Previous Post
Next Post

US AG Holder's letter to Kansas Governor Brownback

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “…directly conflicts with federal law and is therefor unconstitutional.”

    I do not think that means what you think it means.

    • Princess Bride quote for the WIN…

      By the way, Why are we listening to criminals like holder? That fool should be in prison for that crap he pulled in AZ.

      • Ladies and gentleman…the Attorney General!!

        What an idiot. I would ask whether he has read the Constitution or took Con Law in law school, but from his actions over the past couple of years, I know the answer.

        • This is a clear cut case of political drama on the part of the state of Kansas. This law is null-and-void on its face under the Supremacy Clause. Maybe if you knew something about the Constitution, then that would have been clear.

        • Actually, a law by the state of Kansass to enforce the Federal Constituton over Federal law is perfectly legitate. All the KS bill does is reinforce existing precedent. The Feds are going to have a hard time falling back on the Constitution as a defense for illegally enforcing an unconstitutional law. I say bring it Holder.

        • What unconstitutional law is being enforced? A law isn’t unconstitutional until a court says so. The Kansas legislature isn’t in the business of interfering with Federal law enforcement action. We tried that once under the Articles of Confederation.

        • Then the Feds are free to appeal to the Supreme Court and prove that they have the constitutional authority to enforce such laws. The Federal government has no powers under the Constitution to regulate arms in any way. No law can give them such powers as they are reserved for the people and the states.

        • Some of you need to retake civics. Legislatures make laws. Justice departments prosecute them. Courts rule whether laws are constitutional.

          That’s exactly what the DOJ is doing, whether you like what they’re doing or not.

          People who thump the bible and/or constitution are often the ones who know the least about it, I guess

        • From Wikipedia

          Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.


        • “The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. ”

          Mmm. Does AG Holder want to open the Commerce-Clause can of worms?


    • Not only that, the feds are not even self consistent. Look at Holder’s comment in the letter, “I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives …”.

      The ATF is a tax collection agency, not a law enforcement agency … and they exist to collect unconstitutional taxes at that. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstiutional to collect poll taxes — meaning taxes on fundamental rights.

      • Nothing but the fact that because California is such a large, Democrat state, that overlooking and permitting cannabis sales ensures California’s support of the Feds in other matters. If the Administration was Republican, there would likely be a fight where one does not exist now.

        • The feds hate pot in California. They still raid dispensaries and the IRS doesn’t accept any tax write-offs involving marijuana. Obummer’s pissed everyone disobeyed the feds on this one.

        • Actually you got that backwards. Raids & arrests are WAY up under Obama, go figure.

      • Only red states consider passing state laws that conflict with federal laws in this matter. If a blue state passed a similar law then I would expect it to receive the same letter – consistency.

        • Except that the federal government has no power to pass or enforce laws that conflict with the Constitution. If they violate the Constitution, the state is well within it’s rights to stop them. Federal law only has supremacy when it’s legitimate illegitimate laws are not legally enforceable.

        • What is pot?
          What are sanctuary cities for illegal aliens?
          What is gay marriage?

    • I think that this is one of those laws that the states have said “enough is enough” on. Just because the Federal government says they have the power to do something, that doesn’t make it so. Same with private sales at gun shows. There are no express powers in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to interfere. Just some made up hocus pocus jurisprudence from SCOTUS to justify this unconstitutional power grab.

    • The feds have recently threatened several medical marijuana dispensaries with legal action if they don’t shut down. This is in the Seattle area.

  2. I hope no one was under the misguided assumption that the administration would simply roll over. While I fully support the intent, the grit and the action taken by the State legislature, it also clear (this letter aside), that the federal government is not going to allow anyone, repeat; anyone, stand in its way.

    This is the first shot across the bow. It will interesting to see if other states which have taken similar measures are also challenged by the AG and even more importantly, how these states respond.

    • Stand in its way? In the way of enforcing lawfully passed laws?
      Do you want them to ignore the law. If they did this on other matters you would complain (rightfully) but since you don`t want them to enforce these laws you are happy. Inconsistent.

      I don`t want speeding laws enforced because I like to drive fast (not careless driving, just fast). Should I advocate the Feds to not enforce that law if NC decided to get rid of that statute?

      • Mike; you are a little took fast on the draw. READ THE BLOODY COMMENT!! I am not the Fed or defending them. I am simply stating that the behemoth that is the Fed, will stand its ground – whether it is Constitutional or not.

        NO; I am not “happy” with the state of this government or for that matter, the 98% of the population that is happy to allow things to continue as they are heading.

        • Sorry if I misread you comment but when you say you support the state’s action then I assumed you thought they could float Federal law and that it was unreasonable for the Feds to try and enforce the current laws.

        • Mike; No. While I may not be happy with the idea of a centralized government dictating every facet of life – downstream, I recognize that they in fact have that lawful power. My comment was in essence, suggesting that there isn’t any legal course for the state even though I appreciate their stand on this particular issue.

        • ” I recognize that they in fact have that ‘LEGAL’ power”

          There, fixed it for you…

          Like my old Dad says, “We have a “Legal System”, not a JUSTICE System”

      • When did speeding become a Federal crime?

        I want states to ignore Federal laws. 99% of Federal laws are unconstitutional. The states exist to help defend us against Federal tyranny.

      • let’s not forget, Mike, that the Federal government has already broken the rule of law by refusing to enforce it.

      • Actually, the only way the Feds can force a State to conform to a Federal speed limit is by withholding Federal money.

        Nevada has no limit, or didn’t until recently if they do. Nor Minnesota – in the daytime.

        • since when doesn’t Minnesota have a speed limit during the daytime? Statute please.

      • “I don`t want speeding laws enforced because I like to drive fast (not careless driving, just fast). Should I advocate the Feds to not enforce that law if NC decided to get rid of that statute?”

        Yes, you should. The federal government has no business enforcing anything but federal laws. There is no “federal speed limit law”.

        (As Russ stated above, the feds do try to force states to adopt a certain maximum speed limit, under threat of withholding federal highway funds. Same with the so-called “national drinking age”.)

    • he didn`t kill anyone. The ones firing the guns are responsible or don`t you believe in personal responsibility?

      • I don’t know about just as responsible as those who pulled the triggers. However, when AFT pushed firearms dealers to provide arms to known violent criminals (against the wishes and express misgivings of said firearms dealers), and without consulting authorities in Mexico, I’d say that makes ATF responsible for the consequences. Holder, and ultimately Obama, bear considerable responsibility for that, just as I would be partially responsible if I were to sell someone a gun when I had reason to suspect that the buyer intended to commit murder.

    • prosecution will be nice

      what will be better is if he gets a very painful and very horrible cancer. i actually wish that upon a few select people. he is one of them.

  3. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level regardless of what laws that a state passes, yet I have heard of no such letters being sent in the wake of “medicinal” legislation. Its easier to get a medical mary jane card in MI than it is to get our shall issue CPL, heck a coworker of mine has it for his bad knee. Double standard I suppose?

    • Growers and providers of cannabis under various State laws did indeed receive letters on the legality. Basically the same letter was sent out, but it regarded mainly the DEA and cannabis.

      They also made sure to mention the BATFE and how anyone possessing or using cannabis would be breaking the law as it pertains to firearms as well.

      • Thanks, at least you shot down that paranoid fantasy that only one sort of state usurpation of Federal law is happening when in fact they are being consistent.
        Also marijuana doesn`t kill people.

        • You mean like tobacco doesn’t? Smoking marijuana is SAFE? It doesn’t have the health risks, including cancer, that tobacco does? Well, then…. the next step seems rather obvious. 😉

        • Marijuana doesn’t kill people unless you apply the same standards that are being applied to firearms in the gun control debate. Had a few acquaintances who died driving under the influence of cannabis. If we use the same standards, the reduced reaction time from hours of smoking strong weed directly contributed to the accident and is therefore what killed them.

        • Driving whilst under the effects of drugs is already illegal so that is covered. I agree with removing most laws around those drugs, much like Rand Paul does.

        • Just like killing someone with a gun is already illegal. On legalization of marijuana: I tend to agree as well. Don’t touch the stuff myself, just as long as DUI laws still apply and are enforced, I’m good.

          Was just ineffectually pointing out that if arguments were consistent we’d not see the “Marijuana doesn’t kill anyone” stuff and the “guns do” (or “booze does”) out of a lot of the same people.

    • >> Marijuana is illegal at the federal level regardless of what laws that a state passes, yet I have heard of no such letters being sent in the wake of “medicinal” legislation.

      The state laws that legalized marijuana did not declare it to be a felony for federal LEOs to attempt to investigate or prosecute federal drug laws on the territory of those states. I believe it’s this particular clause of the KS law that drew the most attention. I wonder if they have the balls to actually enforce it, though.

      • Studies linking pot smoking with cancer have been found not to hold water. On the other hand, there is MUCH new evidence that cannabis shrinks, and even destroys, cancerous tumors.

        FULL DISCLOSURE: the substance in question is called cannabidiol, and it is not psychoactive. But if you can fight cancer and feel good at the same time, where’s the problem?

    • Those laws have not been thrown out by the Supreme Court and they were lawfully passed. It maybe your opinion that they shouldn`t be constitutional, but that doesn`t mean they actually are.

      • Sadly, that is the truth. Until the Federal laws are deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, they stand, and are enforcable.

        • Exactly, it may not be what people want to hear but it is a well established fact. Not something cook-up by this administration.
          So the only way is for either the Supreme Court to rule against those long established laws (judicial activism some would say) or the laws get changed by having a GOP house and senate.

        • What you are saying is that the Federal Gov. has police, arms, and prisons and will use them against all who oppose them. I agree with you 100%. That’s reality.

          A few people in this thread seem OK with this “might makes right” argument. To them, recall that the highest law of this country acknowledges that limited and specific powers are granted to the government by the people. It is ultimately the people who must decide whether the government is obeying the rules, especially when checks and balances begin to slip.

        • You are EXACTLY correct.

