Alaska's GOP-controlled House has passed a law making it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws. One lawmaker objected, passionately.
February 27, 2013

[oldembed width="420" height="245" src="" flashvars="launch=50965800^0^127600&width=420&height=245" fid="2"]

Alaska's GOP-controlled House just passed a bill which, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, would make it illegal for federal law enforcement officers to enforce federal gun laws.


In a chamber dotted with female legislators wearing new camo scarves, the state House on Monday passed a gun measure that is wildly popular among the GOP-controlled Legislature even though it raises serious constitutional issues.

House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, is the prime sponsor of House Bill 69, which passed 31-5 on Monday after a lengthy and impassioned debate.

It declares that guns and ammunition possessed by Alaskans are exempt from federal gun laws. It also subjects federal agents to felony charges if they try to enforce any future federal ban on semi-automatic weapons or ammunition or enforce any new federal requirement for gun registration.

A legal opinion from a legislative lawyer said the measure likely is unconstitutional. When federal and state laws conflict, the U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is supreme, legislative counsel Kathleen Strasbaugh wrote in a Jan. 30 memorandum.

They don't care that it's likely unconstitutional. In fact, their response was to say "they had a duty to stand up for Second Amendment rights and won't bow down to the Federal government on this."

Democratic Representative Andy Josephson delivered a passionate rebuttal:

Mr. Speaker, we decided in 1955 to submit a state constitution. We joined the team. Our star is on the flag. I see it there. We didn't have to do that. We demanded it. We implored our 48 sisters, because Hawaii wasn't admitted yet, our 48 brothers and sisters, let us join this great team. And, you know, I care greatly about my state. but I'm very proud to be an American. Very proud. And for the court to say an administration law is constitutional, it is. I think this is successionist talk. That's what i think it is.

Yes, it is secessionist talk. It's nullification, which is not a legitimate way to stand against something you don't agree with. Nullification has been tried throughout the ages, from the Civil War to Jim Crow laws to Obamacare.

This is the Republican party of the north and the south today. They're vile, and violent, and waiting for a reason to start another war, only this time it will be over one black man, instead of millions.

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We are currently migrating to Disqus

On May 14, 2022, we started migrating our comments from Insticator back to Disqus. During this transition period, some posts will have Insticator and some Disqus. For more information on the transition, as well as information regarding old C&L accounts, please see this post.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.