Eric Holder challenges KS Firearms Freedom Act

[madengr]

That was fast, and so it begins:

 

[AmericasLastHope]

So if Federal agents are enforcing laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment, how is it "unconstitutional" for Kansas to prosecute those agents given that the 10th Amendment says:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Moreover, how is it not unconstitutional for Holder to proclaim that he is upholding the Supremacy Clause by allowing Federal Agents to violate the Constitution in Kansas? Are Obama's 23 Executive Orders considered the "supreme law of the land?" Congress did not pass those Executive Orders into law, but Holder is saying they're the "supreme law of the land." So basically that means Holder is saying Obama can pass whatever law he wants using Executive Orders no matter how unconstitutional and no state can do anything about it. Pure dictatorship.

 

[BamaAla]

Someone hasn't read Supremacy Clause jurisprudence, or is the Justice department just ignoring stare decisis?

 

[Matt Collins]

Someone hasn't read Supremacy Clause jurisprudence, or is the Justice department just ignoring stare decisis?

There is no rule of law hadn't you noticed?

 

[Matt Collins]

Now we're going to find out how much of a spine Governor Brownback has

 

[TheTexan]

Someone hasn't read Supremacy Clause jurisprudence, or is the Justice department just ignoring stare decisis?

Vast majority of supreme court precedent does support his argument. But as they are so often are, these precedents are wrong.

What they don't understand though is that, it very clearly says, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not supreme court decisions.

If supreme court decisions were the supreme law of the land, it would just be silly. They could make a law that says that 3=4 and rule that to be constitutional. Which is basically what they have done, with their twisting and manipulation of things like the commerce clause into something that gives the FedGov infinite power.

Nullification, and secession, are the recourse to this problem. Even just as a threat, as tools they can be used to keep the FedGov in line. But ever since Lincoln took those tools away through force and murder... well, we see of course what has happened.

 

[The Goat]

The real face off will be if the state arrest a FEDcoat for enforcing a FEDcoat law.


I really like the label "FEDcoat". XD

 

[TheTexan]

The bottom line, is it doesn't matter what Eric Holder thinks. Kansas knew it wouldn't have Federal approval obviously, but they passed the bill anyway. They just need to stand firm with their convictions.

Link to the bill:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/sb102_enrolled.pdf

 

[Tod]

Vast majority of supreme court precedent does support his argument. But as they are so often are, these precedents are wrong.

What they don't understand though is that, it very clearly says, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not supreme court decisions.

If supreme court decisions were the supreme law of the land, it would just be silly. They could make a law that says that 3=4 and rule that to be constitutional. Which is basically what they have done, with their twisting and manipulation of things like the commerce clause into something that gives the FedGov infinite power.

Nullification, and secession, are the recourse to this problem. Even just as a threat, as tools they can be used to keep the FedGov in line. But ever since Lincoln took those tools away through force and murder... well, we see of course what has happened.

If nobody paid any heed to the feds, they wouldn't have any power. As in nazi germany, obedience is the problem.

 

[TheTexan]

If nobody paid any heed to the feds, they wouldn't have any power.

We're definitely heading down that road now. Last time this road was travelled, it did not end well. Better luck this time, I hope.

 

[RM918]

He's just picked up the corpse of the constitution that he killed, then strung it up and is making it dance like a puppet.

 

[Professor8000]

I'd like to see the Feds put in Jail and the Governor refuse to release them. The Federal Government can bitch and moan all it wants but it can't remove prisoners from State Jails.

 

[BamaAla]

Vast majority of supreme court precedent does support his argument. But as they are so often are, these precedents are wrong.

...

I disagree. Supremacy clause precedent tends toward states enacting laws that run counter to federal judiciary challenges and treaties. To my knowledge, it has never been applied the way Holder is suggesting.

 

[TheTexan]

I disagree. Supremacy clause precedent tends toward states enacting laws that run counter to federal judiciary challenges and treaties. To my knowledge, it has never been applied the way Holder is suggesting.

How is it much different from the examples listed here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Supreme_Court_interpretations

 

[BamaAla]

How is it much different from the examples listed here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Supreme_Court_interpretations

Ableman is the first one that came to mind, but the central issue in that case was Wisconsin issuing habeas corpus for a federal prisoner; the questions and facts don't align with the current issue. Of course, it could be applied however a federal judge wants, but I don't think the precedent is there. It should make for a good showdown if it comes to that though.

 

[jkr]

this FUCKER has been at wOr with America for over 20 YEARS!!!

FUCK YOU "eric"

 

[shane77m]

I like what Paul Sanford said when debating the legislation currently circulating in Alabama on nullifying federal gun laws.

When challenged on the Constitution’s supremacy clause, Sanford held his ground, ”If it’s unconstitutional then the supremacy clause never comes into effect.”

The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution says that federal laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution are supreme:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412972-Alabama-moving-to-abollish-federal-gun-laws

 

[madengr]

Good read:

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...s-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law/

On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.

The new law states, in part:

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 also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”

He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Let’s take Eric apart here.

1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.

2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.

3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce. Read more about that here. As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.

Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws. He wrote:

“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”

4. Manpower. That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already. The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state. It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures. (learn about the bill in detail here). As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants. But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate. Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.

WHAT SHOULD THE RESPONSE BE?

1. Hold the Line, and Tell Holder to buzz off. Seriously. This guy has been sending threatening letters to states around the country on medical marijuana laws for years (and so did his predecessors). In fact, those letters are often even more aggressive, threatening taking property or even criminal sanctions against state or local politicians. A letter last year threatened just that against the San Diego city council. (read it here) That community knows full well the threats that are constantly made against their liberties by Holder and his DOJ team. But they push on and keep doing what they believe is right. The People of Kansas need to stand strong in support of the 2nd Amendment and reject these threats from the DOJ.

2. Local resistance. Recognizing that manpower is a VERY serious problem for the feds, people in Kansas should be constantly reaching out to county, city and town elected officials to respectfully press them into passing local ordinances to ensure that no assets will be used to enforce federal gun control. Covering the states in ordinances that provide backup to the new federal law will ensure that federal gun control will be “nearly impossible to enforce.”
LEARN MORE AND GET ACTION ITEMS HERE

3. Call Sam Brownback. Flood his phone line with messages of encouragement and support. Let him know that the people have his back – that’s how governors show courage. Brownback has a chance to act like a hero to the entire country. In fact, people all over the country should send him letters in support – he’s going to need all the help he can get.

CALLS (for Kansans only) 785-296-3232

Mail (rest of the country)

Office of the Governor
Capitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 241S
Topeka, KS 66612-1590

(or email here)

4. Support efforts in other states. Kansas can’t do it alone. A similar bill is up for a signature in Alaska. Bills are moving forward in Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere. Every state and local community that does the same will make federal enforcement even more difficult, and eventually, the feds can pass all the “laws” they want, but they won’t have any effect.

Track and model legislation here: http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2nd

JUST SAY NO!

The bad guys always talk tough, and they want to scare you into compliance . But the fact remains – they don’t have the manpower to carry out all their threats. Even with almost full state and local cooperation, there are now 18 states defying DC on marijuana prohibition. As two states – Washington and Colorado – legalize what the feds say is illegal, we’re watching the beginning of the end of federal dominance over the states.

 

[tod evans]

I'll stand with Kansas if they have the balls to stand up...

 

[TonySutton]

In support of the above post I would like to introduce members to a bit of local history for me.

The Oberlin–Wellington Rescue of 1858 in Lorain County, Ohio was a key event and cause celèbre in the history of the abolitionist movement in the United States shortly before the American Civil War. John Price, an escaped slave, was arrested in Oberlin, Ohio under the Fugitive Slave Law, and taken to Wellington by the US Marshal. Rescuers took him by force from the marshals and back to Oberlin, then to freedom in Canada.

Thirty-seven of the rescuers were at first indicted, but as a result of state and federal negotiations, only two were tried in federal court. The case received national attention, and defendants argued eloquently against the law. When rescue allies went to the 1859 Ohio Republican convention, they added a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 to the party platform. The rescue and continued activism of its participants kept the issue of slavery as part of the national discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberlin–Wellington_Rescue

If you read the whole story it did not unfold as well as it could have but such is life when you believe in freedom and are willing to stand up against tyranny.