Posted on 05/02/2013 10:33:37 AM PDT by Nachum
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter today from Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102, the pro 2nd Amendment law Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law declares that the federal government has no power to regulate guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas.
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.
The legislation made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating ammunition made, sold and kept in the state because the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This is my rifle,
this is my gun... I digress.
The court would probably roll over and cite precedent or decline to hear a district courts decision to uphold Holder.
Question is what happens if the governor and Kansas tell the feds, go to hell and ignore the court rulings and DOJ and begin arresting federal agents for violating the states laws?
Depends on how far Kansas is willing to push. It would get even more interesting if other states joined in the arrests of federal agents and prosecutions for violations of state laws.
How would it look with hordes of FBI and US Marshalls or worse military troops roaming around five or six state capitals rounding up and arresting governors and state legislators??? PR nightmare for the feds.
That’s it - it depends on how far the states are willing to go.
I don’t believe the Federal government has legitimate authority to dictate the extent of their own authority.
In any-event the words: “Congress shall make no law” means no law. If the Federal employees in black robes can’t understand the plain English of No they deserve nether our obedience nor respect.
They can hang together or separately I believe is the term we are looking for.
At what point is it prudent to start talking about a Constitutional Convention? So many Freepers are afraid such a convention might destroy their RKBA, and yet what trajectory are we surely on today?
If we hold a convention, an work product must be ratified by a super-majority of the surviving states. I say “surviving” because a Convention allows us to totally redefine the relationship between the States and the new federated government.
We would have the opportunity to stop the current federal government’s ability to make us debt-serfs and to spend more than it takes in. We would have the opportunity to formalize a way for the States to nullify or repeal an odious federal rule or regulation. We would have an opportunity to restore a rational basis to the law. This very action by Holder is based on the specious power grab the the federal government and counts that is based on Depression-era court case where a man who grew his own grain to feed his own pigs was declared to be engaged in “interstate commerce”. How absurd. Yet this is one of the legs of the stool that supports ObamaCare, another odious law that must be repealed.
At what point is a Convention less dangerous to our liberties and prosperity than our present trajectory? I think we are obligated to revoke the current federal government or we are dead as a free people.
It very well may come, some day, that the feds lack the resources, as they did in the slave days, to enforce their “supremacy”.
Nice!
“Take it to the Supremes, Gov. The sooner, the better. Eric The Red will lose this one.”
How can you be sure of anything after the Obamacare farce?
I’d just stick my tongue out at Holder and say, “nyah!!!!”
Lincoln did it to MD in 1861. Suspended habeus corpus, sent in the Army - rounded up the entire legislature, Governor etc. as they were getting ready to vote on sessecion. Held them as POWs while they appointed a military dictator and imposed martial law.
The federal government plays for keeps, and I’m sure they are more than willing and capable of demonstrating that fact to Kansas or any other state that gets too uppitty.
I don’t really think that any of the States have the resources or spleen to start a civil war over it by trying to resist a federal take-over of their State.
If any of them want to try it, it would get interesting - but I think that the feds would crush them like a bug in short order.
If you don’t think that Barry and friends wouldn’t bomb a State Capitol flat to the ground like Dresden just to make a point, then I don’t think you are taking this regime quite seriously enough. They mean business.
Soetoro can make Bashir Assad look like a compassionate humanitarian if he ever goes tactical on us.
Keep pushing the “State’s rights” issue and he very well might.
More states need to do this. Makes me want to move to Kansas. If only it wasn’t so flat.
I have no doubt every word you say is true, the feds are capable of murder on a mass scale. The states would have to be non-violent and through law or other tactics force the feds to become violent in their response. Then it’s up to the states to exploit the psychological and physical damage to the greatest extent possible.
Were they to level a state capital and have the 101st airborne shown kicking in doors and going house to house the optics would be horrifying for Party Chairman in the white house. With the internet they could not hide their crimes forcing them to pull the plug on the net making more enemies in the process.
Without state and local support the feds could only impose their total will in certain areas as long as they are in those areas and while in those areas using NKVD tactics they are not going to be making any friends only more enemies.
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.