Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Awesome, way to go Governor Brownback

Posted by on May. 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM
  • 25 Replies


Holder v. Brownback? DOJ and Kan. on collision course on guns

By Ben Goad - 05/04/13 06:00 AM ET

The Obama administration is on a collision course with the state of Kansas over a new law that claims to nullify federal gun controls.

Attorney General Eric Holder has threatened litigation against Kansas over the law in what could the opening salvo of a blockbuster legal battle with national ramifications.

“This is definitely a case that could make it to the Supreme Court,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said Friday afternoon. “There is nothing symbolic about this law.”

Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, helped craft the statute, which bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines.

Scores of bills in at least 28 states have sought to provide similar exemptions. But the Kansas measure goes further than some, in that it would make felons of federal authorities who seek to enforce any federal “act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation” in violation of the state law.

And unlike many of the gun bills that have stalled or fizzled in state legislatures around the country, the Kansas statute was actually enacted late last week

One day after the legislation known as S.B. 102 became law, U.S. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder sent a sharply worded missive to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback calling the law unconstitutional.

“The United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing the law,” Holder wrote to Brownback.

The Obama administration has made gun control a high-profile priority in the months since the shooting spree that left 20 children and six adults dead inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. But the effort has been far from successful.

In January, Obama announced nearly two-dozen executive actions designed to reduce gun violence. But the president’s authority is limited, and legislation to advance the White House’s big-ticket goals — including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks — has suffered bitter defeats in Congress.

At the same time, dozens of state nullification bills have cropped up from Alaska to Vermont, as gun rights proponents seek to send a message to Washington about new gun controls.

None has brought the kind of reproach that the administration dealt to Brownback.

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, S.B. 102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder wrote, citing the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

UCLA law Professor Adam Winkler, an expert in the politics of gun control, agreed with the government’s position. He said the Kansas law is unconstitutional in that it seeks to nullify valid federal laws regulating firearms sales.

But Winkler said the aggressive response reflects a shift following relative silence after previous attacks on federal gun controls.

“Clearly, things have changed in the White House. Now the administration is not running away from a gun fight,” he said. “The administration is going after Kansas because Obama's push for gun laws has accelerated the states rights extremism on guns.”

Whatever the motivation, Holder’s response did not surprise proponents of the law.  Kobach, a chief advisor to former Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush administration, said the bill was written carefully, and in anticipation of litigation.

The law challenges the scope of federal government authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause, in essence contending that Washington has no right regulate guns that were made in Kansas and never cross state lines.

Practically speaking, there are no guns that fit that definition as of yet. But Kobach said it was likely that some small outfits seeking protection from federal regulations might begin to manufacture firearms stamped “made in Kansas.” After that, it would be incumbent on the buyers to keep the guns inside Kansas, or else be subject to federal regulations.

Kobach said he had every expectation that the law would be enforced, including the provision requiring criminal prosecution of federal authorities who violate it. The law stipulates that violations would not trigger arrests of FBI agents or U.S. Marshals. Cases would be prosecuted on a complaint-and-summons basis, according to the law.

“Bear in mind,” Kobach said. “The first move would be the federal government’s.”

In a letter sent to Holder this week, Brownback responded to Holder’s warning with a defense of the law. The Republican governor noted that it passed with bipartisan support and that “the right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear.”

“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will,” Brownback wrote. “It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.”


source

by on May. 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on May. 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM
2 moms liked this
Another waste of tax payer money on laws that will not pass Constitutional muster. Bravo.
Farmlady09
by Silver Member on May. 4, 2013 at 10:56 AM
3 moms liked this

But this can't happen here in the US.

It would be nice to see more states do exactly the same thing. Apparently we have a LOT of appointed idiots in our government that don't know the first thing about it, far too many who don't care what is in the Constitution, and a bunch that just wants to toss it and make their own rules. The fact that we have so many regulatory agencies that are above the law and exempt from Constitutional control (and 'we the people', by default, are denied our Constitutional protection when regulations are enforced) is another huge problem. I have no doubt whatsoever that this admin will try an end run around all of our laws on the gun control issue.

lga1965
by on May. 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM
1 mom liked this

 

Donna6503
by Platinum Member on May. 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM
I don't think Holder could dismiss the case so quickly.

Think of it this way, a federal employee, working and driving a federal vehicle can still get a ticket for speeding (or such)

It would be an interesting case of federalism in action.

This is still silly for Kansas to work this into the law ... The potential of making federal employees' state felons; especially, when the president can just pardon such employees.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on May. 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I think he is making sure the feds get the message.

Quoting Donna6503:

I don't think Holder could dismiss the case so quickly.

Think of it this way, a federal employee, working and driving a federal vehicle can still get a ticket for speeding (or such)

It would be an interesting case of federalism in action.

This is still silly for Kansas to work this into the law ... The potential of making federal employees' state felons; especially, when the president can just pardon such employees.


AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on May. 4, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Reactionary zealots wishing for good old days that never existed
Carpy
by Ruby Member on May. 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM
The president can only pardon federal offenses.

Quoting Donna6503:

I don't think Holder could dismiss the case so quickly.



Think of it this way, a federal employee, working and driving a federal vehicle can still get a ticket for speeding (or such)



It would be an interesting case of federalism in action.



This is still silly for Kansas to work this into the law ... The potential of making federal employees' state felons; especially, when the president can just pardon such employees.
-Celestial-
by Pepperlynn on May. 4, 2013 at 12:16 PM

MamaAjax
by Member on May. 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Go Kansas! (Breaks out my ever so buried southern accent) Hell yea!

More states need to get "balls" (for a lack of better terms) and stand up to the federal government.

MamaAjax
by Member on May. 4, 2013 at 12:25 PM


My father(Gun owner) served this country, so did my grandfather(gun owner), my husband(gun owner) is in the National Gaurd and will be serving this country as a doctor when he's done with school.

So I assuming they're allowed their guns yes? Cause they put on that uniform.

Quoting -Celestial-:



Mama Ajax @ Blogger

Just a little bit my life experiences.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN