My Twitter Feed

August 2, 2014

Gun Bill Condones Arrest of Federal Agents

chenault-lg

Mike Chenault, the mouth-breathing bully who also happens to be the Republican Speaker of the House in Juneau, has an awesome idea.

As the country enters into a conversation about gun control, Chenault puts forward House Bill 69:

House Speaker Mike Chenault says federal law enforcement officers should be arrested in Alaska if they attempt to enforce any future federal law banning personal possession of assault rifles or large ammunition clips or if they attempt to register any Alaska firearm.

Yes.
Really.
“Tragedy is not a license for federal encroachment of constitutionally protected freedoms,” said Chenault. But don’t think this is just a crazy reactionary bill to executive orders put in place by the President, or just for show. Chenault said he’d been working on the bill before the actions of the President yesterday.
This brilliant piece of legislation would make it so that any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition owned by anyone in Alaska would not be subjected to federal law. The Constitution in which they wrap themselves before they go to bed at night can apparently go take a flying leap.

“Well, this is interesting,” said Karen Loeffler, the U.S. Attorney for Alaska and the chief federal law enforcement official in the state. She declined to comment further until she could study the bill.

And the US Attorney’s office thought that the “you don’t have jurisdiction over me” phenomenon was reserved for the sovereign citizen movement. Nope. Our House Majority Leader is all over it, and says federal agents attempting to enforce federal law could be jailed under a Class B misdemeanor. Just because we’re a state in the United States, don’t let that make you think that you can tell us what to do, United States government. You just keep sending us those federal checks, and then back off. We’re standing our ground, as it were.

The fact that this bill is blatantly unconstitutional doesn’t seem to faze Chenault. In an interview with Alaska Public Radio Network, he guffawed, stating that we’d just have to wait and see, but the fact that it might be unconstitutional doesn’t mean it’s “less important.” If by “important” he means wasting everyone’s time, and freaking people out, then yes. And the irony of ignoring the Constitution to protect the Constitution seems lost on the mental giant from Nikiski whose ilk often lament the “shredding of the Constitution.” Apparently these guys only want to shred Article VI, Section 2.

Lest you think that Mike Chenault is an outlier in his radical idiocy, he’s already got three co-sponsors – Craig Johnson and Charisse Millett of Anchorage, and Tammie Wilson of North Pole.

Even Governor Sean Parnell, in last night’s State of the State address to the legislature, referred several times to Alaska “seeking and asserting primacy” over the federal government. “We will not roll over,” he said. “Washington DC doesn’t get Alaska – it never has and it never will.” And “there is a disconnect between federal flights of fancy, and reality.” Referring to resource development, he said, “It’s about time we exercise our rights over our resources.”

Earlier this month, a militia member standing trial for conspiracy to murder federal officials repeatedly asked at his sentencing hearing for proof that the government, and the court had jurisdiction over him. “I see a force of law, forced on me by an unknown entity. I reside in the state of Alaska, not in our government realm. I am sovereign!”

That attitude didn’t seem to help Mr. Vernon. He was sentenced to almost 26 years in a federal prison.

House Bill 69 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Eerily similar legislation is in the works in Texas and Wyoming, except those states would consider federal enforcement of federal law to be a felony, instead of a misdemeanor.  Alaska feels so moderate all of a sudden.

Comments

comments

Comments
34 Responses to “Gun Bill Condones Arrest of Federal Agents”
  1. Rod Mayberry says:

    This isn’t the first of this kind of legislation. California did the same thing with legalized medical marijuana. The feds were rolling in busting Legal Marijuana dispensaries and Senator boxer said the same thing that is said here. The states have to stand up for the people. The federal government is just taking money and not providing it’s citizens with anything but federal regulation. The federal government of the US was never meant to be this big. The US is supposed to be a republic governed by representatives. I think any state standing up in protest is only acting as American as the founding fathers did during the days of the Boston Tea Party.

  2. Mike Huhndorf says:

    I am no Chenault fan and the bellicosity over guns and the more specious arguments I hear I don’t like either. However, I see a slippery slope, more government control in life, a potential black market, punishing the majority due to a minority, and criminals breaking whatever laws are enforced to get such rifles. The peopl who want them will get them whether through illegal means or not. I don’t see this doing anything but punishing the law abiding citizens who do enjoy guns. I don’t see it stopping anything. Drugs are illegal too and they’re more popular than ever. My answer is to do what the airports have already done – more beefed up security and patrol (No, I don’t mean arming teachers).

    • Mo says:

      My answer is to do what the airports have already done – more beefed up security and patrol

      Sorry, turning the place into a police state is just not a good idea. That was one of the beefs we had against communist China and the USSR, wasn’t it? So now we wanna become their replacement?

      The security situation at airports is an outrage – are you really suggesting body scanners be installed anywhere and everywhere?

