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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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