New law protects 2nd Amendment from feds

WND ^ | Arpil 17, 2013 | Garth Kant

[gdani]

States can nullify any unconstitutional law!

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.

I’m 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.

[demshateGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Laws

[itsahoot]

What does “in Pursuance thereof” mean?

We still don't know what is means and here you go bringing big words like into this discussion.

[gdani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Laws

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.

Try again.

[Yo-Yo]

While I appreciate the intent, these laws are next to useless.

About as useless as medical Marijuana laws.

[American Constitutionalist]

The states and " The people " have powers and authority that were not granted to the United States i.e. federal government in the 10th Admendment.

So yes, a state has a right to nulify a law that's unconstitutional.

The 10th Admendment... states rights.

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

>> Actually the constitution reigns supreme. > > Which is where federal supremacy comes from.... Only kinda. There's a qualifier there, those laws "made in the pursuance thereof" [the Constitution] -- therefore, any federal law which is contrary to the Constitution does not enjoy supremacy. For further reading, start here.

[Monorprise]

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.

[Monorprise]

“”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!

[Mat_Helm]

NOW NRA COME HELP US OUT IN CALIFORNIA DEFEAT ALL THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!!!!!!

[Monorprise]

“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.

[Monorprise]

“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.

[Monorprise]

"And - where, exactly - do you see that written in the Supremacy Clause?"

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.

[DBeers]

Which is where federal supremacy comes from....

Federal "supremacy" comes from the limited powers granted them...

[MasterGunner01]

This being the case, the the governor gives all Feds 30 days to leave the state. After that, the State Police will arrest these alphabet agency a**holes, bus them to the state line, and dump them. Alternatively, if there's an Amtrak train coming through, put ‘em on the train and escort the train out of state.

When the Feds cutoff funds to the state, cutoff all monies sent from the state to Washington, DC. Screw the Feds.

[stevie_d_64]

Spoken like a true libertarian...

“If it simply doesn’t work that way...”

Then how does it work Ron???

[Still Thinking]

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

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?