I can see why you live there despite the BS. I’m not gonna lie, La Jolla is the most gorgeous area in the entire US I’ve has the pleasure of visiting, it basically has the perfect weather and topography, breathtaking views.

[MegademiC]

Both are victimless offenses thus both should be thrown into regulatory trash bins. Until prosecution can prove you are a known danger (such as reckless impairment while driving or an assault with a deadly weapon charge) there is no reason for these laws, restrictions, or regulations.

This. Seems the 90s-early 2000s were the height of restriction in our lifetimes and is finally trending back.
We just have to keep it going.