About the only possible value of a new gun law signed last week by Gov. Sam Brownback would be if it really were an economic development strategy by gun-friendly Kansas. But of course that wasn’t the purpose. A similar law already has been struck down in Montana, not that a gun manufacturer would open an assault weapon plant here in Kansas even if anyone thought such a law would pass constitutional muster.
That law says in part that the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms manufactured, sold and only in Kansas. Any federal agency attempting to enforce federal gun law in Kansas could be charged with a felony.
Sound just a little ludicrous?
How about this part: “Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”
Well, duh. That’s just a little redundant. Stating the obvious.
Of course any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation that is unconstitutional in the U.S. also would be so in Kansas. The U.S. Supreme Court would see to that, and it wouldn’t make any difference whether it was Kansas or any other state.
Do we also need a First Amendment Protection Act in Kansas? We could do one for each of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Never mind that Kansas originally ratified them in the first place. Let’s do it again.
— The Hutchinson News