      And the notion that we should just throw up our hands and give up because illegal stuff can be gotten by illegal means is just plain silly. Read El Narco if you want some illumination on that one.

      As to drugs, if they’re so popular, why aren’t we legalizing and taxing them like we do that other dangerous drug, alcohol?

      The it’s-just-like-a-car rationalization seems to be popular amongst gunnies, so let’s try that – you need a license, registration, insurance, and a road-acceptable vehicle. You can’t drive a tank on the freeway, and you can’t own an assault weapon.

      • Mike Huhndorf says:

        First of just because you have heightened security does not make it a police state. The airports are all about protection not totalitarianism. Actually the more government we have the more police state we have and more money it takes to enforce laws that are not working. I am not suggesting the invasive means of body searches potentially used in airports. It it is not just guns airport security is worried about. At schools it is mostly the grounds that will need protection. perhaps we need the kind of iron bars that go across the doors in order to bar entry perhaps they are electronically tripped. Also the window would have to be smaller so human access would not be possible. What I am really talking about the adjustment to such a contingency in today’s world of schools.

        I am not “throwing up my hands”! I am saying that we need to find some other means of protection that will work. We need the extremes of airport security but we need more security of some degree. Banning and lawmaking just isn’t going to do it when you are dealing with a criminal or psychotic mind. Besides if it isn’t assault rifles it will be other kinds.

        And your last point … you are right, we *do* need to tax drugs and treat the problem from the inside with more treatment centers and campaigning/education against them. Just because they’re legal doesn’t make them safe to use but use them they will … and they will rob and kill to do so. The laws have stopped nobody who really wants them and I see guns as the same.

        • Mike Huhndorf says:

          In my last post I meant to say “We NOT need the extremes of airport security but we nee some degree of security”

          I don’t know this site well enough to know where the edit button is. On top of this I might say I am no “gunny” and have never had the slightest interest in owning one.

        • Ki says:

          When are these bars electronically dropped?after a shooter is inside?A small window?How small,say small enough a bullet couldn’t pass through or a pipe bomb?
          How about training and arming some staff?

          • Mike Huhndorf says:

            Obviously there is no perfect system but it will be safer than making a law that will get broken by people who don’t care about law. Added to that windows can be made so they are higher up. And the bars? When class is in session and nobody is around to see who is entering the building lock them. Also don’t forget security cameras that can be in constant surveillance or have a gate that people have to go through with fencing all around the grounds. It can be done. I am not one to feel safe just because there’s a law that won’t protect me in the first place.

            • Alaska Pi says:

              Are we really talking about Alaskan schools here?
              Kake with 95 students in 1 school in a community of just over 700?
              Yukon Flats with about 275 students in 8 schools in far flung communities like Venetie, Circle, et al?
              ANC with almost 49K students in 98 schools? The same district which is proposing to cut another $25 million from its budget for 2013-14?
              We really gonna cough up the money to turn all these places into fortresses when we won’t even fully address the shambles they are in from “deferred maintenance” ? Took over 20 years to pass a bond measure in mine to address rotting walls and ancient heating system- problems which were apparent when my own kid was there over 20 years ago.

              It is silly to assume that law only proposes to address rules we should live by but many don’t and therefore it is useless.
              We are founded on the notion that we are a nation of laws, not men.
              Amongst other things, law serves to round up those who don’t as well as try to develop remedies for problems for the community and individuals.
              We DO pass a lot of stoopid laws but that should call for better attention and diligence on our part rather than Pfft!ing at law in general.

              • Mike Huhndorf says:

                You don’t see heightened security in the bush airports do you? That is carrying my example/answer to an extreme. I think that the adjustment could be made in reconstructing the schools as far as my suggestions above. But does that mean every school? No. Do you see the same airport security in airports going to the villages and small communities?

                I am talking about the best protection; if I had faith that a law would do it I would be behind it but there are myriad reasons that a law is insufficient. When you go into a neighborhood where it is dangerous do you feel protected by the law in the immediate here and now as you walk down the street? (no I am not advocating carrying a concealed weapon)

                This reasoning also can be with the public in general but unfortunately, one can’t travel around in an armored car all the time so it takes common sense on the part of you the citizen as to where and how you guard yourself and your property. Locks don’t keep vandals and robbers away either but laws are still broken by these same people filling our jails.

                Our country has grown with a gun culture and I would say that it is a small percentage who abuse the right; but that percentage will access guns anyway.

            • Alaska Pi says:

              Mike-
              As per graded security measures in airports in the bush v metro airports- how do you apply that meaningfully to schools in our metro areas ? Choose the ones you think MIGHT be most vulnerable? Because we are not willing to even fully fund the ones we have there either- as to staff and physical plant.

              Please note that ANC school District is facing $25 Million in cuts currently. FBX, Mat-Su, and JNU have all had or will have multi million dollar cuts under our current financing scheme for education. Those are our “big” school districts, of which only ANC would seem semi big Outside, and we are not taking all that much care of them either.

              So far, our primary problem with school violence in this state has come from students themselves with the notable exception being the stabbing attack in ANC by a deranged man on a playground a few years ago.
              I think we would be better off expanding plans and physical barriers for lockdowns to contain any violence which might occur to small areas instead of full blown fortressing efforts.

              Criminal law is NOT designed to protect you and me proactively, before the fact. It is designed to remove the person(s) who harms us from our midst.
              http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+Law

              Proactive behavior is on us as a community. I do not think making fortresses of our schools is the right direction . Aside from the problems with the psychology of raising children in a generalized climate of fear it doesn’t really address any of the identified issues in school violence- except PERHAPS the madman from outside with a gun scenario.

              Look up the double murder by Evan Ramsey in the Bethel high school in 1997.
              There were warning signs all over the map and somehow they were ignored and/or not dealt with . The community needs to do better than that . We ought to be able to short circuit that kind of road to criminal behavior an awful lot more often than we do. Is not as flashy as all the big hot ideas for more guns and fortressing and the like but is do-able, over time. If we quit reducing the programs which work, in schools and out.

              • Mike Huhndorf says:

                Well, expensive as it is, it means a shift. The shield of law isn’t going to make the schools safer. Yes it is going to be nationally expensive and probably needs to be funded on a federal level. It seems like if they can bail out the banks and keep us in two wars, they can find a way to make our schools safer. Those are my solutions.

                In addition to the criminals getting guns, I am sure people will own them in secret as well. I am not against a law that works but I have not seen one yet that has not succeeded in making a lot criminals and filling up a lot of jails. Now that *is* expensive. I guess we will just have to pick our poison but ask the average person if a law would make them feel safer walking in dangerous neighborhoods at 9:30pm in winter.

                As far as the “proactive” part goes, it’s nice to now my assailant will be punished after I die.I think “making fortresses” of our schools is a lot cheaper and creates more security and safety. That would sure be my choice. How many criminals are already being punished and house? Did the law stop them? Will there be more coming in to take their place?

                I guess I just don’t buy making another government intrusion as being a safety measure. You do however make some valid points regardless of my still unsafe sense and leaving the schools protected merely by a law.

  3. Alaska Pi says:

    It is not cut and dried any which way you look at it.

    http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=mpr

    pdf pages 4 and 5 (or internal document pages 60 and 61) address some of the questions pertinent to this crap from Mr Chenault.
    Federal preemption is not necessarily a given unless Congress chooses to “occupy the field” under powers the fed has exclusively like Commerce clause stuff (which many gun control issues are under in reality ).
    Congress can also choose to allow states to regulate some industries while retaining a portion of the same industries for Congress to regulate.
    The rebirth of notions of state’s rights being the most important in recent years has made a hash of some very sensible real and possible working relationships between states and the fed.
    Mr Chenault is using Joe Miller’s logic of state’s rights here- loud and clear.
    What a twit.
    We need good working relationships twixt and tween the State and the Fed -instead we have this doof spraying right wing spittle all over the windshield.
    Get outta the way Mr Chenault !
    Go pee the seat in your own monster truck and let the rest of us run this bus without your messes to clean up along the way!

    • John says:

      I don’t think it is a preemption issue. The question is whether you can arrest a federal employee for enforcing a federal law. The answer is No Way!! Even if the feds haven’t pre-empted the area, the feds can insist that federal law be followed.

      • Alaska Pi says:

        http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0069A&session=28

        John- read the text of the proposed bill. He’s making it a preemption issue as to a state right to manage certain firearms law exclusively.
        Not sure how it would fly in the end because I basically agree with you but I don’t trust the twit one bit- nor this current Legislature.

        • John says:

          He is trying, but section 4 says federal laws are unenforceable. That is something no state can do. As others have said, we fought a war over that question.

          • Ki says:

            Enough states start doing it, regardless either way the message will get across to back off.

            • Alaska Pi says:

              Not really. If you read the ADN article attached , the law passed in 2010 , which has never been tested was likely unconstitutional and this one is worse.
              Mr Chenault is playing games here. Maybe even just putting this out as a sop to some of his constituents with no real intention of pursuing it forcefully.
              While the federal Supreme Court has backed some state’s rights stuff in recent years it is highly unlikely Mr Chenault’s thumbing-of-his-nose at Congress’ ability to legislate under the commerce clause would go much of anywhere.
              If it passes into law , it sets us up for expensive litigation with the Fed if and when it gets tested. Like we haven’t done enough of that crap trying to make doofus points already, we need to do more?
              We might get lucky and have the Alaska Supreme Court knock it down before we spend a gazillion bucks trying to defend this idiocy beyond here.
              Like it or not, we are part of the larger union, and our best strategy is to forge a good working relationship with the Fed as per sensible gun control on both sides instead of continuing this childish horsepunky.

              • Mike Huhndorf says:

                By the way Pi, I empathize with you comment regarding the status of village schools and the malaise that maintenance is regarded with.

  4. zyggy says:

    Parnell, you just keep saying that, and then the Gov’t can stop sending all that money. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  5. Carol says:

    As a gun owner and user, I’m beginning to wish the Constitution authors had left out the Second Amendment. It’s becoming such a friction point. Does that mean I wish to repeal the 2nd? Absolutely not, I’ll deal with the RWNJ on a case by case basis, unfortunately, people I know and love who are sane on every other topic seem to vomit “they’re trying to take our guns!” as the only contribution they will make to any discussion. Of course, if that is all they say, then there is no reasonable discussion. when I ask for specifics as to how the feds are going to take our guns (I’m talking about hand guns, rifles, shotguns), no details are forthcoming. Jon Stewart’s bit last night http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-january-16-2013-jessica-chastain – wow, look I could do that, explained a whole hell of a lot about the ATF.
    It’s the first 12 minute watch. I wonder what the NRA has to say about President Obama’s 7th executive directive – to launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. When I took the CC class, it was first, second and last about safety – from a NRA certified instructor, who is VERY pro gun education.

  6. juneaudream says:

    Actually..we do not have to go..any further than..a stark viewing..of his chins. Anyone who..is so sloppy… eating/inhaling..any foody-morsel..in his..direct vicinity.. probably had a keyboard in one paw..and a box of ..chocolate-covered-whipped creme..in the other. I’d say..his jaws work..that’s..about it.

  7. blue_in_AK says:

    “With whom” I meant to say, of course. Dang autocorrect.

  8. blue_in_AK says:

    AKBlue, my husband and I were just talking about Lindsey and with who, she has chosen to align herself. I’m not sure how she can look at herself in the mirror in the morning. Chenault, Bob Lynn, the ever-amusing Wes Keller? Her move was political opportunism at the most base and crass level.

  9. AKblue says:

    This is the stellar group that Lindsey Holmes just joined….

  10. GoI3ig says:

    All aboard the short bus to crazy town. This state is becoming such a joke. This is only day one. We still have 89 to go. As the cliche’ goes….you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  11. Maeve says:

    Is this grandstanding? Or is he really this stupid? Federal law trumps state law. End of story. Any chance these yahoos are going to stop wasting time and get something done this session? Or…maybe they should occupy themselves with this drivel, keep them from selling us out to Big Oil…

  12. John says:

    Alaska’s constitution says
    “All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . . to the best of my ability.” The legislature may prescribe further oaths or affirmations.”

    Anyone who sponsors or votes for this bill is an oath breaker.

  13. slipstream says:

    Psst. Spread the word. Firing on Fort Sumter 0430 hours April 12. Bring yer cannons.

    We’ll have States Rights by, oh, the middle of March.

    That’ll teach them damnyankees.

  14. John says:

    Police officers can actually get sued when they knowingly and intentionally violate someone’s rights. Arresting a federal officer based on this proposed law would be one of those situations, and I suspect the state or local police officer would lose big time because any one with a modicrum of intelligence knows that this proposed law is unenforceable. If the House has so much extra time that it can debate passing a law they know is unenforceable, maybe we should shorten the session to 60 days. Of course, that is assuming that members of the House have a “modicrum of intelligence.” I know there are 10 of them that do, but it is an open question as to the remaining 30.

  15. hedgewytch says:

    So, I guess the Gov and the State Legislature Republicans are ready to secede from the Union. I guess that whole Statehood thing experiment isn’t working out like they expected.

    So, if the Federal government has “no jurisdiction to enforce federal laws in the State” then I guess I can toke up all I want now and the state police will fully support me right? After all, personal use and possession is legal in the State (under a certain amount) and the state will support my right against the federal government disagreeing right?

    I bet there are a few other things we can come up with that the State will now gladly let us pursue in the light of their rejection of “federal authority’ re. Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

  16. Mo says:

    Seems to be the latest meme hissing around the Republican snakepit. Tennessee, too. We’ll let Wonkette take it from here [great title, btw, eh?]

    The Law Fought The Law and the Law Won

    http://wonkette.com/497283/only-local-law-enforcement-can-protect-you-from-the-tyranny-of-federal-law-enforcement

    Can these people just go back to threatening to secede already?

    • headache again says:

      oh they will I am sure of it…and when they whine for federal assistance they will get an answer…you ended the nature of our association…call China or Russia for assistance…let me know how that works out for ya!

  17. StElias says:

    Truly, the lunatic fringe is growing at a exponential pace.

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: