Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fight brewing in Kansas Over Gun-Control Nullification Laws
Washington Post ^ | n May 3, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Posted on 05/03/2013 5:24:05 PM PDT by drewh

A fight is brewing in Kansas over the constitutionality of laws that aim to bar enforcement of federal gun-control measures.

In late April, the Kansas legislature passed and Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a law that blocks enforcement of any federal gun laws on guns produced and used within the state of Kansas. Under the law, “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.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Brownback that the law is unconstitutional and that the government “will take all appropriate action including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law.”

Brownback replied that he stands by the law and that it has broad support in the state, from Democrats and Republicans. “The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will,” he wrote Thursday. “It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.” The state argues that because the law only applies to guns in the state of Kansas, it is not covered by the commerce clause of the Constitution giving Congress regulatory power.

“With respect to any litigation, we will happily meet Mr. Holder in court,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) told the Lawrence Journal-World.

Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; doj; guncontrol; holder; secondamendment

1 posted on 05/03/2013 5:24:05 PM PDT by drewh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drewh
This is causing quite a stir - making the gun control freaks heads explode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo

only 2 minutes - pass it on after viewing. it is going viral ...

2 posted on 05/03/2013 5:27:28 PM PDT by bankwalker (In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bankwalker

YOu keep cutting posting that, if its going viral you wouldn’t need to keep posting it.


3 posted on 05/03/2013 5:54:06 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do ithat when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.

Do they? Do they really?
This should get interesting.


4 posted on 05/03/2013 5:56:16 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

The people of Kansas should be informed that Kansas is not the first state to do this, but if Kansas is successful in getting lot of attention in this fight. Then she will have an operunity to build up the message nationally that theses rights are indesensable and help move her sister states towards joining her in resisting efforts to usurp them.

What Kansas should Not do is yield to the opinion of the hand picked federal employees in black robes. She can be certain that their opinion no more legitimate than it is fair.

Meanwhile the rest us should do all we can to vigorously defend her rights.


5 posted on 05/03/2013 5:59:16 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

States do not have to lift a finger to support the Feds in the enforcement, especially when they believe such laws violate the U.S. Constitution. So “expert” Winkler, why don’t you ask Big Sis and Eric ‘the Red’ Holder why they only enforce federal laws that they only want to enforce? In other words’ the Obama Administration ‘nullify’ federal laws.


6 posted on 05/03/2013 5:59:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bankwalker

Well frankly, I have very little sympathy for the woman in this video. She deserves to get shot if she`s that utterly retarded as to not run and get another firearm, you tell the kids to get their f-ing @$$es up stairs and get another firearm and BACK THE GUY UP .


7 posted on 05/03/2013 5:59:53 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tet68

“Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.

Do they? Do they really?
This should get interesting.”

Indeed if they did, then their expertize does not extent to law.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Law by nature infringes rights, therefore Washington can’t legitimately be make law on the matter much less law that is clearly intrastate.


8 posted on 05/03/2013 6:02:19 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.

Under Wickard v. Filburn, that is probably true - and an opportunity to challenge that ruling once more.

One of the worst legal decisions in the past century, comparable to the inane National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision that ObamaCare was not unconsitutional, at least not on the grounds presented, was Wickard v. Filburn, which decided that the federal government could penalize a private farmer for growing wheat for his own use and not for sale. The Supremes said Congress had this power under the Interstate Commerce clause, because, "The effect of consumption of home-grown wheat (on the farm where grown) on interstate commerce is due to the fact that it constitutes the most variable factor in the disappearance of the wheat crop." In other words, eating crops you grow yourself affects interstate commerce because you then don't have to buy in interstate commerce.

Wickard v. Filburn found that the feds could regulate the local consumption of wheat grown on a farm and consumed on that farm because such consumption affected interstate commerce. Under exactly the same reasoning, the manufacture, purchase, and use of a Kansas firearm in Kansas by Kansans affects interstate commerce and could be subject to federal regulation. I would love to see this case go to the Supremes so they have a chance to reverse one of their most shockingly stupid decisions that has not yet been overturned.

