Kansas signed the Second Amendment Protection Act (SB 102) into law recently. Basically, it bars anybody, even federal agents, from enforcing unconstitutional federal laws pertaining to Kansas-made firearms. Such an act would be a felony under this law.
Not long after it was signed into law, Eric Holder responded with a letter to the Governor, letting him know that the feds were going to ignore their law and take “all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of enforcing federal law.”
The Governor responded to Holder, informing him, among other things that “the people of Kansas are…committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution…”
Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach also gave Eric Holder of piece of his mind, telling the Attorney General that his “understanding of the United States Constitution is incorrect.” There’s an understatement for you.
Kobach explained that as co-author of SB 102, he helped design the bill to withstand legal scrutiny. That’s why they limited the scope of the bill to apply to only those firearms made in Kansas. And that’s also why Kobach told Holder to bring it on.
The bill asserts that these guns are not subject to regulation by the feds, since they don’t leave the state. Therefore, the feds can’t use the “Interstate Commerce Clause” excuse when they try to regulate them. His letter continued:
“For the past 80 years, Congress has used the interstate commerce power as a conduit for asserting regulatory authority over numerous specific subjects that have nothing to do with interstate commerce – including firearms. While some federal regulations of firearms are permissible exercises of the interstate commerce power, others clearly are not. One of the things that the federal government cannot do is regulate firearms that have never travelled in interstate commerce and that have no substantial effect on interstate commerce – firearms covered by SB 102.”
He countered Holder’s usage of the Supremacy Clause with the “basic constitutional rule that a federal law that exceeds Congress’s power has absolutely no ability to preempt a contrary state law.” [Emphasis his.]
My favorite part of the letter was when Kobach brought up the Fast and Furious debacle:
“With respect to his concern that federal officials must be allowed to enforce federal law, Mr. Holder’s statement is a curious one. He was evidently not concerned that ATFE officials be allowed to enforce federal law when his agency oversaw the “Fast and Furious” operation to walk guns into the hands of Mexican cartels. And he is not concerned about that fact that the Obama Administration is directly ordering ICE officials to violate federal law through the executive amnesty for illegal aliens that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano launched in June 2012. Holder’s lawyers are currently attempting to defend that violation of federal law in court.”
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Kansas eventually give in, or are they going to call the feds’ bluff?