HB69: Arresting federal agents

Editor’s note: John Aronno penned this piece for Alaska Commons, and has granted permission for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman to reprint it. However, due to the length of the piece, it was printed in two parts. Part I was published in Tuesday’s Frontiersman.

The overarching anti-American sentiment housed in HB69 is the rebuke of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Speaker Mike Chenault, and 21 of his House colleagues, have decided this is a fine idea. The punishment its consequences could potentially dole out on the constituents they were elected to serve is collateral damage that had yet gone unmentioned.

Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, led the floor deliberations with a chilling speech that was promptly ignored.

“[HB69] says it’s a crime for an FBI agent to arrest somebody for violating a federal criminal law. Well, in order for that to be a crime, that means that somebody has to arrest them. That means a trooper has to arrest them. A police officer has to arrest them. And when a police officer or a trooper arrests an FBI agent, they have done what federal law calls impeding a federal officer from doing their job. So they’ll be subject to a criminal penalty of somewhere between one year if no scuffle happens to 20 years if a major scuffle happens.

“There are better ways to express your dissatisfaction with what the federal government does. By resolution, perhaps. By letter. By electing congressional representatives who will stand up for the things that we believe in. But it is not right to make our constituents think that illegal conduct is OK; to make our constituents think they can do things that are going to land them in the federal clink, only to have them, when they’re in federal jail, write us and say, ‘I thought you said we could do this.’ I’m not willing to do that. I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their liberty, I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their freedom, I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their time with their family and their children at home.”

Freshman GOP Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux decided to rebut Gara’s argument with a complete misunderstanding of how states can disagree with federal laws without openly rebelling against the Union.

“[W]e all do know that the federal constitution trumps the state constitution and trumps state law. But we also know that it is very, very difficult for the federal authorities to enforce federal law when they are getting no cooperation from the state authorities. So, just as the federal government has said, in response to the various marijuana initiatives across the country which are legalizing marijuana in certain places, just as they’re saying ‘no, we’re not going to go into those states and arrest people for marijuana,’ I contend that with the passage of this law, the federal government is just as likely to blink as not to blink.”

I contend that she hasn’t spent much time looking into a darn thing she’s talking about.

Colorado and Washington passed citizens initiatives this past year that legalized marijuana usage. This is, of course, in direct violation of the federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substance Act.

But here’s where the comparison dies a tragic, uninformed death — visible to anyone who plays the narrative to its conclusion, one sentence later.

Washington state, to serve as an example, publicly voted to legalize marijuana use. (Kudos!) But they asserted no such dominance over the federal government. They passed a state law hoping that the federal government would recognize the antiquated and unsuccessful stance we’ve taken through our war on drugs and prohibition policies.

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper is currently lobbying the feds to work with his state and not against it.

In other words, they’re out on a limb, hoping that the valid and populist argument they’ve presented is enough to sway national public opinion that ultimately reverses the stance taken by the federal government.

That’s not the same as codifying the mandate that state authorities can arrest federal agents enforcing federal law. One of these things is not like the other.

Not by a long shot, Rep. LeDoux.

Jumping the shark

There’s plenty of sympathy out there for legislators who have really struggled with the issue of gun rights, post-Sandy Hook. Some have arrived at logical conclusions, others have decided that logic is for communists. How about the unjustifiable?

I give you Rep. Doug Isaacson:

“This well-regulated militia is not a hunting club. It is not a recreational force. As a matter of fact, it is to keep and bear arms; a right to have free, non-tyrannical government. Therefore, if the government can afford an F-22, and I as a private citizen can afford to own an F-22, this article gives me the right to own exactly the same type of armament that the federal government has. That may sound like it’s way on the edge, but remember when we were talking revolutionary terms, our forefathers talked revolutionary terms, they were looking at keeping the very same type of armament that the country of England had.”

Following the model, I’d like you to look under your chair. You get a nuke! You get a nuke! Everyone gets a nuke! It’s a Second Amendment Right! We can totally serve out our patriotic duty to start a war with the country we pledge allegiance to and we’ll totally win — against the U.S. Army.

What are we going to do with all of our treasured yellow ribbons?

Reality

This bill, complete with the justifications listed in this article, passed the House by a vote of 31 to 5. If the Republican-controlled Senate chooses to bring it to the floor, I don’t see the votes to stop it from becoming law. The safeguard we’ve benefitted from, with a bipartisan coalition in the Senate, has ceased to be.

Anchorage Republican Charisse Millett, who bore the task of introducing and concluding discussion of the bill, summarized by saying: “I hope to God that the federal government gets the point that states want to have a voice.”

Rep. Wilson lamented the same sentiment; that HB69 was necessary “[B]ecause there’s not really an area where we can really — maybe I should say a forum — where we can go and say ‘that’s not fair.’”

Perhaps she should Google “Congress” — the democratic forum where the 50 states congregate and lobby for public policy that pays homage to the needs of all states in the Union.

Maybe our legislators should have to stop pretending that they’re the fail-safe between our democratic republic and some authoritarian regime that confiscates our guns. No one is coming for your firearms. Really. No one. And we shouldn’t incite Civil War invective just for the heck of it because we’re worried about a potential background check.

These are the worst of politicians. They’re reading polls and figuring out how to get you to feed your debit card to their campaigns. Or, they haven’t taken the time to scrutinize the seditious blather they have just lent their votes to, as HB69 progresses towards becoming law.

It’s not a one-party issue. I’ve heard of Reagan Democrats and Kennedy Republicans, but Alaska gave birth this week to Calhoun Democrats by way of Reps. Chris Tuck, Geran Tarr, Bryce Edgmon, Neal Foster, Bob Herron and Benjamin Nageak. Oh, and Lindsey Holmes should probably bear a bit of culpability in there as well, if you’re a West Anchorage Democrat who voted for someone who you thought might uphold the views she’d campaigned on.

The Republicans who followed their speaker are no better. Of our 40 elected members of the state House, 31 are dually national embarrassments and insurrectionists. It’s bipartisan.

Three quarters of our state House showed up and said that the United States of America is a bad idea, unless the 50 states agree to their terms. That doesn’t sound patriotic to me. That sounds like a hostage situation. How does it sound to you?

John Aronno is the managing editor at Alaska Commons, recipient of the 2010 Alaska Press Association’s Suzan Nightengale Award for Best Columnist in a small paper for his work with UAA’s the Northern Light. He is an occasional contributor to the Anchorage Press, the Alaska Dispatch, the Mudflats, and Bent Alaska, and writes regularly for Alaska Commons. He resides with his wife, Heather Aronno, in Anchorage and is currently in his backyard playing fetch with his dogs.