By Travis Perry │ Kansas Watchdog

OSAWATOMIE — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t mince words in a recent letter to Gov. Sam Brownback regarding the state’s latest move to protect Kansans’ Second Amendment rights.

State law, Holder wrote, will in no way stop federal law enforcement agents from enforcing all federal firearms laws and regulations, declaring it unconstitutional.

At issue is SB102, better known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, which was signed into law by Brownback on April 16. The bill, which swept through both legislative chambers with a wide margin of victory, exempts any gun made or owned in Kansas from federal restrictions. State and local law enforcement are also empowered to arrest and charge any federal agent who dares to impose federal regulations within the Sunflower State.

Holder’s letter, dated April 26, was sent the day after SB102 went into effect.

In the letter, Holder writes:

“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. Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Kansas may not prevent ­federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because S.B. 102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has requested $625,000 to defend the state law.

Holder’s letter ends with a not-so veiled threat that “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 federal law.”

Contact Travis Perry at travis@kansaswatchdog.org, or follow him on Twitter at @muckraker62.

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org.

Article can be found here; http://watchdog.org/82718/warning-shot-holder-declares-ks-gun-law-unconstitutional/


Just how much authority does the federal government have over the people of this country. Can they make ANY law and say it is the law of the land? Can they force us to take every law we do not agree with before the Supreme Court to see if it is Constitutional or not? I say that Holder is every bit as much of an i***t as Obama is. Neither one of them care or even know what is in our Constitution and they seem to think that what THEY say is ALWAYS right.

"Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Kansas may not prevent ­federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. "

Holder is using the Supremacy Clause to not only make law, but to enforce it. So what exactly is this Supremacy Clause and how does it work?

" 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…"

The key to this entire statement is simply "in Pursuance thereof."

In Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society (the federal government) which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies (the States), will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… The clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … (capitals are Hamilton's)

In the next para, Hamilton says that a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution….

In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton says:

…the laws of the Confederacy (the federal government), as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members (the States), will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS… (capitals are Hamilton's)

And in Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Do you see? Federalist No. 33, 27, & 78 are clear: Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the Constitution are “void” – they are “mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such”. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have “supremacy” over nothing."

Above quotes can be found here; http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/supremacy-clause/

So, in reality, what recourse do we really have? If we listen to the government, we have none, but the SCOTUS and that is it. Any time they come out with a law that goes against the Constitution we must apply to the Supreme Court and fight them there. Well, the Supreme Court has already proven that they are not always right and in some cases, are totally wrong. There were cases that they did not even have the authority to hear, but they invented reason out of thin air to allow them to hear the cases anyway.

They have set themselves up with authority they do not have and make rulings under precedent which they do not have the authority to use. They are supposed to use the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ONLY for their rulings, not court precedent, unless that prior precedent is based on the Constitution.

They also invent meanings to words so that they are allowed to rule or to even hear a case. They change meanings to fit their rulings and we are supposed to use them as the final say as to the Constitutionality of a question?

What Holder and a lot of others don't seem to know is, this country is based on a Constitution and the power derived from that Constitution is very limited. We have a government of ENUMERATED posers, NOT unlimited powers. The federal government is limited by those enumerated posers and the rest of the power is vested in the States and the PEOPLE. We the people wrote the Constitution and we have a right to tell this government what it means. If this government makes a law that is not in accordance with this Constitution, then it is up to the people and/or the State to say no. We do this by nullification of that law. Neither Holder or anyone else in this government has the authority to say different.

"State law, Holder wrote, will in no way stop federal law enforcement agents from enforcing all federal firearms laws and regulations, declaring it unconstitutional."

All laws passed by this government or regulations passed by the ATF are unconstitutional and as such should be nullified. Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution grants ALL power to make law to CONGRESS, not some agency of this government. All laws passed by Congress MUST be Constitutional or they are null and void too.

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now that right there tells me that this government does not have the right to regulate how many rounds my mag can hold or what it looks like. They will even admit to themselves that this is strictly a means of taking our arms away from us. It has NOTHING to do with the crime rate or hunting or any number of other reasons they give. They simply don't want us standing up to them when it comes time to take away the rest of our rights.