Kansas House of Representatives Passes Gun Control Nullification

The New American ^ | Mar. 14, 2013 | Christian Gomez

[EXCH54FE]

On Thursday, March 14, the Kansas House of Representatives approved House Bill 2199, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would nullify any new federal restrictions — passed either by Congress, presidential executive order, agency order, rule, or regulation — on firearms, magazines, and ammunition.

The bill originally passed Wednesday, March 13, by a voice vote, but the actual official recorded vote was not taken until Thursday, when it passed 94-29.

On Tuesday, during a debate over the bill on the floor, one representative who was against the bill stated that Kansas should not “punish” federal agents ordered to enforce federal gun controls in the state of Kansas. “The citizens of Kansas belong to the United States,” said the speaker.

State Representative Brett Hildabrand (R-17) took to the podium and replied:

The citizens of Kansas do not belong to the United States. The United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas! We cannot allow the response, “I was following orders” to be an excuse for violating our Constitutional rights. How many atrocities have been committed in history by people simply following orders?

For the first time in three years, members broke chamber rules and erupted into applause, according to Hildabrand’s Facebook page.

The key provision of Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act reads, in part:

Sec. 6. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

[EXCH54FE]

The total number of states that have introduced pro-Second Amendment nullification bills in their state legislatures currently stands at 32. These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Of those 32 states, bills have passed both chambers in Montana, and only one chamber in Alaska, Kentucky, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and now Kansas.

[Westbrook]

BRAVO!!!!!!

[rktman]

Too bad their next door neighbor kolorado didn’t take notice and act accordingly. I think Nevada is working on something similar as we speak. (or write, as it were)

[LibWhacker]

Nice. Didn’t think they had it in them.

[demshateGod]

Arkansas will be on that list soon.

[Still Thinking]

On Thursday, March 14, the Kansas House of Representatives approved House Bill 2199, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would nullify any new federal restrictions — passed either by Congress, presidential executive order, agency order, rule, or regulation — on firearms, magazines, and ammunition.

Excellent! Then we need to start on the existing federal laws. Maybe pass a global nullification bill that says ALL federal firearms laws are nullified except those where a bill passes the state legislature saying a particular law is not nullified. An opt-IN system where nullification is the DEFAULT would keep the statists from bottling up votes to keep from nullifying.

[Still Thinking]

On Thursday, March 14, the Kansas House of Representatives approved House Bill 2199, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would nullify any new federal restrictions — passed either by Congress, presidential executive order, agency order, rule, or regulation — on firearms, magazines, and ammunition.

Excellent! Then we need to start on the existing federal laws. Maybe pass a global nullification bill that says ALL federal firearms laws are nullified except those where a bill passes the state legislature saying a particular law is not nullified. An opt-IN system where nullification is the DEFAULT would keep the statists from bottling up votes to keep from nullifying.

[Gator113]

Great news.....

[ican'tbelieveit]

Colorado, sigh.

[rktman]

Sad I know. Was a great place in the mid ‘60’s. Estes Park was a blast.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

If 34 states pass such bills or even resolutions, that would be seen by the federal courts as a ‘de jure’ (concerning law) resolution for a constitutional convention.

While it would not convene a ‘de facto’ (concerning facts) constitutional convention, it would mean that the inclination of the federal courts would be to “defer to (true) federalism”, that the states are overruling acts of congress and/or the executive branch.

This would mean the courts would be inclined to automatically overturn simple majority laws and all regulations, rules and executive orders that went against the states. Congress would have to pass them by 2/3rds majority in both houses to (maybe) overrule the states, in the eyes of the federal courts.

[so_real]

Sweet! All I can say to my home state of Wisconsin is ... get with the program!

[matthew fuller]

I am of the opinion that all of the prohibitions mentioned in that bill (and all other states’) against the federales should also have included any and all international organizations, and I don’t think that they were specifically mentioned in this bill.

[tumblindice]

Yeah, well good luck with that. Obozo and his minions in the Injustice Dept. will ignore notions of federalism (e.g. Don’t like living in CA/Illynois? Move to KS/IN) and argue ‘preemption’—”We’re the 600 pound gorilla and we’ll sleep wherever we want!”.

[supercat]

I like the fact that the bill makes explicit mention of the conditions under which Kansas joined the union. I would like to see such legislation include a few more things, however:

1. An explicit statement that while the Supreme Court of the United States has no legitimate authority to make rulings which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that does not imply that it will never endeavor to issue such rulings. While such rulings may appear official, that does not make them legitimate.
2. A recognition that a person who unlawfully accosts another person, takes their property, or breaks into their dwelling, is a kidnapper, thief, or burglar (other crimes are possible as well); such laws are no less applicable to a federal employee who is acting without legitimate authority than to any other criminal.
3. A recognition that illegitimate actions, by definition, form no part of any government agent's legitimate duties; consequently, agents partaking in such actions cannot claim protection under statutes which would allow federal courts to claim jurisdiction in matters concerning the actions of federal agents who were performing their official duties.
4. A recognition that factions of the federal government which instruct employees to commit unlawful actions per #2 above are dangerous criminal gangs, and that employees of such factions who are caught committing crimes represent an extreme flight risk, justifying severe measures to prevent their escape.

It is important for those resisting unlawful actions by those claiming to act under authority of the federal government to be as explicit as possible making clear that it is they who are upholding the law, against lawless factions of within the federal government.

[EXCH54FE]

Well said, Sir!

“resisting unlawful actions by those claiming to act under authority of the federal government”

The above is the point we must make to one and all. We will resist unlawful actions in any and all forms.

[kawhill]

Outstanding. You go Kansas.