If Wickard v. Filburn is overturned, that is a huge victory for small government and for the 9th and 10th Amendments. If we try and fail, we have lost nothing. If Kansas arrests and locks up some feds for violating state law, that will be good for America - counting the costs and real risks of enforcement will give even the most evil of leftists some pause. Perhaps they will back off for the moment and hope that demographics will allow them to gain more power later, which gives us time to, as Governor Plain says, "reload".

9 posted on 05/03/2013 6:02:54 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Please don't let this happen.

FR is funded solely by the freedom loving folks who love and use it.

All Contributions are for This Quarter's Expenses!

10 posted on 05/03/2013 6:03:52 PM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tet68
If you read the bill, most of it deals with enforcing federal gun control bills against firearms manufactured, sold, and owned in Kansas. The argument is that since there was no interstate commerce in these cases then the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to regulate firearms doesn't apply and that the 9th and 10th Amendments allows the state regulate such firearms. On not regulate as the case may be. Such an argument would seem to make sense and would make for an interesting court case. Kansas could very well win under circumstances like that.

But then they went and put in Section 6 (a) which reads "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." Without the qualifier of applying only to guns manufactured, sold, and owned then this does become nullification of a federal law, which is not legal. The state doesn't have the authority to decide if the federal law violates the Constitution. And it can't prevent federal agents from enforcing them.

Without that clause I'd give Kansas a better than even chance of surviving any challenge. With that clause it gives the Justice Department grounds to challenge.

11 posted on 05/03/2013 6:08:45 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Be careful what you wish for. The current court could just make the matter worse with convoluted logic.

In many important cases, the minority opinion on the court has actually been the correct one, but politics of the day seemed to get the nod, and made up stuff is the reason - for example a right to privacy trumps a right to live?? Not in my book.


12 posted on 05/03/2013 6:14:23 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drewh

“Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.”

Oh, look, the Nazis at the Washington Post agree that the Nazi Holder is right.

Kumbiya, Nazi puke. Come and get your just dessert.


13 posted on 05/03/2013 6:24:49 PM PDT by sergeantdave (No, I don't have links for everything I post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
Be careful what you wish for. The current court could just make the matter worse with convoluted logic.

The line has to drawn somewhere. Do it now before I get too old to participate in the much needed re-set.
14 posted on 05/03/2013 6:25:38 PM PDT by jy8z (From the next to last exit before the end of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
YOu keep cutting posting that, if its going viral you wouldn’t need to keep posting it.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Freepers have now viewed that video. Most have passed it on to their family, friends, etc. If I hadn't posted it, nobody here would even know it exists.

What, exactly, have you done recently to counter the other side's message?

15 posted on 05/03/2013 6:35:13 PM PDT by bankwalker (In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tet68
See all sorts of SCOTUS precedent on this. The feds claim power over everything. The trials are in federal courts. Which side wins?

See Scalia and the Raich (pot) case, which logic was applied to guns in the Reynolds case in the 9th Circuit.

As a matter of proper application of law, Kansas is right. As a matter of law the way it is practiced, and as a matter of brute force (which is all the law is about, at bottom), the legal experts are right. The federal courts will quickly render the KS law unconstitutional.

16 posted on 05/03/2013 6:41:17 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bankwalker
-- Hundreds, if not thousands, of Freepers have now viewed that video. --

You have a point, but the message you were given, and I'm going to repeat it, is that your repetition is annoying. By extension, you are annoying.

Now, maybe you don't care if you are annoying, but your attempt to elevate your repetition to a noble act and to belittle others who don't do repetition like you do shows that you aren't hearing the message, or your brain isn't processing it. If FR had a twitlist, I'd have put you on it hours ago, and you'd be none the wiser for it.

17 posted on 05/03/2013 6:48:34 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: drewh

2nd Amendment bump for later.......


