Skip to comments.New law protects 2nd Amendment from feds
Posted on 04/18/2013 9:54:09 AM PDT by Perseverando
Bills 'nullifying' Washington overreach gaining momentum across the country
It was called the strongest pro-gun bill in the country, and now its the law in Kansas.
The law is designed to counter the push by liberal federal lawmakers for increased restrictions on gun rights. It nullifies any new limits on firearms, magazines and ammunition whether enacted by Congress, presidential executive order or any agency.
If Congress would have passed the Senate amendment expanding federal background checks, for example, the Kansas law would nullify it in the state.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 102 into law yesterday, which exempts Kansas from any laws the federal government might pass that would infringe on Second Amendment rights.
Specifically, the Kansas law prevents federal law enforcement officials from enforcing any laws restricting Second Amendment rights.
To ease concerns by some lawmakers over showdowns, federal officers would not be handcuffed or jailed, but they would be prosecuted.
The law is significant not just because of its intent, but because of who signed it. Brownback is a major political figure in the Republican Party who served as a congressman and a senator for the state until election as governor in 2010. Throwing his weight behind a nullification law lends credibility to a growing trend.
An impressive 32 state legislatures have now introduced pro-Second Amendment nullification bills. The progress of the bills can be tracked at the Tenth Amendment Centers website.
Montana began the trend with its Firearms Freedom Act. The law is currently tied up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments last month. The Cato and Goldwater Institutes have filed a friend-of-the-court brief, arguing that federal law doesnt preempt Montanas ability to exercise its sovereign police powers to facilitate the exercise of individual rights protected by the
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Like it or not, federal law reigns supreme.
Why pass only only protecting 2nd ammendment? Why not all of them.
Then you can refuse to implement Obamacare too...
Actually the constitution reigns supreme.
Which is where federal supremacy comes from....
The supremacy clause only applies to laws made pursuant to the constitution.
“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Correct. All these states are doing is affirming that. They are protecting their citizens from tyrannical federal lawmakers who are attempting to infringe on our Constitutional rights.
Federal law does not reign supreme. I, as individual reign supreme. My God given rights reign supreme. The federal and state governments are the creation of us, the people, we reign supreme. Your statement is that of a subject, a slave. There would be no federal or state governments unless, we, the true masters of our own individual destinies say so.
There’s a federal groin leech in every crowd.
Now run along to your masters and tell them that I have no intent of complying with their dictates. I’m probably violating a half dozen federal laws that I don’t even know about.
Admitting to not reading the whole article, but.....
Isn’t there already a law on the books that renders ALL federal and state firearms laws null and void?
Though that was what the Second Amendment was about.....
...we now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast...
K Y P D !!!!
Liberals, who hate the constitution, like to bring up the supremacy clause without actually reading what it says. The purpose is not to prevent states from reacting to fed overreach, but to guarantee every citizen has the constitutional rights protected. New York’s SAFE act is a violation of the supremacy clause.
Now run along to your masters
Pointing out a fact does not mean I'm agreement with it, even if you're too dim to understand that.
Go lay down boy.
What does “in Pursuance thereof” mean?
I disagree with you so you're a liberal! Waah! Waah!
The purpose is not to prevent states from reacting to fed overreach, but to guarantee every citizen has the constitutional rights protected.
And - where, exactly - do you see that written in the Supremacy Clause?
It’s not written in legalese. It’s easy to understand. It means unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land. Rejoice, what you thought about the Supremacy Clause is wrong! States can nullify any unconstitutional law! I’m sure you, as a conservative, would like that. Right?
I’m just “pointing out a fact”. Liberals love your version of the supremacy clause. It’s just not the actual version. You should be happy that you’re wrong about this.
Just read it. That’s all I ask.
Anyway. Yeah Kansas! My future home!
On paper perhaps.......and only if it can be enforced.
The states should take a page from the Obama playbook. Ignore the laws they don't like and dare the feds to do something about it.
Let's be realistic. Obama and the feds have stated that they can ignore the Constitution when they disagree with it. Well, once that gate has been opened, the same thing would apply to the states.
In this country now, the law means what any level of government wants it to mean on any given day. We are no longer a nation of laws.
Show me ONE example, in the entire history of this country, where a state, pursuant to passage of a law passed in that state, successfully nullified a federal law.
Im sure you, as a conservative, would like that. Right?
As I said before, LIKE IT OR NOT, federal supremacy is exactly what the Founding Fathers (or at least a majority) had in mind.
I would love to nullify the PATRIOT Act, or the Brady Bill, or any number of other federal laws. But it simply doesn't work that way.
We still don't know what is means and here you go bringing big words like into this discussion.
