Posted: 1/18/2013 12:15:03 PM EDT
|
http://www.mikechenault.com/?p=1877
State House Speaker introduced this the other day. I wrote him a thank you note. I also wrote my reps urging them to vote for this bill. |
|
tried to get Paul Seaton to co-sponsor HB69, here is my SECOND attempt:
. . "Representative Paul Seaton; Thank you for your newsletter. Conspicuously absent from the newsletter was any mention of the HB69 that we talked about last week. I WOULD like to see you co-sponsor that bill, and would be very pleased to HEAR of your support and commentary on HB69. PLEASE confirm your support for HB69. I voted for youin the last last election, but I would entertain backing a candidate more representative of my civil rights. Thank you for your service. Best Regards, Fullpower |
|
Quoted:
When the bill sponsor comes out and says his bills is unconstitutional it makes me  Did M Chennault SAY that, or did the leftist press ask him if a judge might FIND it unconstitutional? My close read of HB69 shows it inserting a short phrase " possessed in this state " several times in an existing law : AS 44.99.500 protecting Alaska State residents from Illegal, unconstitutional abuse by federal law enforcement. . All quite legitimate under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution. " Powers reserved by the states or to the people " |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the bill sponsor comes out and says his bills is unconstitutional it makes me Did M Chennault SAY that, or did the leftist press ask him if a judge might FIND it unconstitutional? My close read of HB69 shows it inserting a short phrase " possessed in this state " several times in an existing law : AS 44.99.500 protecting Alaska State residents from Illegal, unconstitutional abuse by federal law enforcement. . All quite legitimate under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution. " Powers reserved by the states or to the people " He did |
|
In my opinion as a cop they should simply write the bill to say state and local officers can not enforce federal law. Leave off the part about arresting the Feds. The reason being that is like declaring war on the federal government and the surpremecy clause kicks in. However if we don't help the feds they can't do much. They don't have the man power to confiscate weapons on their own. There is something like 6 BATFE agents in all of Alaska.
Pat |
|
There have been some weak, half-hearted attempts to portray HB69 as some how counter to the Constitution.
I wish to refute such challenges: ............................................................. In regard to Mike Chenault's HB69, which adds the phrase "possessed in this state or" to existing Alaska Statute 44.99.500 I would like to take this opportunity to counter your superficial constitutional challenge of HB69. First, let us reference the US Constitution. The Tenth amendment to the US Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " . Next, we shall consider the Alaska State constitution Article one, Paragraph 19 , which reads: § 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994] . The Alaska State legislature is well within their sphere of influence to pre-emptively iterate the rights of the citizens of this state, and to protect them from harrassment by foreign agents operating contrary to, or outside the laws of the State of Alaska. . Please consider these points while deliberating on your potential support of and voting stance with regard to HB69. |
|
Quoted:
There have been some weak, half-hearted attempts to portray HB69 as some how counter to the Constitution. I wish to refute such challenges: ............................................................. In regard to Mike Chenault's HB69, which adds the phrase "possessed in this state or" to existing Alaska Statute 44.99.500 I would like to take this opportunity to counter your superficial constitutional challenge of HB69. First, let us reference the US Constitution. The Tenth amendment to the US Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " . Next, we shall consider the Alaska State constitution Article one, Paragraph 19 , which reads: § 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994] . The Alaska State legislature is well within their sphere of influence to pre-emptively iterate the rights of the citizens of this state, and to protect them from harrassment by foreign agents operating contrary to, or outside the laws of the State of Alaska. . Please consider these points while deliberating on your potential support of and voting stance with regard to HB69. The Feds are not a foreign agent and then there is the supremacy clause making federal law trump state law. Pat |
|
....The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, (((when exercising its constitutional powers))), are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments.
|
|
I have a recent reply from Sen. Micciche, assuring me of his support for HB69, when it reaches the Senate.
Representative Chennault ( via staff) has also assured me that HB69 WILL pass both houses, and there is great confidence that Gov. Parnell will sign it without delay. |
|
i have been facebooking with jonathan kreiss tomkins (one of the 5 against it) this evening.
here is his response to my message to him stating my opinions regarding his vote: Hey Jake -- I hear about federal overreach and gun control. It's not so much behind the spirit of HB 69 (in fact, I'll be voting for Charisse's resolution on gun rights on Wednesday), but that I have a problem with resolutions masquerading as bills. HB 69 will never be enforced because it's unconstitutional and unenforceable. It's a political statement, of course. Political statements should be resolutions, not bills -- or that's how I feel. As such, I'll vote for Charisse's resolution on Wednesday but voted against Chenault's bill today. Hope that offers a little more context. -j i guess i have a problem with him "pretending" to support gun rights by voting for a resolution that has absolutely no power (a political play to gain support if you will) as opposed to a bill that may possibly have some teeth behind it. even if it IS unconstitutional to enforce HB 69, supporting it really shows where our reps stand. |
|
Take this quote from Tomkins: "HB 69 will never be enforced because it's unconstitutional and unenforceable. It's a political statement, of course. "
... Tomkins' understanding is 180 degrees inverted. What HB69 does is make unconstitutional enforcement ILLEGAL. |