Skip to comments.Fight brewing in Kansas Over Gun-Control Nullification Laws
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 ...
only 2 minutes - pass it on after viewing. it is going viral ...
YOu keep cutting posting that, if its going viral you wouldn’t need to keep posting it.
Legal experts generally agree that Holder is in the right here.
Do they? Do they really?
This should get interesting.
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.
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.
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 .
“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.
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".
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
2nd Amendment bump for later.......
State constitutions had the right to keep and bear arms in them before the U.S. Constitution was written.
Repeat postings are EXACTLY what is needed with that video!
Is there a Ft. Sumter in Kansas?
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.
How long does anyone think the Federal Government or the libs will tolerate “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary churches” for Second Amendment supporters?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't have to.
Then don't make things up.
Fine post. Here is another example of why is worth shelling out some $$ to support this board.