Half of the State House has signed on as cosponsors to Rep. Mike Chenault’s “Exempt Firearms from Federal Regulation” bill. House Bill 69 is a measure that’s supposed to protect Alaskans’ Second Amendment rights by nullifying any new gun laws passed by Congress in response to last year’s mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut. However, if HB 69 passes, it will likely be declared unconstitutional. And judging from the U.S. Supreme Court record, Congress may well have the constitutional authority to strengthen gun registration laws and pass a new statute banning the commercial sale of assault weapons.
Chenault’s bill isn’t really breaking new ground. It’s only an amendment to a state law passed in 2009 that exclusively addressed firearms and ammunition manufactured in Alaska.
As former state Rep. Mike Kelly explained in his sponsor statement for that bill, it was a means to circumvent restrictive federal gun laws put in place by Congress under the authority of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Now I’m not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, and neither is our esteemed Speaker of the House. However, it doesn’t take a legal expert to know there’s no major industry manufacturing anything here. So in reality the 2009 statute was of little consequence. Chenault, however, has taken the existing law and inserted “possessed in this state” in the four places that refer to firearms, accessories and ammunition being manufactured in Alaska. It’s truly a direct challenge to the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause because it’s going to affect a far greater number of weapons by including those purchased outside and transported into the state.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently struck down such attempts by the states to nullify federal laws. But the Court has not been so decisive on the matter of individual rights related to the Second Amendment. It was only in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller where they overturned a Washington, D.C .handgun law, that the Court declared it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The militia, of course, is an archaic idea. Aside from the Second Amendment debate, it disappeared from the American conscience almost two centuries ago.
Back at the time our Constitution was drafted though they were means of America’s national defense. In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, which were the original laws of our new nation, the states were required to “always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia” that was “sufficiently armed and accoutered.” That’s because Congress was given no power to levy taxes or appropriate funds for defense.
While the Constitution changed that, it still left the authority for training the militias to the states. So it seems reasonable to infer that the Second Amendment was only intended to apply to firearm ownership in relation to service in a state militia. That’s consistent with Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion in the D.C. v. Heller case, in which he also argued “there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” In other words, just as the right to own a horse wasn’t enumerated in the Bill of Rights, owning guns for self defense and hunting needed no constitutional protection.
However, it’s the majority opinion from the same case that implies Congress can regulate the type of guns people can own.
Despite the fact that the 5-4 decision upended 220 years of history, conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the rights of individual firearm ownership “secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Further, he stated, it’s limited to common firearms and excludes “dangerous and unusual weapons” that have been historically prohibited.
Which category do military style assault guns fall into? They’re not hunting weapons. And the vast majority of Americans don’t think they’re needed for self defense. So if the U.S. Congress bans them, as they should, then it’s highly unlikely Alaska’s lawmakers can do anything about it.
• Moniak is a Juneau resident.
Comments (55)
Add commentThanks for supporting my
Thanks for supporting my points that you are unwilling to enter a discussion which pretty much makes your opinion useless. I'm sure glad the supreme court felt differently when it comes to the second amendment. You can read it as slowly as you need to sound out the words it doesn't change the fact that your opinion is different then the majority of Americans, the president, the supreme court. Having a different opinion is fine, but when you spew insults and a child like level of understanding it just makes even reading your posts pointless. Welcome to ignore, I hope you don't have children or if you do your like most republicans and rely on the school district to raise your kids and when they form differing views then you, you can just blame someone else for your failing to be a parent.
Here's something new...
How about if the individual is blamed? If the assailant is under 18, which many are, how about holding the parents liable? Let's stop blaming the machine, it doesn't work. We can sue the tobacco companies, shut down the gun factories, blame cars for DUI deaths, it won't change. King Obama claims we are not to blame for anything but we really need to look in the mirror to solve our problems.
ALASKA STU
for your information my daughters could easily shoot and scout better than most men in this town.
As to being placed on ignore:how infantile;just goes to prove how you liberals are.
Then we have the ruling on the constitution the majority of the populace cannot change the constitution.
