Attorney General Holder threatens Kansas over state gun nullification bill

[n2sooners]

The office of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback received a letter from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, informing Brownback that his state’s recent passage of Senate Bill (S.B.) 102, which nullifies any new federal gun control laws within the state of Kansas, will not be considered legitimate by the federal government.

S.B. 102 is “unconstitutional” because in “purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers…(the bill) directly conflicts with federal law,” Holder wrote.

“Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties,” Holder continued. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Kansas may not prevent federal employees from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because S.B. 102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes this new statute; all provisions of federal firearms laws and regulations and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Holder concluded by informing Brownback that “federal law enforcement agencies…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal laws and regulations,” and he then threatened the state with “litigation, if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law.”

S.B. 102, referred to as the Second Amendment Protection Act, was passed by the Kansas Congress in March, passing the House by a vote of 96-24 and the Senate by 35-4. Brownback then signed it into law last month.

The bill states that 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 bill further defines what it means by the Second Amendment:

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.​

While many, such as Holder, cite the Supremacy Clause as overriding state laws when they come into conflict with federal law, others contend that this is an incorrect view of the clause, which reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The argument is that the Supremacy Clause only relates to laws that are expressly permitted by the Constitution and not just any federal law.

The clause states that “only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land,” writes Thomas E. Woods, a professor of American history and author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. “Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not ‘in pursuance thereof’ and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.”

Further, according to Woods, Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, emphasized this view of the clause.

“Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand ‘acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,’ at the same time ‘the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.’ In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause ‘expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.’”

source

You know, the more things pan out like this the less I see us having a revolution and the more I see something like the civil war where the states once again have to stand up for state's rights. The difference this time is that they will also be standing up for individual rights. I don't know if it will necessarily lead to war this time though. It could lead to a constitutional convention or a mostly peaceful split or the courts could finally step up and start reigning in the federal government one case at a time. Or maybe the fiscal collapse will occur first. Between Obamacare and millions of illegal immigrants suddenly becoming legal the inevitable collapse could be sooner than anyone thinks.

 

[Spata]

lol... constitution.....

 

[n2sooners]

And I missed this, seems Missouri doesn't care what Holder thinks

Just one day after Eric Holder sent a letter threatening Kansas if it enforces its recently passed Second Amendment Protection Act, the Missouri Senate thumbed its nose at the Attorney General and passed the Show-Me-State version of Second Amendment protection by a veto-proof majority.

HB 436 passed the Senate 26-6 on Thursday.

The House passed already passed the bill 115-41, also a veto-proof majority. But the Senate added three amendments, and the bill must no go back to the House for concurrence.

If passed into law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future. It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.​

The legislation also includes misdemeanor criminal penalties if agents of the federal government attempt to enact gun control measures that violate the Constitution of the United States and State Constitution of Missouri.

The Senate amendments don’t substantively change the bill. One removed some superfluous language dealing with felons from the House version. A second amendment requires any firearms purchased in a state or local gun buyback program to be sold to licensed dealers. And the third consists of a declaration acknowledging the need to fight crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It has no force and does not alter the substance of the bill.

source

 

[Glocktogo]

Kansas doesn't seem to care. Wish Oklahoma and Texas would follow suit.

Stupid Letter:

Awesome Response:

Reinforcing Response:

 

[mugsy]

The Holder letter and the Kansas law/bill BOTH beg the question of "who gets to definitively say when a law is unconstitutional?" The typical student learns that, ultimately, the final arbiter is the U.S. Supreme Court but even that is a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts and at times it hasn't been enough to carry the day. Ultimately, there will be some kind of consensus whether arrived at through formal legal processes or via the simple weight of public opinion. Let's all hope and pray that it never again comes to something more violent than that because, even after two World Wars, the US civil war is still the most destructive war this nation ever fought.

 

[TerryMiller]

With respect to the idea that this nation would not go to war, but could possibly have another "constitutional convention," that thought really concerns me. If I understand correctly, a "constitutional convention" would have its members chosen by the Congress. Needless to say, I don't trust Congress, even if a majority were Republicans. We all know that there are "progressive" Republicans as well as Democrats, and they just might "progress" us right out of our current rights and give us a constitution that was a "living document," meaning it would be whatever the powers-that-be want it to be.

 

[n2sooners]

With respect to the idea that this nation would not go to war, but could possibly have another "constitutional convention," that thought really concerns me. If I understand correctly, a "constitutional convention" would have its members chosen by the Congress. Needless to say, I don't trust Congress, even if a majority were Republicans. We all know that there are "progressive" Republicans as well as Democrats, and they just might "progress" us right out of our current rights and give us a constitution that was a "living document," meaning it would be whatever the powers-that-be want it to be.

A constitutional convention is nothing to be scared of. It still maintains a very high threshold to pass an amendment, it just makes it easier to get the process rolling. I seriously doubt it would happen, just listed it as an outside possibility.

 

[jakerz]

With respect to the idea that this nation would not go to war, but could possibly have another "constitutional convention," that thought really concerns me. If I understand correctly, a "constitutional convention" would have its members chosen by the Congress. Needless to say, I don't trust Congress, even if a majority were Republicans. We all know that there are "progressive" Republicans as well as Democrats, and they just might "progress" us right out of our current rights and give us a constitution that was a "living document," meaning it would be whatever the powers-that-be want it to be.

I couldn't agree more. This would scare me more than anything else.

 

[Glocktogo]

With respect to the idea that this nation would not go to war, but could possibly have another "constitutional convention," that thought really concerns me. If I understand correctly, a "constitutional convention" would have its members chosen by the Congress. Needless to say, I don't trust Congress, even if a majority were Republicans. We all know that there are "progressive" Republicans as well as Democrats, and they just might "progress" us right out of our current rights and give us a constitution that was a "living document," meaning it would be whatever the powers-that-be want it to be.

Well if that fails, there's always revolution!

 

[dutchwrangler]

The Holder letter and the Kansas law/bill BOTH beg the question of "who gets to definitively say when a law is unconstitutional?" The typical student learns that, ultimately, the final arbiter is the U.S. Supreme Court but even that is a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts and at times it hasn't been enough to carry the day. Ultimately, there will be some kind of consensus whether arrived at through formal legal processes or via the simple weight of public opinion. Let's all hope and pray that it never again comes to something more violent than that because, even after two World Wars, the US civil war is still the most destructive war this nation ever fought.

The Declaration of Independence states it plainly... the people.

..., Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Study of the Magna Carta repeats this in that it is the right and duty of the jury (the people) to judge the justice of the laws.

SCOTUS only has jurisdiction on those matters pertaining to the finite powers enumerated in the Constitution (which is a dead letter).