          “You [the jurors] have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

          “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government
          can be held to the principles of its constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson

          “It is not only his right [the juror’s], but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” – John Adams

          “That in criminal cases, the law and fact being always blended, the jury, for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, is intrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact.” – Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, People v. Croswell

          For more information:
          Fully Informed Jury Association

      • The constitution (Article 1 Section 8) very clearly enumerates the powers of the federal government, and regulating firearms is clearly not one of them. Any laws they make that are not within the authority granted to them by the constitution are by definition not constitutional and are null and void.

        It doesn’t matter if Congress decides to create laws on a certain subject if they weren’t granted power over that subject in the first place. I’m sure they will try to pull the “Commerce Clause” BS to justify stuff like that, but it’s clearly trying to get around the intent of the constitution to do so. I really hope one of the states goes toe-to-toe with the Feds on this subject – someone’s got to do it.

  4. To J…. It would have just gone to court, now it’s become a polarizing stance and people will rise to oppose it. He gained nothing with this letter other than to inflame opinion even further…. I’m really beginning to think a bunch of first graders are running this country.

    • You will have no argument from me on that point…albeit dangerous first graders. I guess my point is the same as everyone else’s; wondering what the response will be from these states. Legally, they probably don’t have a leg to stand on other than to declare their state legislature and laws as superior to the Fed.

      I had a History professor who once said that the Civil War was the final battle of the Revolutionary War, to which I added; and we lost.

      I agree that the Founders deemed the State interest as superseding that of the Fed (until post Civil War), but other than fighting a futile litigation in Federal court, they really only have one other option if they intend to hold ground. Then it will be up to the Federal government to decide to back down or use force.

    • Joe. All you have to do is look at the hissy fit Obama threw two days after the marathon bombing. Was it about terrorism and jihad? Nope. It was about guns and Sandy Hook and “protecting the children” from dangerous gun owners (even though Lanza wasn’t a gun owner) and a Senate (his party) that didn’t follow in lock-step with HIS requirements for gun control. Not a word about Boston. He’s a megalomaniac with an agenda and acts like a four-year-old who didn’t get a cookie when he doesn’t get his way. He needs to be impeached but so far, nobody in the Senate has the moxie to even suggest it…might be called a “Racist”.

      • So, you want Hussein out of office by Impeachment. Fine and dandy. But… look at who’s next in line to take over… Ol’ double-barrel shotgun. Now shotgun is really as stupid as he comes off, or he’s good a feigning stupidity, which is even more dangerous. With shotgun in office, things will be no better, and possibly even worse. I’d rather have a full congress (House and Senate) that will oppose Hussein’s destruction of the United States than to have shotgun in charge.

  5. You’ll find this pre-emption is quite common in national constitutions. The Australian constitution has Section 109 which states: “If the there is an inconsistency between state and federal law, federal law prevails.”

    Please note that I am quoting this from memory as the last time I studied law was as a part of my business degree I graduated from over 20 years ago.

    • UH… I could care less about the Australian constitution. There is a reason why barely any of them have guns any more.

      • That’s because guns are a state law issue but the then Prime Minister John Howard declared that any state that does not follow the new “National” Firearms Laws will not receive any federal allocated funding. Basically, the states were blackmailed into following his lead.

    • Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

      Amendment X to the United States Constitution:
      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.

  6. A letter from someone who let guns flow illegally to Mexico and is now making threats… holds no weight with me. How did this idiot keep his job anyway? People lose their jobs for having an affair yet when he betrays the people of the United States of America there is no penalty. Why don’t we deport him to Mexico!

    • People kill people, not guns. Isn`t that the NRA mantra?
      At least 4400 people didn`t die unlike US soldiers in Iraq.

        • Because they were all sworn to uphold the Constitution in a public office. Not their interpretations or feelings about it.

          I will not accept “I was just following orders” from an AG, no less THE Attorney General.

          We have only ourselves to blame for the willful dishonesty practiced by all sides in government. Much the same as the government does, the people need to make examples of those that don’t do their jobs.

          Good luck with that, I suppose.

  7. The NRA and others keep saying that they don`t want new laws, just the current laws fully enforced. So the AG was correct, Kansas cannot stop Federal officials lawfully carrying out their law enforcement activities.
    This is grandstanding, this principle could easily extend (slippery slope argument) to the FBI cannot come an investigate offences at x, y or z because Kansas politicians are supported by other lobby groups.

    • We understand what you’re saying, Mike, but past actions by this attorney general make his “Constitutional” threat/argument nothing but hypocrisy. You talk about wanting consistency in enforcing laws, but they have been anything but consistent. Gun running to Mexico, ordering ICE to release illegal aliens, etc., are all examples of not following the law. If they are going to have any credibility, they must consistently enforce all federal laws, not just their favorites. Until this happens, how can we take anything Eric Holder says seriously?

  8. Dear Kansas,

    It is Unconstitutional that your state will not allow us to enforce Unconstitutional laws.

    Known Gun Trafficker

    How’s that for the Reader’s Digest version?

