DCPolitics

Go Kansas!

We had never heard of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach until this week … but we’re commending him to your attention after our friends at Net Right Daily unearthed his heroic advocacy on behalf of one of our most essential freedoms. As the NRD report reveals, Kobach is currently on the front…

We had never heard of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach until this week … but we’re commending him to your attention after our friends at Net Right Daily unearthed his heroic advocacy on behalf of one of our most essential freedoms.

As the NRD report reveals, Kobach is currently on the front line of the fight to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights – battling against the gun-running U.S. Department of Justice led by Eric Holder.

At issue? “The Second Amendment Protection Act,” a recently passed Kansas law which “excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas.”

Irritated at this new statute, Holder fired off a snippy, threatening letter to Topeka in an effort to get the state to back down.

“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,” Holder wrote.

Kobach – a constitutional law scholar – was having none of that.

“A federal law that exceeds Congress’s power has absolutely no ability to preempt a contrary state law,” Kobach fired back.

He also ripped Holder for his agency’s botched gun-running scheme.

“(Holder) was evidently not concerned that ATFE officials be allowed to enforce federal law when his when agency oversaw the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation to walk guns into the hands of Mexican cartels,” Kobach wrote.

Boom …

Needless to say, pro-liberty advocates were thrilled with Kobach’s eloquent display of testicular fortitude – as they should be.

“(Kobach) has shown everyone how to stand up to the bullying of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and he should be applauded and defended by everyone who believes in freedom,” said Nathan Mehrens of Americans for Limited Government, one of the few genuinely pro-liberty advocacy groups working in our nation’s capital. “Hopefully Kobach’s example encourages more state officials to stand up to an overreaching federal government.”

Indeed …

We’ve already staked out some firm ground on Second Amendment issues here at FITS, and it’s encouraging to see elected officials standing every bit as firmly in their official capacities.

***

Related posts

Politics

Palmetto Political Stock Index – 4/16/2024

FITSNews
DC

Nikki Haley Joins Neocon Think Tank

Will Folks
Politics

York County Republicans Reopen Filing for Sheriff Candidates

Andrew Fancher

44 comments

CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 10:35 am

Another over/under bet on the rapidity of SCOTUS to handle this question. I refer you to McCulloch v. Maryland.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 10:37 am

No man. Don’t care what it says. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be interpreted any way except “The peoples right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical oppressive government”.

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 10:35 am

Another over/under bet on the rapidity of SCOTUS to handle this question. I refer you to McCulloch v. Maryland.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 10:37 am

No man. Don’t care what it says. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be interpreted any way except “The peoples right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical oppressive government”.

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 10:54 am

Love that quote. Needs repeating.

“A federal law that exceeds Congress’s power has absolutely no ability to preempt a contrary state law,”

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State

Reply
CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 11:14 am

Sorry, but McCulloch v. Maryland was 1819. Whether you like it and/or agree with matters not.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 11:19 am

BBwwwahahahahah. Fuck That Shit you Gubmint Lovin’ Slut

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 10:54 am

Love that quote. Needs repeating.

“A federal law that exceeds Congress’s power has absolutely no ability to preempt a contrary state law,”

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State

Reply
CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 11:14 am

Sorry, but McCulloch v. Maryland was 1819. Whether you like it and/or agree with matters not.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 11:19 am

BBwwwahahahahah. Fuck That Shit you Gubmint Lovin’ Slut

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
Smirks May 9, 2013 at 11:25 am

A federal law that exceeds Congress’ power? Does Congress have absolutely no power to regulate firearms as per the Constitution? Besides that, the Constitution only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t give a complete block to any regulation regarding the manufacturing or selling of weapons. The language of the bill doesn’t “exclude” just regulation that “exceeds Congress’ power,” but excludes ALL federal regulation. Is that really necessary, or even a good idea?

I think a law like this is doomed to fail in SCOTUS, but meh. With the demise of the background check law and not even a whimper of assault weapons bans or high capacity magazine bans, this law isn’t going to do much. Maybe if the law specifically excluded bans on assault weapon/high capacity magazine manufacturing it wouldn’t be such a joke, but even then, what assault weapon/high capacity magazine ban?

What regulations does this bill intend to exclude at this very moment in time? What is exceeding Congress’ power?

Reply
Smirks May 9, 2013 at 11:25 am

A federal law that exceeds Congress’ power? Does Congress have absolutely no power to regulate firearms as per the Constitution? Besides that, the Constitution only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t give a complete block to any regulation regarding the manufacturing or selling of weapons. The language of the bill doesn’t “exclude” just regulation that “exceeds Congress’ power,” but excludes ALL federal regulation. Is that really necessary, or even a good idea?

I think a law like this is doomed to fail in SCOTUS, but meh. With the demise of the background check law and not even a whimper of assault weapons bans or high capacity magazine bans, this law isn’t going to do much. Maybe if the law specifically excluded bans on assault weapon/high capacity magazine manufacturing it wouldn’t be such a joke, but even then, what assault weapon/high capacity magazine ban?

What regulations does this bill intend to exclude at this very moment in time? What is exceeding Congress’ power?

Reply
Ben Cook May 9, 2013 at 11:49 am

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. ENOUGH SAID!

