Well...that didn't last long.

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Sent while trying to concentrate on 6 things at once.

 

[winchster]

And it's unconstitutional because he says so?


Riiiiiight.

 

[General Zod]

Y'know, various cities and even a couple of states (if I recall correctly) have declared that federal immigration law will not be enforced within their confines, and the government under Mr Obama did NOTHING to correct the situation. That sets precedent for refusal to allow enforcement of federal law by state and local authorities.

I'd say Mr Holder is, as usual, showing his ignorance.

 

[steve-o]

So if these said "duties" of federal employees are unconstitutional, as per the 2A, the states can't stop them? HHMMMM, this will be interesting.

 

[V-Tach]

Holder refuses to enforce laws the he and the Messiah don't agree with, but expect the States to cowtow because he says so...........

He and the Messiah breach their oath of office on daily basis.....

I have no respect for either of them.

 

[hkusp1]

I tend not to take legal advice from a criminal.

 

[Stumpy]

I tend not to take legal advice from a criminal.

"Better call Saul!"


Sent from the mind of a genius. Forrealz.

 

[Army 1911]

While what Holder says may be technically true, he cannot force the state LEOS to enforce unconstitutional laws either.

 

[Brains]

Holder's letter only addressed preventing federal staff from "performance of their federal duties". He was careful not to overreach there. So far it's nothing more than lawyers posturing, it remains to be seen if it'll ever be tested by real people following the direction of the fed.

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/02/4214060/us-attorney-general-tells-gov.html

Here's another good one

Sent while trying to concentrate on 6 things at once.

 

[M. Sage]

Sent while trying to concentrate on 6 things at once.

He needs to re-read the Supremacy Clause.

 

[M. Sage]

While what Holder says may be technically true, he cannot force the state LEOS to enforce unconstitutional laws either.

Nope. Technically, the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws made "in pursuance" of the Constitution.

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[sonuvaTXgun]

"Better call Saul!"


Sent from the mind of a genius. Forrealz.

I laughed.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

"...in pursuance of the Constitution." Pursuance meaning consistent with the Constitution. That said, it could be construed that any laws affecting the Second Amendment rights are not consistent with the Constitution and can be challenged. But...there's always a "but"...these challenges would have to go through the federal courts, not individual state senates.

Or, as noted in a case before the Supreme Court in 1982:

Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:

1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or

2. "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

The operative word there is "valid." The validity of any laws affecting the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals could very well be brought up. Again, though, it would be through the federal court system, not state legislators.

 

[General Zod]

If Colorado and Washington can vote to legalize pot - which is still illegal from a Federal standpoint - and have no repercussions, then states can point to that precedent (among others I've pointed out) to preserve the legality of firearms. The Feds under Obama are far too enamored with picking and choosing which laws to enforce. What's good for them is good for us.

 

[General Zod]

On the flipside, Holder's interpretation of the Supremacy Clause could (and maybe should) be used to overturn unjust gun laws in Colorado, California, New Jersey, New York, and various other states. After all, if those weapons aren't illegal by Federal law, how can they be illegal in a state?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

...that's what she said?

To echo others, the Supremacy Clause only applies to areas where the Federal government has Constitutional authority to operate. Laws made outside the Fed Govs enumerated powers are invalid on their face, no supremacy clause required. Of course, the courts screw that up all the time as well.

 

[winchster]

Kansas responds.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...ers-opinions-on-2nd-amendment-protection-act/


The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

And a statement from the Kansas Secretary of State. It is awesomeness. Double Viking points.

Kansas Secretary of State Kobach Responds to Eric Holder

 

[inceptor]

Kansas responds.

Sam Brownback Brushes off Eric Holder’s Opinions on 2nd Amendment Protection Act – Tenth Amendment Center Blog


The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

My respect for Kansas has grown