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 it’s 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 Center’s 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 doesn’t preempt Montana’s 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.