Reply
Duh May 9, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Bingo.

Reply
Ben Cook May 9, 2013 at 11:49 am

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. ENOUGH SAID!

Reply
Duh May 9, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Bingo.

Reply
Cicero May 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Apparently, this “constitutional scholar” missed the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Sec. 2. Also, he must have forgotten that when states think the feds have exceeded their scope, you go to court. Simply telling the feds “no” may feel good and make for good copy, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing. If the federal courts hold that the feds have acted within their ambit of authority, the states must comply. Period.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm

BBwwwahahahahah. Fuck That Shit you Gubmint Lovin’ Slut

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
Keepin it real May 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm

I think that the statute was written with the commerce clause (interstate commerce, specifically) in mind. Supremacy clause wouldn’t come up in that instance. Problem is that the court will rule that since the guns can e transported out of state, interstate commerce is effected. Thus the intent of the law is defeated. The federalies win again… Boo.

Reply
Cicero May 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Apparently, this “constitutional scholar” missed the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Sec. 2. Also, he must have forgotten that when states think the feds have exceeded their scope, you go to court. Simply telling the feds “no” may feel good and make for good copy, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing. If the federal courts hold that the feds have acted within their ambit of authority, the states must comply. Period.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm

BBwwwahahahahah. Fuck That Shit you Gubmint Lovin’ Slut

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
Keepin it real May 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm

I think that the statute was written with the commerce clause (interstate commerce, specifically) in mind. Supremacy clause wouldn’t come up in that instance. Problem is that the court will rule that since the guns can e transported out of state, interstate commerce is effected. Thus the intent of the law is defeated. The federalies win again… Boo.

Reply
mph May 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Boom!

Somebody is pandering to the mouth breathers in Kansas, constitution be damned.

Must be an election soon.

Reply
Tank May 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Time to climb out from under that rock, Willie. If you’d been paying attention, Kobach was one of the key players in drafting & defending Arizona’s “Papers Please” law. He served as a top immigration advisor to Mitt Romney.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm

Sounds like he’s a very intelligent man. Unlike the libitards on the SCOTUS today.

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Scalia has been called many things but I doubt liberal is one of them.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 10, 2013 at 6:19 am

He has now

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
mph May 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Boom!

Somebody is pandering to the mouth breathers in Kansas, constitution be damned.

Must be an election soon.

Reply
Tank May 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Time to climb out from under that rock, Willie. If you’d been paying attention, Kobach was one of the key players in drafting & defending Arizona’s “Papers Please” law. He served as a top immigration advisor to Mitt Romney.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm

Sounds like he’s a very intelligent man. Unlike the libitards on the SCOTUS today.

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
CNSYD May 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Scalia has been called many things but I doubt liberal is one of them.

Reply
Frank Pytel May 10, 2013 at 6:19 am

He has now

Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.

Frank Pytel

Reply
lowcorider May 9, 2013 at 5:42 pm

This guy sounds like sic’s mancrush except this guy might have half a testicle.

Reply
Lowcorider May 9, 2013 at 5:42 pm

This guy sounds like sic’s mancrush except this guy might have half a testicle.

Reply
BarExamsShouldBeInABar May 9, 2013 at 8:45 pm

I hope that’s not how you end your trial briefs. The right to bear arms, among other rights endowed by the Creator, pre-existed the current Constitution and will outlive it, regardless of how or why it chooses to codify that right. Twisting the Constitution to restrict it will only result in a new Constitution. Oops, did I write that out loud? Excuse me, someone is knocking at my do….

Reply
BarExamsShouldBeInABar May 9, 2013 at 8:45 pm

I hope that’s not how you end your trial briefs. The right to bear arms, among other rights endowed by the Creator, pre-existed the current Constitution and will outlive it, regardless of how or why it chooses to codify that right. Twisting the Constitution to restrict it will only result in a new Constitution. Oops, did I write that out loud? Excuse me, someone is knocking at my do….

Reply
Cleveland Steamer May 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm

“We’ve already staked out some firm ground on Second Amendment issues here at FITS, and it’s encouraging to see elected officials standing every bit as firmly in their official capacities..”

The second amendment is easy round these parts, try something like the 6th, 7th, 8th.

Reply
Cleveland Steamer May 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm

“We’ve already staked out some firm ground on Second Amendment issues here at FITS, and it’s encouraging to see elected officials standing every bit as firmly in their official capacities..”

The second amendment is easy round these parts, try something like the 6th, 7th, 8th.

Reply
EZLN May 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm

Guns and Immigrants. Who fucking cares. Rednecks do!!!

Reply
EZLN May 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm

Guns and Immigrants. Who fucking cares. Rednecks do!!!

Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 11:35 pm

men with guns are so fucking macho and masculine.always a deal killer:pussies

Reply
9" May 9, 2013 at 11:35 pm

men with guns are so fucking macho and masculine.always a deal killer:pussies

Reply
Comrade1917 May 10, 2013 at 7:31 am

hmm …
… the right of the PEOPLE to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed …
It’s a right of the people.

Reply
Comrade1917 May 10, 2013 at 7:31 am

hmm …
… the right of the PEOPLE to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed …
It’s a right of the people.

Reply

Leave a Comment