  9. I’m a proud citizen of Kansas and will be at the signing ceremony on the 8th of may. may be I can ask gov brownback about this

  10. Maybe I’ve forgotten my high school civics classes, but isn’t the AG’s office actually a part of the Executive Branch? If they are charged with the enforcement of laws, then the separation of our governmental branches would prevent the AG from establishing the constitutionality of those laws, correct?

    So now, Holder has neutered SCOTUS and he gets to enforce AND determine what is constitutional? The same turd that determined that POTUS can wage war on American citizens on American soil without due process? The same steaming pile of excrement that authorized the sale of weapons to the mexican drug cartels and then hid behind the “National Security” cloak offered by POTUS after a US agent was killed by those same weapons?

    I say F*ck him and feed him fish heads……………………….

    • rubbish. The laws on the books are constitutional until or unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. Therefore he is enforcing those laws. Just like laws like DOMA etc should be enforced until they are found unconstitutional (if they are). It is standard practice for laws to be enforced, then if they are later found unconstitutional then enforcement obviously stops. So just calm down OK. No-one is taking your gun.

      • You missed the point………….the AG doesn’t get to determine if a law is or is not constitutional, that ability lies ultimately with SCOTUS.

        The AG may ASSUME that it is constitutional and enforce it until determined otherwise.

        You may go now………..

        • So you accept the laws are constitutional until found otherwise by the SC. So as such the AG was well within his legal right to enforce the laws. Seems a fair assumption.

          You may go now!

        • You seem to have spent quite a deal of time here addressing people’s comments…do the concerns of others bother you?

          Or (to quote a meme from months ago) are you the guy that is up late at the computer at night with his significant other shouting “come to bed, it’s 2 am”, and responding with “I can’t! Someone disagrees with me on the internet”?

        • I think what he’s saying is that it also works the other way around – the federal gun laws are constitutional until SCOTUS rules otherwise, but then KS laws that make enforcement of those federal laws a felony are also constitutional until SCOTUS rules otherwise.

          It’s absurd, yes, but it’s what you get if you consistently apply your original argument.

      • Hmmm. Lots of new gun laws, many of which have felony penalties. And the felony penalty disqualifies that person from any future firearm ownership. So if an otherwise law abiding citizen of NY puts 8 rounds in a 10 round magazine they become an instant felon. Therefore, all of their guns are subject to confiscation.

        They are indeed, coming for guns. It’s just happening in slow progressive moves to test the waters.

      • Actually, current laws are ASSUMED constitutional until tested before SCOTUS, usually by someone who broke said laws. This means that in enforcement effect current law is constitutional until tested, but there is a difference between assumed and actual constitutionality -if a law is found unconstitutional, it was always unconstitutional despite earlier assumptions otherwise; baring Amendments changing things.

        As for nobody coming to take guns: not yet. But most of the control proponents I’ve known, or studied in my policy classes, will say that’s the end-goal between bouts of legislation being up for vote. If legislation’s up for vote, then suddenly it’s not.

      • You, sir, are a fool. Just because a law is adjudicated as “Constitutional” by the Supreme Court does not make it so.

        See the Miller decision, when the Supreme Court decided a sawed off shotgun was not a military weapon.

        And you also have a very interesting view of the supremacy clause.

        The right to self defense is a natural or God given right, not subject to adjudication. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

        The idea behind Federalism and the Tenth Amendment was to serve as a check on an out of control federal government.

        However, as a someone already noted, evidently, you have no problem with the feds enforcing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. I guess you’re comfortable with idea of another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

        Tell you what, I’ll put on a black robe, become a judge on the Supreme Court and adjudicate that the sky is green. I’ll get 4 other justices to agree with me.

        And I guess you’ll go along, because, hey, the Supreme Court said so.

      • Yeah. Well free people take issue with enforcement of laws that are clearly not constitutional regardless of judicial review. I’m not going to submit to tyranny waiting for some court to get around to giving me my rights back.

      • The laws on the books are constitutional until or unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

        Nope, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional – period. Just because the government is corrupt and enforces unconstitutional laws until forced to stop doesn’t make it constitutional.

      • Mike, apparently you are unfamiliar with this:

        “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256

    • Folks, wake up and smell the coffee.

      Federal law trumps State laws. That is a fact and is in the constitution. You can say whatever you want on the topic, but this is settled fact, backed by the Supreme Court many times. It was also settled during that little dispute between certain states and the Federal government in 1861-65.

      • Riiiight. That’s why CA Marijuana smokers must fear for their lives. Their habits are illegal for the Feds and legal for the state. Wake up and smell the selective enforcement.

        • Do gun owners fear for their lives?? I think you over dramatize it. Plenty of news reports on pot dispensaries etc being raided. No selective enforcement.

        • Mike: Not yet, but if some of these laws are passed (or in NY and CO already passed), give it a few confiscation raids going sideways leading to no-knock raids expanding to checking houses for guns.

        • No gun owners fear doing 10-20 for a paperwork violation. They only start fearing for their lives when the gendarmes “serve” a no-knock at dark ‘o clock. Little different than the MJ shops opening up in DC.

          As a side note, is it odd that an illegal drug retailer opens a storefront in DC before a legal gun store?

