|

Sound Off: Brownback vs Holder on the New Kansas Gun Law. Tell us what you think

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder


Brownback
On Thursday we learned that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that new Kansas law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional.

Holder said the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from pre-empting federal laws. He said the federal government is willing to go to court.

Brownback has now written Holder, “  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.

The state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which expressly restates our commitment to these rights, was approved by wide, bi-partisan margins in the Kansas Legislature. The measure was adopted by a vote of 35 to 4 in the Kansas Senate with the Democrat Senate Minority Leader supporting the bill.  The measure was adopted by a vote of 96 to 24in the Kansas House of Representatives. Again, the Democrat House Minority Leader voted for the bill.  This is not a partisan issue in Kansas. The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.”

What do you think?  Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below

KSKOLLECTIONJULYAUG

Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.
  • Veteran

    Don’t care for either but we Damn sure need to support Sam on this one. To Hell with Holder.

    • hmmm 2

      Why do we need to support Brownbutt on anything.??

      • Lance Sauer

        Do not like Brownback or the law SB102?

        • Lance Sauer

          Correction Do you not like Brownback or the law SB102?

  • Chris

    We are willing to cut money to many areas, but then willing to spend an extravagant amount of money on the litigation that is sure to follow in this state vs federal battle. Schools, nah, they dont need money..sales tax to fund emergency medical services, no way!…but you mess with the metal pacifier and all the repubs are willing to open the coffers.

    • hmmmm

      Chris,
      I agree with you on the possible litigations that may come with this. But on the other hand we have heard the feds threaten states numerous times over other issues, just to try to get the state to give in, and cave to what the feds want.

      As far as your comment: “all the repubs are willing to open the coffers”
      Did you not read the article the democrats were in favor of this as well in Kansas?

      “The measure was adopted by a vote of 35 to 4 in the Kansas Senate with the Democrat Senate Minority Leader supporting the bill.”
      &
      “The measure was adopted by a vote of 96 to 24in the Kansas House of Representatives. Again, the Democrat House Minority Leader voted for the bill.”

      JMO

      • Chris

        Didn’t say anything about democrats in my post. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said ALL republicans are in favor. So, of those dissenters, how many were republicans?

  • A

    I completely agree with what Brownback is doing. Unfortunately from a legal aspect there isn’t much of a leg to stand on. The supreme court has stated numerous times that the state cannot nullify a federal law, and that only the courts can find laws unconstitutional. That being said, I feel that if the federal government violates a right of the people, then the next level of defense for those rights are the states. If the federal government were to reinstitute slavery should we go along with it? Of course not, the states would say no. So with the being said, I support Brownback in this matter, but as Chris said above, i worry about the litigation cost that will be passed on to citizens.

    • Lance Sauer

      I do worry about the legal cost of this since the tax payers will be funding both sides. Protecting people individual rights is the main function of government with that be the thief down the street of a politician in D.C.

      I do think Kansas will win the cause because SB102 was written based on the 10th amendment. Interstate commerece clause says that the Feds can regulate between foreign nations, and commerce that crosses state lines. SB102 says made in KS and stays in KS is not under federal regulation.

  • Doug

    This is basically a “States Rights” battle. The same thing could be said about all of the states that have passed their own marijuana legalization laws. The Feds could (and sometimes do) attempt to enforce their Federal laws in those states.

    This could turn into a huge legal battle because quite a few states not only have their own gun laws guaranteeing their states’ citizens the RIGHT to own firearms, but their state constitutions (that were written and enacted BEFORE becoming a “State” in the “United States”) often do so as well. Their wording is usually quite a bit more clear than what was adopted by the U.S. constitution.

  • ksbs

    What happens when Brownback gets the feds coming after him? Brownback does have a past that isn’t very becoming of a governor.

  • Pam Porvaznik

    Unless we want to let the Obama administration, and our increasingly wishy washy Congress, lead us permanently into Communism, I’d say who cares about the money to fight this emboldened move of Holder’s. I worked in Congress. I’ve seen where our tax money goes. For all the daff pork and ridiculous nonsense our government spends our money on, this fight with Holder will be a worthy one. It defends our Constitution which the liberals keep wanting to do away with. I’m not for Sam on everything, but lately he’s been showing me principle and that in my book is worth everything. This move of Holder’s reminds me of High Noon. I’m backing Sam on this one all the way to the Supreme Court.