Leaving aside that you use Wikipedia as a source, if you read what you cited closely you'll see those state laws had to do with state cooperation in enforcement of federal law.
That's distinguished from the situation in the article in the original post, which says the Kansas law would prosecute federal officials from enforcing such laws in Kansas.
About as useless as medical Marijuana laws.
Liberals love any kind of law that takes rights away from certain indiviuals and gives it to another, and love laws that give more tyranical power to the centeral government.
Obama has underestimated the strength of our resolve about our guns. We will not be giving them up, no matter what they say or do.
“”While I appreciate the intent, these laws are next to useless.”
About as useless as medical Marijuana laws.”
This is what people don’t understand about nullification measures. Pure Nullification is not designed to actively resist the Federal Government but to refuses State cooperation and most importantly to give General legitimacy to Local & individual resistance to unjust federal usurpation.
Now Kansas here is just begin to take the first step into interposition. (Which is the next phases After nullification.)
By prosecuting Federal officials(even in Federal court). Our States are demonstrating that they are getting all the more bold. This is an extremely encouraging sign given where we were just 4 years ago. But Kansas has to be careful she can’t start a fight with Washington before her sister states are ready are ready to join her. Litigation however is fine, and that is what Kansas is preparing to do.
Full on interposition MUST be a coordinated effort among the States!
NOW NRA COME HELP US OUT IN CALIFORNIA DEFEAT ALL THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!!!!!!
“if you read what you cited closely you’ll see those state laws had to do with state cooperation in enforcement of federal law.”
Yes this is called nullification.
“That’s distinguished from the situation in the article in the original post, which says the Kansas law would prosecute federal officials from enforcing such laws in Kansas.”
This is called litigation & interposition.
Both are part of of the general process(Spoken of in the Federalist papers), whereas Nullification is simply designed to refuses state support for the unauthorized act and to give legitimacy to resistance. Interposition goes much further and is where the State sees the need to form itself into a shield for it’s people.
Kansas has stepped very lightly into this domain by way of litigation. Ultimately however when more states are ready to Join Kansas it will be possible to move into full on interposition.
That is where the State will actually refuse to let the illegitimate ‘Federal’ agent stand trial in Federal court. But we are still a long way from being ready for that, Hopefully we won’t even have to go there.
If enough states nullify the Federal encroachments Washington wont have the practical resources to enforce their lawless edicts. Kansas is simply going to make it all that more difficult for the Federal agents to operate unlawfully in the State.
“NOW NRA COME HELP US OUT IN CALIFORNIA DEFEAT ALL THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!!!!!!”
You got to help yourself. My only advice is to hide your guns, never admit to having them to anyone.
If your local officials are friendly, encourage them to help provide warning against searches so that you can move them. Resistance in that hell hole will be tough, but ultimately you have to wait for your population to realize what a horrible mistake they made in disarming their honest citizen.
Until then you have to defend yourself quietly, that is if you can’t leave the state.
Right here Ill underline it for you:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; " Most acts of congress are not made in pursuance of the Federal Constitution as the Federal constitution say nothing whatsoever on the matter. * An act of nullification is really nothing more than a deceleration by the sovereign authority of the State that a given Federal act is a transgression against the reserved rights of the people & their states in violation of Federal constitution, and therefore invalid. This is done in pursuance to the oath of State legislatures take to uphold the Federal constitution
* Acts of interposition are also in pursuance to the oath of State legislature to uphold the Federal constitution. But they go further than mere nullification in that they recognizes the need for the State act to protect the rights of it's citizens from the progress of this evil.
Once again I remind you this oath is the exact same oath that the Federal government's employees in black robes claimed as the foundation of their own power to nullify unconstitutional Congressional & executive act in Madison vs Marbury. If the Federal court has this power & responsibly then so to does every official that takes the oath in their respective capacities. The big difference is our State Legislators have the Sovereign authority of the States. The same sovereign authority that created the Federal Constitution in the first place. This makes them morally superior to the Federal government's hand picked employees in black robes. In addition to that their capacities to resist is also far greater than the federal court as they control the domestic armies of the State(police force) as well as the militia should they take the responsible act and reassert said control over Militia by purging the officer core.
Federal "supremacy" comes from the limited powers granted them...
When the Feds cutoff funds to the state, cutoff all monies sent from the state to Washington, DC. Screw the Feds.
Spoken like a true libertarian...
“If it simply doesn’t work that way...”
Then how does it work Ron???
Riiiiight, because a federal court ruling on the limits of federal powers MUST be right, right? [eyeroll] I mean, I'd still show up for arguments because if lightning strikes and they rule in your favor, it's a powerful precedent, but if they rule against you [shrug]? That's kind of missing the point, isn't it? To let the feds define the limits of federalism?