Eric Holder challenges KS Firearms Freedom Act

To Eric Holder,

Dear Eric Holder,
Your letter to me has contained an error. Please review Article 4, and the 2nd Amendment as well as the 10th amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America known as "Supreme Law of the land". You may be misinformed, Kansas will be respecting the supermacy clause.

Sincerely,
Gov. Sam Brownback
 
The unspoken assumption in Holder's letter, and in the view of many who support him, is that ANYTHING the US government does IS Constitutional.
 
The unspoken assumption in Holder's letter, and in the view of many who support him, is that ANYTHING the US government does IS Constitutional.

This is what one of our politicians in Alabama think about federal laws. This is in regards to Alabama working to pass a law that nullifies federa gun laws.
Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton of Greensboro, who voted against the measure, said state law can’t trump federal law. “This bill is null and void on its face,” Singleton said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-new-federal-gun-control-laws/#ixzz2S9WRAUFH
 
Kansas to Eric Holder: We’re Not Backing Down!
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/kansas-to-eric-holder-were-not-backing-down/
Today, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach issued a statement in response to Eric Holder’s direct threat against the state for its new law, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act. It reads, in part:

With respect to his concern that federal officials be allowed to enforce federal laws, Mr. Holder’s statement is a curious one. He was evidently not concerned that ATFE officials be allowed to enforce federal law when his agency oversaw the “fast and furious” operation to walk guns into the hands of Mexican cartels.

The State of Kansas is determined to restore the Constitution and to protect the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

Read the full statement below. Take action in support of Kansas – details here:

1-f2044869f4.jpg


2-e50d0243d9.jpg
 
Really wish we could just get rid of all the formalities and quite dancing around the issue.

Once, just once, I want a high-profile politician to look Obama, Biden, Holder, et al. in the face and say: go fuck yourself!
 
We have a great AG and SoS in KS, both of whom speak and shoot at KSRA events, and are very pro gun.
 
http://governor.ks.gov/media-room/m...kansans-hold-dear-the-right-to-keep-bear-arms

Governor to AG Holder: Kansans hold dear the right to keep & bear arms

Topeka - Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent the following letter Thursday to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in response to his letter regarding the state's Second Amendment Protection Act:


May 2, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights. The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which expressly restates our commitment to these rights, was approved by wide, bi-partisan margins in the Kansas Legislature. The measure was adopted by a vote of 35 to 4 in the Kansas Senate with the Democrat Senate Minority Leader supporting the bill. The measure was adopted by a vote of 96 to 24 in the Kansas House of Representatives. Again, the Democrat House Minority Leader voted for the bill. This is not a partisan issue in Kansas.

The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.

Sincerely,

Sam Brownback
Governor
 
Doubleplusgood Comrade Holder! Following the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

War is peace. Freedom is terrorism. Two plus two equals five. Hey, I think I'm starting to get the hang of this!
 
Really wish we could just get rid of all the formalities and quite dancing around the issue.

Once, just once, I want a high-profile politician to look Obama, Biden, Holder, et al. in the face and say: go fuck yourself!

Well, they're doing it on paper, not face to face, and they're using slightly more polite language, but...

It looks like that's exactly what Kansas is saying!! :D

Two letters responding to Holder = flipping the double bird.
 
Well, they're doing it on paper, not face to face, and they're using slightly more polite language, but...

It looks like that's exactly what Kansas is saying!! :D

Two letters responding to Holder = flipping the double bird.

In all honesty, I'm sick and tired of people holding their tongue and being polite.
 
In all honesty, I'm sick and tired of people holding their tongue and being polite.

Well they have to maintain a certain civility and professionalism, but I hope this helps:

FUCK YOU, Eric Holder and Obama!!! FUCK YOU AND THE FUCKING HORSES YOU RODE IN ON!!!

LOL (That felt good, thanks for the great idea.)
 
Eric Holder to Kansas governor: New state gun law unconstitutional

Links at article.....
http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2013/05/eric-holder-to-kansas-governor-new.html


Attorney General Holder thinks the people of the States have no protection from the central government:

A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Mr. Holder wrote to Gov. Sam Brownback in a letter dated April 26. “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.”
Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. Kansas’s law became effective April 25.What Holder doesn not know - or pretends not to know - is that the Supremacy Clause DOES NOT say, "We can do anything we want." Here's the text:

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 operative term is "in pursuance thereof." The troublesome phrase "in pursuance" simply means "consistent with." To be consistent with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress must be within the authority granted by the people of the sovereign States within Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The power to limit the right of self-defense is nowhere to be found.
The problem for government supremacists such as Mr. Holder, not only would a federal law infringing on the right to bear arms lack a legal mandate, the Bill of Rights in the Second Amenmdent specifically states that Congress has NO POWER in this area.
If the people of Kansas submit to this DC power grab, what rights to its people have? Next thing you know, the Commander-in-Chief could claim the power to toss its people in jail without a trial.
Oh, wait a minute ...
 
Wait and see what happens, or get the ball rolling by making make yourself a supressor stamped MADE IN KANSAS and flaunt it to the ATF. Or go into business selling stripped lowers to KS residents, bypassing NICS. Better yet, toss a short barrel on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-state-gun-law/?test=latestnews#ixzz2SF2Oops5

TOPEKA, Kan. – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that a new state law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional and that the federal government is willing to go to court over the issue.

But Brownback replied in a letter Thursday that Kansans hold dear their right to bear arms and are protecting the state's sovereignty. Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped draft the law, accused the nation's top law enforcement official of "blustering" over the issue.

"The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will," Brownback said at the conclusion of his letter. "It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so."

Kansas' law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items.

The new statute says that Kansas-only guns, ammunition and accessories aren't a part of interstate commerce, which the federal government regulates under the U.S. Constitution. But in a letter to Brownback, Holder said the Constitution prohibits states from pre-empting federal laws.

Holder sent his letter April 26, the day after the Kansas law took effect, and the U.S. attorney's office for Kansas released it Thursday.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote in his letter. "And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities."

Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said gun rights supporters were prepared for such a response from President Barack Obama's administration. The president has sought new gun control measures since December's deadly mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Republican governor is a gun rights supporter, and the measure passed the GOP-dominated Legislature by wide margins. Kobach also is a Republican.

"I think the people of Kansas are going to back this up," Stoneking said. "Probably thousands of grass-roots citizens are all in."

Brownback said in his letter to Holder: "The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear."

The governor added, "The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right."

The Kansas law is modeled on a 2009 Montana law that is being reviewed by a federal appeals court, and Alaska lawmakers approved a similar measure last month. Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma lawmakers are considering similar legislation.

Supporters of the Kansas law softened it — to say that federal agents wouldn't be arrested or detained while trials were pending — and insist that it will withstand court scrutiny. A federal agent convicted for the first time under the Kansas law could face six months in prison, though probation would be the presumed sentence.

"These hard-working federal employees cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution and the continued performance of their federal duties," Barry Grissom, the U.S. attorney for Kansas, said in a statement Thursday.

But Kobach called Holder's analysis "simplistic and incorrect" and said the Kansas law is valid to protect the state's residents against unconstitutional measures enacted by Congress.

"We are very, very confident of our position," Kobach said in an interview. "The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge."

The office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has already anticipated a potential legal challenge from the federal government, and has asked legislators to increase its budget by $225,000 over the next two years to cover litigation costs.

Stoneking said a dispute could arise after a local gunsmith sells a firearm manufactured in Kansas to a state resident without complying with federal requirements for a background check on the buyer or registering the gun. Kobach agreed.

"Until that actually happens, there won't be any litigation," Stoneking said. "The federal government will have to have some way of finding out."

Supporters of the Kansas law have said they worry about attempts by the federal government to restrict or ban the sale of some weapons — or even confiscate them.

Holder said in his letter that federal law enforcement agencies will "continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.

"Moreover, the United States 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," Holder wrote.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-state-gun-law/?test=latestnews#ixzz2SFai5EZK
 
Last edited:
"Supporters of the Kansas law softened it — to say that federal agents wouldn't be arrested or detained while trials were pending — and insist that it will withstand court scrutiny. A federal agent convicted for the first time under the Kansas law could face six months in prison, though probation would be the presumed sentence.

"These hard-working federal employees cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution and the continued performance of their federal duties," Barry Grissom, the U.S. attorney for Kansas, said in a statement Thursday."

Here's another one I nominate for public disembowelment!

Lilly-livered whistledick!
 
hxxp://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220404

...Wow, Holder will sue.

Go ahead Eric, sue.

Holder seems to forget that this nation is a Federal Constitutional Republic. It operates under a Constitution where the 10th Amendment specifically provides (not that it needed to) that all matters not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to The States or the People, respectively.

Holder also seems to forget that there is exactly one way to lawfully change that -- amend The Constitution. No, a bunch of guys in black robes cannot write their own version of such an Amendment, despite their century+ long record in doing so. That we, the people, along with the States have allowed that simply speaks to this sentence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Mr. Holder ought to know that document well, as understanding and agreeing with it should be a qualification for any elected office, whether it be in a local, state or federal capacity.

One would certainly hope so, because if not, and if he "sues" and Kansas simply replies with a middle finger should Holder win, the potential exists for the next sentence in that very same document to become operative once again after a more than 200 year slumber.
 
Back
Top