      • If you bothered to read the Constitution, you’d also see that 95%+ of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional.

      • You are correct, to the extent that Federal law has something to do with the powers specifically granted to the Feds under the constitution. The power to make it more difficult for citizens to keep and bear arms was not granted to the Feds. Whether they have exercised such power in the past, or whether they have the muscle to force citizens to comply with their wishes, are separate issues.

        The local bully might be able to beat up a kid for his lunch money. He might even do it consistently. That doesn’t make it right, and that doesn’t remove the duty of others to try their best to stop the bully.

  11. The last time that the federal government tried to dictate how Kansas would view Constitutional concerns and the enforcement of laws within its borders, it became a guerilla war known as Bleeding Kansas –and the prelude to the much larger national conflict in 1861.

    • Obviously you seem to have forgotten how that little dispute turned out (and who won). Federal law trumps all others in the United States of America. Don’t like this little inconvenient fact? Live somewhere else.
      Note – this is not a reply to Mike but to G.R. Mead

      • I just love it when one citizen says to another, “Go live somewhere else.” Makes me laugh my A$$ off.

      • Unconstitutional laws have no legitimate power. Any agent trying to enforce them should be run in on state criminal charges.

      • So if Federal law declared that anyone using the username ChRiSiS must be tortured for five years and then executed, you’d be totally OK with that?

        I doubt that.

      • Defense of Marriage Act anyone? Selection Enforcement right there. Obama does what Obama wants.
        If you lay down and take this ‘Federal Law Trumps All’ in your butt that’s your problem. You ARE the problem. Federal Government has NO POWER to regulate arms, therefore unconstitutional. Obamacare unconstitutional. The feds can tax. Declare war. Enforce immigration laws.
        Our Founding Fathers were hemp growing, gun running, tax evading criminals. If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. This legal conflict in Kansas is The Beginning. The start of an idealogical revolution. Quit being in denial. Now where do you stand? What are you, as a legal gun owner, prepared to do for your Right?

      • That “turned out” in abolishing an inhuman deprivation of human liberty which the federal government had — AT FIRST — supported over the libertarian objections of many many States. Though at immense and existential cost — and that ultimately GAVE us the precisely transformed federal system we now have.

        Do I think “Bleeding Kansas” is in our future, in Kansas or elsewhere ?

        I certainly hope and pray that it is not in our future. But the departure of reason and empirical foundations of policy from almost all public debate on these and many other issues, and the incessant drumbeat for safety over liberty and the pattern of cynically exploited crises to advance the political model of extending government control on all fronts (not just weapons) — makes it rather more likely than not, I am very much afraid.

        If one ceases to let reason temper collective desires — or fears– then naked force is never very far behind.

  12. Unconstitutional Federal laws are no laws at all. More and more states are standing up to the arrogance of the Federal government.

    • You say they are unconstitutional, but with all due respect that doesn`t matter. What matters is that the lawful authority that adjudicates on whether something is constitutional or not, the Supreme Court, has spoken. On these matters the current laws are constitutional, you might not like it, but it is a fact.
      There are two options, the SC reconsiders when a new challenge comes up or you change the laws via the Congress. These are the two constitutional and well established American ways of doing things.

      • Wow. The acceptance of federal authority continues apace. You may think differently when the Federal law screws you over, or passes another blatantly unconstitutional law. Example: if a very restrictive federal AWB was passed which required confiscation. Or just Obamacare. Here’s 23 new taxes and a mandatory government program whether you want it or not.

        How about if a Federal agent searches through your cell phone because you are within 100 miles of the border? That is an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. I’ll tell a Federal Agent to pound sand if they want my cell phone without a search warrant. I may make the news, but so be it. If you want to hand over your personal property without a warrant or due cause, then you simply do not understand the Constitution.

        • Well if an action was unconstitutional, or a law passed that was then it gets taken through the legal system to the Supreme Court. that is the way it has been done for decades, that is the constitutional way.
          It is no way to run a country to just say well I don`t agree with X so I will ignore it. Otherwise what is to stop everyone doing that on their pet issue (valid or not is irrelevant). That would lead to anarchy.

          I understand why you don`t like it and I can agree with you. My point is about the process that has to be followed in a law abiding nation.

        • Mike,

          Nice work outlining the framework which we are all aware of. Yet saying a law is constitutional does not make it so – as in the illegal search of a cell phone. We seem to be facing a federal government that is increasingly willing to violate our rights.

          Otherwise you can just wait until SCOTUS rules and be a useful little lemming.

      • The Supreme Court gives its opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. Ultimate decisions on the Constitutionality of laws rest with The People. If the entire Federal apparatus agrees that an unconstitutional law is legal that does not make it so. Times are changing. We are not going to just agree with the Federal government “because they say so”.

        • Interesting concept, so how in practice do “The People” decide? You say one thing, someone else say it is constitutional. What are you going to do.
          The only mechanism is through congress. Otherwise you are saying your opinion is more important than some other person’s who disagrees with you.

        • when you have 20, 30, 40 states refusing to cooperate with the Federal government, what do you think is going to happen? The Federal government doesn’t have the manpower to enforce its laws by itself.

        • Mike,

          The people decide when they refuse to follow unjust or unconstitutional laws. I.E. Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. Say it with me: No, you cannot search my home/computer/cell phone until you get a search warrant.

          Otherwise, you could just have blind faith in the federal government.

      • The amount of federal laws that are on the books, but that have not been adjudicated as constitutional are many. Furthermore, the amount of federal enforcement actions (under the auspices of this or that law) that have no been adjudicated are legion. So, yes, while federal law trumps state law, we live in a world where numerous laws and law enforcement actions are operational but effectively legally indeterminate. It is only recently that states have turned more aggressive in forcing the conflict into the open and likely into courts. This is because under Obama we are experiencing a federal government that is arrogating to itself nearly any and every authority regardless. Immigration, Healthcare, Energy, Guns – the Lightworker Admin is warring against the states at every turn.

  13. Maybe I’m just reading too much into this, but this letter’s language seems more along the lines of personal offense taken than one concerning dueling regulatory issues. There’s a lot of ego involved…more than Constitutional concerns…istm.

    • I think you are reading too much into this. It seems normal language that has been used for other states when they have passed laws that do not pass Federal Constitutional muster.

    • It’s a classic argument that has been repeated over thousands of years. My johnson is bigger than yours!

  14. If Kansas wants to go to war with the evil federal government, then I’m in. It’s worth it.

  15. I’d have never believed this hadn’t I actually seen it with mine own two eyes. Incredible. And so, so arrogant.

    Molon Labe, liberal b!tches.

    • Arrogant to up hold the duly passed and constitutional laws of the US?
      I don`t care if you have a gun or not, but just because you don`t like something doesn`t mean you are right and the others are wrong.

      • Let me try to reason with the unreasonable. King Georges laws were “duly passed and constitutional ‘. How’d that work out for him?

        Our Declaration of Independence begins, “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

        That’s what Kansas is saying, that’s what we who agree with her are saying. Don’t make it necessary. You keep quoting all these court decisions like history is immutable, and it ain’t. So and so was settled a long time ago. Well, these are unsettling times. Things can change.

        Slavery, Jim Crow, Prohibition. All these things were settled law at one point. Till they weren’t. It took varying forms of unrest before we arrived at a new paradigm.

        But you just sit there with that smug look on your face and keep telling us that we must continue kissing Big Daddys ass, because it is “settled law”. Try not to be too shocked if the world continues to evolve around you.

  16. The Kansas law appers to be Seditious Conspiracy under 18 USC § 2384:
    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. ”

    Before you start flaming me, I agree with Kansas and would like to see all federal gun laws nullified. I’m just stating what the law is.

    • You will be flamed because some do not want to deal with facts. The law is the law until it is changed. If you don`t like it then work to change it – that is the American way.

      • There is a long standing American tradition of changing the law by breaking it. It worked w/ the prohibition of alcohol. It worked for the abolition of slavery; it worked for the civil rights movement.

        Natural Law a.k.a. God’s Law trumps Scotus, Potus, or any other otus. This is the spirit that founded this nation. Indeed, the same arguments given here against Kansas were given against American Independence. Our Founding Fathers essentially told the crown to suck it. If one must choose I, like many others, would rather be on the side of Right then on the right side of any supposed law.

        • “There is a long standing American tradition of changing the law by breaking it. It worked w/ the prohibition of alcohol. It worked for the abolition of slavery; it worked for the civil rights movement.”

          It also worked against George III.

      • Like you do yourself?
        Frankly in my opinion I don’t consider laws that are useless, stupid, arbitrary, that violates the rights of man and women, and that is essentially unjust and tyrannical to be laws at all. If mindless obey a law simply because “it’s the law” without questioning it then you deserve those laws for yourself.

      • “The law is the law until it is changed.”
        Ah Yes, but in the workings of human activity throughout history, the law gets changed a variety of ways. One way is through people voting in an elected chamber. That method is actually – historically speaking – quite rare. Usually the law gets changed when enough people with enough force simply change it, either by ignoring it or “dealing” with the individuals who represent the current law. We’ve been pretty lucky, historically speaking, here in the US to keep the law from changing in violent ways. But are we so special that we will buck human history forever?

        • All these guys immediately above replying to Mindless Mike.

          Preach It Brothers!

          Saying what I was trying to say.

  17. Ahh the constitution! the founding fathers said to follow it and reference it when it’s convenient and helpful to the cause of the government. sincerely, AG

  18. Big brother (gov) must be watching I just tried to edit my comments and it was marked as spam and would do the editing.

  19. Just a curious thought and perhaps someone can elaborate or clarify.

    Would the govenor of the state of Kansas be able to raise a state militia? If so would that exempt all state citizens from controls placed on the 2a from the feds?

    If there is a “standing” militia raised by the state, you now insert the “militia” piece back into the 2a and closing the “interpretation” door. Would that give the state true preemption over federal law?

    • So you admit the militia part is important? I thought recent views from the gun lobby was to play down or ignore the militia part.

      • Personally the militia part is unimportant and has been interpreted that way.

        My point/theory if you will, is that a state has sovereignty and I believe does mantain a right to raise a militia.

        If that is the case, then for the purpose of this discussion, the law enacted by the state would be unnecessary and Holder wouldnt be able to flex federal law to trump state law. Would it not?

        Again this is theory…clarification is appreciated.

      • Mike, try to remember the “militia” was “We the people” and it remains so as recently verified by SCOTUS. Get off the NRA dissing, you are ill-informed.

        • Exactly Labman!

          “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

          “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer [1788] at 169)

          “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

      • Mike, based on all of your posts on this thread here you are either a paid Organizing for America troll or a government dis-info agent, which one is it?

  20. I have no idea who’s right or wrong in this debate, but as a guy who lives in a state (NY) that licks Obama’s butt I love seeing KS stand up to these turds. Bravo even it is only symbolic.

  21. Holder is a scumbag commie but all the Hispanics and African Americans love commies. We better head this garbage off st the pass and start battling immigration reform. Or we will be stuck with these bastards forever

    • “but all the Hispanics and African Americans love commies”

      Here we go…again. This argument is about Holder, Kansas, and the constitution. How in the @&## did we manage to get race in this argument? Not “all” Hispanics and African Americans support this gun grab, or love commies as you put it. Some of us love sport shooting, hunting, reloading, training etc. I myself am a gun fan through and through. The gun community has been plagued by this (anti-black/hispanic) attitude for a long time-it’s the wrong battle-it will come back to haunt you if you really care that much about guns and the gun community as a whole.

      • That’s right, here we go again and again and again… how do you think these assholes got elected you dope. Keep hiding and they will keep sticking it to you, politically correct I’d the problem idiot. And to that matter I right whatever I please… shove it jelly fish.

        • Look-you are right-you can post whatever you want. resort to name calling whatever makes you feel better. I am just as passionate about my guns as you are. Me as a “dope” also understands that the same corporations that supported Obama, supported Romney as well. As a “dope” I understand that Citigroup, Chase, and Goldman Sachs play both sides. Name calling makes you feel better? Hey go for it. You wanna believe all of us support this administration (love commies as you say) hey go for it. I for one, will continue to engage in the “real” fight for our second amendment. And you know what name I will call you? Passionate. That makes you the same as me-and I know you hate it. But guess what we are in the same fight whether you like it or not. I am a strong-conservative-business owner-gun owner-man of color…it’s gonna take a lot more than words or name calling by anyone in the gun community to bring me down.

    • littlegunguy-you are wrong. Not All Hispanics love commies. All Hispanics are not immigrants, many including MYSELF are born Americans. Four generations deep. Whatever your position on immigration is does not give you the right to demean people simply based on their ethnic backgrounds.

      • And why do you think its important to them to appease the illegals? You don’t get it do you.

        • Just because pols appease any particular group, does not justify you maligning any ethnicity collectively. Individuals are not responsible for the actions of politicians. People of African or Hispanic backgrounds do not ALL agree with what the current administration does, just like we did not ALL vote for this admin. You seem to forget Americans are American irrespective of their ethnic heritage.

  22. And do not interfere in our lucrative arms trade overseas….

    so kansas can’t prosecute gun trafficking anymore it seems.

  23. Uh oh.
    “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, S.B. 102 directly conflicts with federal laws and is therefore unconstitutional.” E. A. Holder, Jr.
    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
    Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

  24. Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

    People who try to make Kansas do things it doesn’t want to obviously didn’t read their history….

    • Didn’t John Brown start in Kansas and work his way to Harper’s Ferry, WV? While he wasn’t terribly successful, it was a beginning. Many lives were lost but eventually the tyranny of slavery was ended. Is history repeating itself?

      • He worked his way to Harpers Ferry Virginia. West Virginia came into existence when that part of the state broke off from Virginia and decided to stay with the Union during the war. John Brown raided in 1859 and the war started in 1861.

  25. As much as I think the guy has overstepped his boundaries in the past with stances on surveillance, wiretapping, and targeting of overseas american citizen/terrorists, I think he is doing the right thing here, according to the structure of our government.

    I don’t understand the knee-jerk blustering in this comment section today.

    • Very simple. He is claiming powers the federal government simply does not have. No law can give the government powers not granted in the Constitution.

  26. As exciting as this sounds, Kansas SB 102 refers only to firearms manufactured in Kansas that stay in Kansas

  27. Im curious if a state can have a militia other than the national guard(one that can’t be federalized without consent) that Mack suggested above. If it could what would the federal response be?

    • It already does if it so chooses to acknowledge it as follows:

      TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
      § 311. Militia: composition and classes
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

      So, per Section 311, “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and…under 45 years of age” constitutes “the unorganized militia…who are not members of the National Guard”

    • Yes, it can; 32 USC § 109(c):

      “In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.”

      So these are subject solely to the authority of the state executive, and cannot be taken over by the feds. Though the law also says that membership in such units does not exempt one from service in federal armed forces, so the feds could just draft everyone if they really wanted to.

      Quite a few states do in fact have such formations, known variously either as “State Guard” or as “State Defense Force”, depending on the state. However, not all of them are militarized or armed – most are more like volunteer emergency response units, even though they are uniformed and do have military-like chain of command etc. For those that are entirely unarmed, there is usually some legislative and organizational framework in place that can transform them into true armed militia if it is ever activated (presumably in a time of need).

      Look up “State defense force” on Wikipedia for more details.

  28. Mike, obviously your a big fan of GovCo. While you are right about the laws in a technical sense, you are totally missing the point. The Supreme Court didn’t write the Bill of Rights. “Interpretation” of the ammendments is how the current government bends and breaks the original laws. I’m assuming if the Executive Branch wrote a law that revoked the citizenship of all the residents of Kansas (or worse) and the Congress ratified it, and the Supremes didn’t step in, you would call that Constitutional. The People of the US decide what is constitutional. The power is with the People and will always be, even though there will be ambitious leaders from time to time who try to consolidate that power for themselves and their party. That is the whole point of the 2nd Ammendment and why the FREE States are standing up to the over reaching Federal Government right now. An unchecked government will be just that. The last vote on Gun Control shows where the power currently resides in this country.

    • I think Mike is today’s troll, bought for and sponsored by Eric Holder. He’s commented way too much to have a normal job.

  29. Hmmm… while I don’t see the U.S. Army marching on Topeka in the near future or a move toward secession in the offing, this worries me.

    I love my state, and will do whatever I can to serve its best interests.

    Never get involved in a land war in Kansas, and never go in against an American when death is on the line.

  30. “And a state may not criminalize…”

    Try; “Furthermore, a state may not criminalize…” Is Holder’s paralegal on vacation?

    • Harold. Haven’t read it but you are correct about the wandering off the subject. We have Mike flailing around off task in many of his posts, dissing people including the 100,000,000 firearms owners in Country, the NRA, which is made up of 5,000,000 of those legal and law-abiding gun owners, etc. It would seem he is a “troll”.

      • Are there really that many? It’s a lovely thought, but whence that figure?

        Imagine a 20,000,000 person strong “2A army” marching on D.C…

  31. The Supremacy Clause is simply inapplicable to a law that is unconstitutional or outside of the Feds’ enumerated powers. SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not unconstitutional, but it’s ridiculous to say that SCOTUS is the only arbiter. Any court of general jurisdiction has the power to declare a law unconstitutional, as does a state legislature. In fact, a legislative body has an obligation to reject an unconstitutional law.

    The legislature’s conclusion will stand unless overruled by a court of competent authority. That’s the way the system works. A state does not have to stand around with its collective thumb up @ss while the feds trample the Constitution. It can act against that law. If the state is wrong, it will be corrected by a court.

  32. Eric Holder using the word “unconstitutional”? That’s the US Constitution he ignores every day, right? The one that includes the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, right?

    This is some kind of parody, right? I mean, really – Eric Holder citing the Constitution?

  33. Apparently it’s ok for the Feds not to enforce Federal law, or for “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco not to enforce Federal Laws, but when it comes to laws the Feds like then states can’t do it. I am so sick of the double standard.
    Limit the Feds to their Constitutionally granted power and leave the rest to the States.

  34. If the country continues on it’s unfortunate path of increasing division, I would think strong states rights might be our best hope of avoiding another civil war (on some scale). Want to smoke weed? Go to a state where most people agree with you. Want to own firearms? Avoid the blue states. Let CA run things their way, let Texas do the same (within limits, but try to err on the side of state’s rights). This might work.

    The problem is, “live and let live” is more a libertarian stance, and completely antithetical to the goals of the leftist totalitarian. I think Americans could happily co-exist with progressives. I don’t think the reverse is true.

    • “The problem is, ‘live and let live’ is more a libertarian stance, and completely antithetical to the goals of the leftist totalitarian. I think Americans could happily co-exist with progressives. I don’t think the reverse is true.”


    • You’re exactly right. We just want to be left alone to safely enjoy our rights. Own a gun, don’t own a gun, I could care less. We’re not into coercion and “putting a gun in every household”.

      Progressives, however, are nuts. These are the people who’d try to kill a fly with a sledgehammer and as they sit among the broken rubble that once was their house they’d say, “I killed the fly, that’s all that matters”. You can easily see how this applies to the gun debate.

  35. Himmler sent out 100’s of similar letters declaring that all local police were to swear allegiance to Hitler. Is this letter any different?

  36. For all of you federal enforcement sycophants and apologists commenting on this thread read the following:

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256

    Got it? Even though it is called a law it is REALLY NO LAW AT ALL. It is unconstitutional from the time of its enactment, NOT when some black robe wearing minion says so but from the very moment it is enacted and NO ONE is bound to obey or enforce it.

    Stop being apologists for tyranny and go read some founding history. Sheesh!

  37. Perhaps if Texas had prevented Holders Heroes from selling guns to drug gangs 25K people would still be alive. If his people followed their own laws we wouldn’t need states creating new ones to counter the behaviour

  38. in other words


    UHHHH 9th & 10th amendment ? ? ? ? ?
    go Kansas go !


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here