It can be attempted but there are numerous levels of court processes that are needed to be passed and then that may not even work.
And a lovely for you is i could really give a rats crack as to what the rest of the population thinks,this is a Republic not a democracy get it.
Republic stands and all democracies have failed.
and
My adult children are tax paying citizens since leaving high school and college;not a burden on the taxpayers.
We need to treat the first
We need to treat the first amendment like we treat the second amendment.
That is, registration and licensing for all and sundry. One can't even begin to count the dead for all the misuse of free speech; literally billions have died because of crackpot ideas.
Let's face it, when the first amendment was created, you actually had to be in the vicinity of your victim to addle his brain. We've got phones and puters now, much more powerful tools the founders could hardly have foreseen.
At the very least we need a conversation about keeping phones, faxes, letters and, the atomic bomb of speech, the interwebs, out of the hands of the irresponsible. Fortunately, this would mean we'd never have to hear from pinkos again. But, I for one, am willing to make that sacrifice.
I hope Moniak
isn't a product of Juneau schools because he doesn't understand the basis of and wording of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights, it acknowledges rights. Yes, blood had to be spilled to enforce those rights but the rights existed even when Great Britain didn't allow them, and that is what the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence say. So changing the Constitution would not take away the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but it might mean that more blood needs to be spilled.
Oh my goodness!
Even MORE tough talk from glacierdogs!
So man up and say what you mean, geedog. Are you threatening to shoot federal agents in the performance of their duties? C'mon boy, don't be coy. Lay it out there.
Hey lawrence a love
Just FYI - when someone puts you "on ignore", it means they actually click a button that says "ignore user", and your messages no longer show up for them. I mean - writing to them at that point is meaningless, cause they can't even see your message....just sayin.
dont matter
You can push all the ignore buttons you want i will still say what i say,got a problem with that.
Cant fix stupid ya know ha ha ha :-)
223
Looking forward to meeting and walking with you on Feb 23 Lawrence. I usually engage on these forums regarding these issues but have since learned there is no sense in wasting my time trying to convince communists of their folly.
for
some gun control means using both hands, but we all must remember to squeeze not pull the trigger. and never register your gun if you want to keep it
Dont Tread on Me
Liberty or Death, What we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, Rattling of her tail
Never begins it. NEVER! But once enraged
Never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage
Dont tread on me!
So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you'll hear evermore...
Don't tread on me
Love it or leave it, she with the deadly bite
Quick is the blue tongue, forked as the lightning strike
Shining with brightness, always on surveillance
The eyes, they never close, emblem of vigilance
DONT TREAD ON ME!
~Metallica~
well now
???
wow
just wow.
NFA
In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed. Even the NRA has not been able to lobby it away. Perhpas a little tweaking and the revised NFA could add a few more description to cover the assault rife.
But in truth I do not believe either the banning of some specific firearm or arming guards to patrol schools is going to actualy deal with the firearms issues facing the country.
Since the Newtown tradgity how many other shootings have made headlines. Far to many. We hear of drive by shootings, mass shootings at malls, multiple killings of all types on a fairly regular basis. Were the 1920& 30s gangsta era killings any less horific for the victums families?
It is time to have solutions proposed by all and not a continuance of talking points over substance. My prefence would to make all the existing laws regarding firearms zero tolerance.
Moniak you are wrong!!!
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or shooting at the range or gun collecting.
It is purely about defending America from enemies domestic and foreign. Further, I am not sure that any decisions coming out of the US Supreme Court in the near future can be counted on to be truly Constitutionally correct. We have already seen them in action concerning Obama Care.
The Founders felt the armed American was our Counties best defense against tyranny. It's all in the Federalist papers there for you to read Rich. The early administrations trusted the people and the small central government behaved itself until the early 1900s. That's when the real socialism and tyrannical attempts to register our guns came to life. These communist, socialist, marxist or what ever ists, knew we had to be disarmed for them to take power and theses bastards have been trying ever since. What happens next, after registration is confiscation. History is our teacher here. Just look at Germany, Russia, ect. History is full of these same scenarios. And they all played out with dictators running the show. I don't know about you but 'Hail Obama' just is not in my vocabulary!