18 posted on 05/03/2013 6:58:49 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

PRECEDENT:
State constitutions had the right to keep and bear arms in them before the U.S. Constitution was written.
NY 1777
NH 1784
MA 1780
NC 1776
PA 1776


19 posted on 05/03/2013 7:10:29 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Repeat postings are EXACTLY what is needed with that video!


20 posted on 05/03/2013 7:32:39 PM PDT by G Larry (Darkness Hates the Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Is there a Ft. Sumter in Kansas?


21 posted on 05/03/2013 7:33:53 PM PDT by G Larry (Darkness Hates the Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Libs don’t like having to answer tough questions like that. If the Federal Government will sue a state to prohibit it from enforcing Federal law, then why would it sue another state to compel it to enforce Federal law? The Federal Government has set the precedent that it can ignore certain Federal laws. The States can follow suit.


22 posted on 05/03/2013 7:39:11 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: drewh

How long does anyone think the Federal Government or the libs will tolerate “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary churches” for Second Amendment supporters?


23 posted on 05/03/2013 7:40:59 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Hopefully Kansas will win against this communists bunch of rotten criminals King Obama has placed in his Administration. Let the real war begin upholding our Constitution.
24 posted on 05/03/2013 7:41:54 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh; Old Sarge; NorthernCrunchyCon; UMCRevMom@aol.com; Finatic; fellowpatriot; MarineMom613; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

25 posted on 05/03/2013 7:44:50 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

“What Kansas should Not do is yield to the opinion of the hand picked federal employees in black robes. She can be certain that their opinion no more legitimate than it is fair.”

The supremes need to be told to stick it when they go against the constitution. It is time for the states to do USSC nullification.


26 posted on 05/03/2013 7:47:19 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: drewh

The federal government sued AZ because they were enforcing federal immigration laws and now the feds are saying it’s also illegal for states to not enforce federal law.

It should make an interesting court case.


27 posted on 05/03/2013 8:00:21 PM PDT by RJL (There's no greed like the greed of a liberal politician buying votes with your money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
The state doesn't have the authority to decide if the federal law violates the Constitution.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, Federal statutes notwithstanding. The States must abide by said Supreme Law regardless of what the AG says. Law enforcement within the States is NOT enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal power, all law Constitutionally legitimate law enforcement is in the States. States enforce hordes of Federal laws. Managing enforcement entails interpretation. In that event, and until there is a final order, they have every right to enforce those laws as they interpret them.

Moreover, States have standing to sue over Federal usurpation of power. Until there is a ruling by the SCOTUS, I'm with Kansas.

28 posted on 05/03/2013 8:04:18 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: drewh

So.....the Atty General of the US is no on written record stating that a state cannot stop him from violating the constitution that he swore to uphold? Shouldn’t this be grounds for impeachment?


29 posted on 05/03/2013 8:23:32 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Under Wickard then a photovoltaic energy system that lets you operate off the grid is illegal.

Didn’t the ruling have something to do with the “transportation” of the wheat from one location to another, even though the land was owned by the same farmer? Must do some research...


30 posted on 05/03/2013 8:26:07 PM PDT by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Revel


The supremes need to be told to stick it when they go against the constitution. It is time for the states to do USSC nullification.”

That’s a nonsensical statement Revel. The printable of nullification as established the the Kentucky & Virginal resolutions and explained in practice in the earlier Federalist papers holds that the States as ratifying parties to the Constitution hold a the power and responsibility to resist Federal usurpation.

To nullify an act is simply to declare that act as illegitimate and beyond the powers granted by the Constitution.

The State’s claim this responsibility under the same oath clause under which the Federal Courts claim the responsibility ironically enough. (Our State leglsator’s take the exact same oath)

The difference is like that of the difference between the legislative and exclusive branches in that the States simply play a different roll with a different set of powers, which is this case ‘co-equal’ to the Federal Government as a whole rather than just branches thereof.

Of course that is a matter of some ‘lose’ languages. In most respects our States are superior to Washington.


31 posted on 05/03/2013 8:32:41 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1FreeAmerican
Under Wickard then a photovoltaic energy system that lets you operate off the grid is illegal. Didn’t the ruling have something to do with the “transportation” of the wheat from one location to another, even though the land was owned by the same farmer? Must do some research...

I don't think either applies. There are no (currently at least) limits or quotas on how much energy we can produce. If there were, they could easily be applied to home production, even if used in the home. As for the transportation, the only relevant detail in the Supreme Court ruling was that the crop could have been fed to livestock as hay but the act of threshing incurred the penalty. I never read the lower court rulings, but no transportation is mentioned by the Supremes other than implicit mention that the wheat was harvested, threshed, and then some sold on the open market and the excess production fed to the farmer's own poultry.

32 posted on 05/04/2013 1:13:40 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
States enforce hordes of Federal laws. Managing enforcement entails interpretation.

States cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. But that isn't what the bone of contention is. The law says that federal law enforcement officials trying to enforce federal gun control laws against owners of guns manufactured, sold, and owned in Kansas are committing a felony and are subject to arrest.

33 posted on 05/04/2013 4:39:35 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
States cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. But that isn't what the bone of contention is.

Um, yes it is. Kansas interprets the Second Amendment (you know, said "Supreme Law of the Land") as to render Federal gun laws void. Kansas also interprets said Supreme Law on the Commerce Clause (the true purpose of which was to preclude tariffs among the States) as inapplicable.

34 posted on 05/04/2013 6:29:46 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Um, yes it is. Kansas interprets the Second Amendment (you know, said "Supreme Law of the Land") as to render Federal gun laws void. Kansas also interprets said Supreme Law on the Commerce Clause (the true purpose of which was to preclude tariffs among the States) as inapplicable.

That's part of it. The first half of your conclusion feeds right into Holder's plan; states do not have the authority to decide what is Constitutional and what is not. The second half about the Commerce Clause is where the state has a case. But adding the threat to arrest federal agents attempting to enforce federal gun control laws against weapons manufactured, sold, and owned in Kansas was what Holder specifically mentioned in his letter to Brownback. But if the courts uphold Kansas' claims about the Commerce Clause then the authority of those agents to act against those kinds of firearms goes away.

35 posted on 05/04/2013 6:44:06 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
The first half of your conclusion feeds right into Holder's plan; states do not have the authority to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

Yes, they do, because they do the enforcement. You already conceded that. Now, you're backtracking.

But adding the threat to arrest federal agents attempting to enforce federal gun control laws against weapons manufactured, sold, and owned in Kansas was what Holder specifically mentioned in his letter to Brownback.

I don't know about the text of the law, but if it containsa a finding that said Federale would be committing an abuse of power under the color of authority or a deprivation of Constitutional rights by attempting to enforce said unconstitutional Federal "laws," then yes, they would have grounds for at least an arrest if not a conviction.

36 posted on 05/04/2013 6:50:18 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Yes, they do, because they do the enforcement. You already conceded that. Now, you're backtracking.

Don't put words in my mouth. So then if Connecticut reads the Constitution as allowing them to ban all gun ownership by anyone not part of the state National Guard or in law enforcement then the have that right, since they can interpret the Constitution any way they want?

I don't know about the text of the law...

Why not? Kansas SB 102. It's available on line.

... but if it containsa a finding that said Federale would be committing an abuse of power under the color of authority or a deprivation of Constitutional rights by attempting to enforce said unconstitutional Federal "laws," then yes, they would have grounds for at least an arrest if not a conviction.

And there in lies the rub so far as Holder is concerned. He says it isn't a Commerce Clause issue, Kansas says it is. So what they'll need to do is actually arrest someone and take the matter through the courts.

37 posted on 05/04/2013 8:16:10 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't have to.

38 posted on 05/04/2013 8:54:14 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I didn't have to.

Then don't make things up.

39 posted on 05/04/2013 9:25:47 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Fine post. Here is another example of why is worth shelling out some $$ to support this board.


40 posted on 05/04/2013 9:44:48 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson