States Move to Nullify Federal Laws Infringing on the 2nd Amendment

For those of you following the Federal Government's wholesale attack on the 2nd Amendment, I have the following good news. Despite the government's equivocations that none of their proposed gun-control legislation infringes on the rights of individuals, the people are wising up to their games by the multitudes. What a lot of people don't realize is that the tenth Amendment is also under attack.

State governments across the Union are now lining up to pass laws which effectively riminalize the enforcement of federal gun-control within their state boundaries. As I hope you'll agree, these developments would constitutes a clear win for the 2nd Amendment as well as State Sovereignty, in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Federal Government begs to differ.

A new law in Kansas, SB102 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 have “interstate commerce” authority over such items. This rationale must be accepted by any ordinary person on it's face.

Not surprisingly, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition.  In a flippant letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month, 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.... 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.

You don't need to be a genius at reading comprehension to see that Eric Holder is picking and choosing which constitutional constraints apply to the federal government. His response is tantamount to saying "The Federal Government can do whatever it wants, the States and Constitution be damned." Or, "The Constitution applies when we say it does."

I hope it's not lost on you, dear reader, the irony of the Federal Government citing one part of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause) as their case for disabling another part of the Constitution (2nd Amendment, right to bear arms), while ignoring another part of the Constitution (10th Amendment, state sovereignty) in the process.

Here is the full text of Eric Holder's letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback:

The Federal Government clearly suffers from a case of selective hearing in matters concerning the scope of it's authority.

I will remind the reader that since federal law only applies to those living under the exclusive legislative authority of the United States, which is the current euphemism ur Federal Government likes to be known by – and is politically different from the "U.S.A" you probably remember pledging allegiance to in grade school – it can be said that the dear Attorney General is either completely uneducated on the Constitution, or deliberately misleading the the public in a campaign of misinformation. And since he is a Harvard law grad, my hunch is that he foregoes the former with respect to the latter.

How is it that our most hypocritical, corrupt, Constitution-hating officials have backgrounds in law? It's not a capitol offense for people to speak out against guns... but as a high-level functionary of the Federal Government, Eric Holder should know that this does not apply to him working within his capacity as Attorney General of the United States, sworn to the Constitution for which it stands. I'm looking forward to the impeachment proceedings when these defectors are kicked lock-stock-and-barrel out of office.

Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, knows what's up. In, what I think is, a well-worded rebuttal to Eric Holder's letter, he calls Holder out on his "flexible interpretation" of Federal Laws regarding his gun-running operation to Mexican cartels:

Kansas isn't the only state passing legislation to nullify the Federal Government's attempts to infringe on our right to bear arms. Not one day after Eric Holder sent his letter threatening Kansas for passing it's Second Amendment Protection Act, the Missouri Senate apparently thumbed its nose at the Attorney General's warped understanding of the Constitution and passed the Show-Me-State's version of 2nd Amendment protection by a veto-proof majority.

HB 436 passed the Senate 26-6 on Thursday. The Senate added three amendments, and the bill must now 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 in 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.

Consistent with bills being ushered through other State Congresses, the Missouri legislation 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.

While this is great news for the Union, does anyone actually think liberal states like California will ever get to drafting, let alone passing similar legislation? There would need to be a sea change in Californian attitudes towards big government. The jury is still out on that one.

We can plainly see that it isn't just the 2nd Amendment but also the 10th Amendment that are in the cross-hairs of federal gun-grabbers. One might be tempted to think that they're trying to retire the Constitution...

If the corrupt individuals masquerading as elected officials in our Federal system of government continue this campaign of hypocrisy, then they risk alienating the citizens they depend on for maintaining the thin veneer of legitimacy they have left.