Posted on 04/29/2013 4:43:57 PM PDT by marktwain
Opponents of federal gun control won a victory in the Senate Wednesday. But without a doubt, Congress will pass some sort of gun-control legislation. And that act will certainly violate the Constitution.
Our founding document does not delegate firearm-regulating power to Congress or the president. No clause in the Constitution empowers the federal government to ban any type of gun or magazine, create a gun registry or implement a national system of background checks, and the Second Amendment actively restricts federal power in this area. It prevents the federal government from infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms — even in the course of exercising otherwise legitimate federal powers. So although the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce, they do not have the power to infringe on our Second Amendment rights in the process.
But the federal government long ago abandoned any pretext of constitutional restraint.
That elevates what happened in Kansas this week to the highest level of importance.
On Tuesday, Governor Sam Brownback signed the Second Amendment Protection Act, nullifying a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in Kansas. Here’s the law’s text:
“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.”
In other words, the law prohibits state and local agents in Kansas from participating in any federal gun-control measures restricting the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood when Kansas became a state in 1861.
The new law also makes it illegal for any federal agent to enforce any law, treaty, order, rule or regulation regarding firearms manufactured, owned and remaining within Kansas’ borders. Violators could face felony charges. State prosecutors will serve federal agents violating the law with a complaint and summons.
In essence, Sam Brownback just told Barack Obama and his federal minions, “Bring it on!”
As Judge Andrew Napolitano recently pointed out, widespread noncompliance can make federal gun-control laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” Mass noncompliance with an unconstitutional federal act stands as both constitutionally sound and effective. In fact, the Northern states’ noncompliance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was so effective, South Carolina listed nullification of the act in its Declaration of Causes of Secession.
The new Kansas law stands as the strongest and most sweeping defense of the right to keep and bear arms in the entire country so far.
Note that this bold defense of the Second Amendment did not come from Washington, D.C. — indeed, no bold defense of the Second Amendment ever will.
James Madison envisioned state action as a check on unconstitutional power before the Constitution was even ratified. He laid out the blueprint in Federalist No. 46.
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” (Emphasis added)
Madison makes an important point: One state can create issues for the feds. If multiple states refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal actions, they can stop D.C. in its tracks.
Other states need to follow the Sunflower State’s lead.
Mike Maharrey serves as the national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is also the author of Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You may contact Mike at: michael.maharrey@tenthamendmentcenter.com.
This is great. Kudos to Kansas. Maybe I should move there.
"We have a weapon more powerful... than any in the whole arsenal of the British Empire! That weapon... is our refusal!"
And who makes the determination that one of the above mentioned entities is in violation of the Second Amendment?
The Second Civil War may have just started. God Bless the united States of America.
“And who makes the determination that one of the above mentioned entities is in violation of the Second Amendment?”
For the purposes of the State of Kansas the people of the State of Kansas do. As they just did.
I have wondered this in in the past...
why it is that city, county, and state law enforcement
get involved in things that are actually “federal” crimes.
Whether it is making counterfeiting money,
sawing the barrel off a shotgun,
making home-made alcohol,
or ripping the label off a mattress...
...if the feds want to make all sorts of rules,
then why does it fall to city, county, and state law enforcement to enforce them?
The supreme court pretty much said that Arizona can’t enforce federal immigration law, so what’s the difference?
We've driven through many times, and always enjoy the people...and there are some really pretty rural towns (Pratt and Concordia come immediately to mind).
But also having driven through Greensburg a few years after it's scouring, I think I'd pass on wanting to retire there; well, there's the winter weather, also.
“And who makes the determination that one of the above mentioned entities is in violation of the Second Amendment?”
I do. You do. We all do. Who else is more knowledgeable to make the determination after having read the amendment and the arguments and writings that supported its inclusion in the Constitution? Would you care to extend your remark with an explanation?
“The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, per Marbury,”
They are not the exclusive one to do so. Every citizen gets to do so, when they sit on a jury. Every peace officer gets to do so when they decide to arrest or not. Every judge gets to do so, and so do prosecutors. Every elected official gets to do so, though they have run from their duty in droves over the last 50 years.
Alexis de Toqueville remarked on it in Democracy in America.
Sing it from the mountaintops...
So that means sawed-off shotguns are legal? Fully automatic weapons are legal? RPG launchers are legal? Good luck with enforcing that.
So they cannot enforce federal laws prohibiting firearms that are manufactured in Kansas from being brought into a federal courthouse or a federal prison? But they can keep them out of state courthouses, the state capitol, or state prisons? Kind of unfair if you ask me.
Figures a boot lick such as you would be on the wrong side of this issue.
It appears they would have no problem enforcing state laws keeping guns out of federal courthouses or federal prisons. These law did not exist 100+ years ago, and we had very low crime rates. Realistically, there should be almost no need for federal courthouses or federal prisons. Only 30 years ago, it was well established that crime was a state matter. The federal criminalization of vast numbers of activities needs to be rolled back by about 95%.
0.E.O = statist, federalist apologist.
The state has its own laws about these matters. I do not see any problem with them refusing to enforce federal law on them. Machine guns were easily purchased before 1932 and were an insignificant problem, most of which was with guns stolen from the government.
Having short barrelled shotguns and rifles illegal only makes sense if you make handguns illegal. Otherwise it is simple stupidity. Rocket launchers were legal until 1968, and we had no problems with them.
What is your point? That ATF will attempt to enforce the federal laws? Possible, but much of this effort is an attempt to push a 10th amendment test case. It may well not work. I have little faith in Roberts or Scalia.
Figures that someone like you would assume you're right and everyone else is wrong. As the story is written it's impossible to interpret it any other way. Obviously the story is incorrect in a number of areas. This legislation is no different that the kind of legislation passed in other states. None of them have been tested in court as yet, but given the fate of nullification efforts in the past I don't hold out much hope for the good people of Kansas or their law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.