Federal judge tosses out Brady Campaign lawsuit against Kansas gun law

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jun 8, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    A federal judge has dismissed a national gun control group’s lawsuit against Gov. Sam Brownback over a 2013 law that creates a felony charge for individuals enforcing federal gun regulations.

    “Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member,” U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson wrote Friday.

    As a result, Robinson said, the district court couldn’t consider the merits of the Brady Campaign’s arguments.

    The Kansas statute known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, passed in April 2013, states firearms made and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun laws. It provides for the filing of felony charges against any federal employee attempting to enforce federal regulations on Kansas firearms and ammunition.

    “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action,” the law states.

    The Brady Center lawsuit cited the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution — which says federal law rules supreme over state law — among the reasons to declare the law unconstitutional. The group also claimed the law was too vague by both U.S. Constitution and Kansas Constitution standards.

    Robinson wrote that the Brady Center, as the plaintiff, “must be suffering a continuing injury or be under a real and immediate threat of being injured in the future” as a consequence of the law.

  2. go2church

    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Jun 21, 2002
    Likes Received:
    This is worth watching not only from a gun rights perspective but also from a further reaching states rights perspective, I think any way. Though the ruling is not on the merits of the case but on the standing of the plaintiff, the article indicates that this is far from over.

    Any lawyers out there? Would a ruling on the merits of the case in favor of Kansas have implications on other states rights issues? Thinking specifically of marriage and immigration laws.
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Oct 25, 2001
    Likes Received:
    We have the same laws.

    I know there was a sovereignty bill in the Kansas legislature. Not sure of the outcome. I imagine a federal order like this would be hard to enforce, especially in those states.

Share This Page