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.