For those Liberty loving Americans reading this post, you can and should come join the several hundred freedom loving Americans that plan to rally for the Day of Resistance this coming Saturday at the capitol steps at 12:00 noon. There will be speakers and you can meet other patriotic Americans. Help us, join in with the over 120 other Day of Resistance Rallies taking place all over America. Come, help us send the message to this Marxist regime of Obama's that trying to take our guns is going to be a lot harder than shoving Obama care down our throats was.
I am done being quiet and afraid. This is my country. I took an oath to defend it against enemies domestic and foreign. That same oath required me and my fellow service men and women to defend and protect the Constitution. There is no expiration date on that oath brothers and sisters!
Patriotic Americans, you have been called to duty to defend our great Constitution. Be there on Saturday to help us send the message that we law abiding citizens are not the problem, we are the solution. That to continue to penalize us with more gun laws is wrong.
Yawn...
Yawn...
@ AKjustice
You state: "send the message to this Marxist regime of Obama's that trying to take our guns is going to be a lot harder than shoving Obama care down our throats was."
#1. From the CIA Factbook, Marxism is "the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society - Communism." Obama has not espoused this theory in action, word, or deed. Regardless, if the current regime is “Marxist” you should be aware of the fact that one branch of government, the US Supreme Court is, from the left’s point of view, quite conservative-very much not “Marxist.” There is also the Legislative branch which is comprised of the Senate, currently choked by Republican filibuster frenzy, and the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, where the Republican Speaker of the House will not bring any gun control bill up for a vote. Please note that the US Military is part of the Executive Branch. So you are stating that the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are Marxist. Do you really think that is the reality?
#2. The ACA (aka "Obamacare") does not take full effect until 2014. So it has not been shoved down your throat. Of course, the ban on preexisting conditions and lifetime expense caps and coverage for birth control sure do not seem like horrific issues.
#3. Healthcare reform and national healthcare has been an issue since prior to WWII. The efforts have been longstanding and until Obama, totally fruitless. If you think the efforts for a healthcare system that took over 70 years was "easy," then you should probably stay in your bunker. FYI, the ACA was largely written by Republicans circa 1994: hardly a Marxist bunch.
#4. President Obama has not proposed anything remotely close to taking guns away. A ban on slaes of assault weapons, yes, but taking them away? No. His proposals are to CONGRESS to approve. See for yourself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_fu... .
we should legalize all drugs
Doesnt matter if they are dangerous, people like Lawrence just tend to overreact when someone on drugs does something really bad. Besides, my spoon made me fat.
Let's provide a safe facility for people to either learn how to use drugs or can actually use the drugs. Let's also teach the kids how to responsibly use drugs.
This makes more sense that allowing the public to own an assualt rifle.
You show them and yet the can not see
El flopo, Lat losser and Super dumber are 3 of the best examples of you can't fix stupid. Ya , you libs write well enough. And you sound intelligent but you are anything but intelligent when it comes to the Bill of Rights and its true meaning. when you have a right it requires no explanation. When someone tries to take that right away they must be stopped and stopped with extreme prejudiced. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say some arms or small arms it says arms.
Your ilk with their, I am better than you attitude because I know best, are the first to scream for a good man with a gun when you are afraid. And you say the anti gunners out there today are not talking about taking guns away from legal law abiding Americans? You are either liars or too stupid to know you are liars. Just look at Washington state where legislation to go door to door to check to see if people have their guns locked up has been filed. Can you say 4th Amendment violation? Or how about Feinstein and her bill to strip us of the right to bear arms. You smarty pants seem to have missed the history class where they taught us about gun registration and then confiscation that has happen in country after country. And isn't it just like you libs to brush aside the most important part of a subject and focus on a point for the purpose of distraction. Silly libs...
Who cares if Oblama is a socialist or communist. He and his ilk are just wrong for America and better for Cuba, Russia or some other tyrannical form of government. I think the whole lot of you libs would be so much happier in those place and wish you'd move there.
AKJustice
Are you part of a well-regulated malitia?
Also
Please tell me what is so stupid about my drugs statement.
akjustice
Washington state is gonna have a hard time passing that gun control bill if the sponsor wants the annual checks included. That is indeed unconstitutional.
The Feinstein gun ban is not stripping anyone's right to bear arms. Remember back before 2004 we had an assault weapons ban? Remember your second amendment rights being stripped then? Yeah me neither. However, beyond bringing back the toothless assault weapons ban, there would be a ban on clips with more than 10 round capacity. This has been acknowledged by the NRA to cut down on the efficiency of a shooter. The loughner nut in Arizona is familiar with reloading problems. That provided the opportunity for others nearby to subdue him. Still, nothing remotely close to stripping anyone's 2nd amendment rights.
Gun confiscation is occurring right now in California (gasp) and has been for the last 5 years (gasp), however to have your guns confiscated you would have to be placed on the state's Armed Prohibited Persons list due to your criminal record or mental illness. Are you worried about this? Are you a criminal or are you mentally ill?
No one wants criminals to have the upper hand, and that includes a tyrannical government. Stop pretending liberals want to be tyrannized or are criminal sympathizers. And maybe some liberals have a "better than thou" attitude, but so do some conservatives. Not all liberals support gun control either, and there are even conservatives who agree with Feinstein (gasp).
We are not Alone!!!
Right off their page
CMMG
CMMG, INC. ANNOUNCES NEW POLICY ON STATE REGULATION OF FIREARMS
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and all law abiding gun owners in our country are currently under assault. Since the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, politicians and media alike are actively demonizing and criminalizing citizens of these great United States who are exercising their rights under the Second Amendment. The emotional responses and decisions being made right now are extremely dangerous and short sighted.
As individual states elect to pass more restrictive gun laws, CMMG will adhere to each state’s regulations. However, CMMG has made a policy decision that it will not supply products to law enforcement agencies in states that have enacted legislation preventing individual citizens from owning similar firearms. CMMG will no longer provide these agencies with firearms, magazines or any other products that are restricted or no longer available to civilians. CMMG will not stand by on the sidelines and let America’s rights be stripped away. CMMG will not support states that have police departments and law enforcement agencies arming themselves with firearms and weapons that are not available to law abiding citizens. CMMG does not believe in separate classes of citizens and will not engage in sales to states that enact legislation promoting that belief.
CMMG will, however, make exceptions to police departments and law enforcement agencies that have taken a public stand refusing to recognize or enforce unconstitutional firearm restrictions. Agencies making this stand are putting their careers on the line to take a constitutional stand for all Americans as fellow citizens. Abraham Lincoln spoke on June 16, 1858, and stated that "a house divided against itself cannot stand;” CMMG supports those who support our freedom.
CMMG, as industry partners, and gun owners (including law enforcement agencies), need to stand up and stand together to counter this assault on our freedom and our constitutional rights. The Constitution is the supreme legal authority in our land, and we are bound by its words. It states in the Preamble that it was written to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Founding Fathers agreed the best way to establish this was through the Bill of Rights which includes the Second Amendment. Let us take this stand together, unified, to continue allowing this country to be the beacon of freedom to the world..
Many firearms manufacturers are doing this;
so what makes you think your right.
Shall Not Be Infringed
And that goes for ALL of the Amendments
There will be no Compromise.:-) :-)
"A well regulated militia
"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."
"Well regulated" means no regulations?
It is clear that civilian gun ownership rates have nothing to do with either tyranny or gun violence.
Other countries have lots of guns yet have tyrannical governments and low gun violence. Other countries have lots of guns, violent media, and yet have low incidence of gun violence compared to the USA.
What is it about us, as Americans, which brings us to kill each other in such great numbers?
Is it education?
Is it health care?
Is it paranoia?
Is it fear?
Is it oppression?
Is it powerlessness?
Is it economic hopelessness?
Those are the questions we need to answer. As long as everyone is spazzy about their all important issues, attacking the other side as traitors and idiots the heart of the matter will not be dealt with.
And yes-I know I get wound up just like the rest of us do and am just as guilty of dancing in the irrelevant issues. Maybe it’s the water?