Kansas Governor fights US Attorney over gun law...

TOPEKA, Kan. — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that a new state law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional and that the federal government is willing to go to court over the issue.

But Brownback replied in a letter Thursday that Kansans hold dear their right to bear arms and are protecting the state's sovereignty. Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped draft the law, accused the nation's top law enforcement official of "blustering" over the issue.

"The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will," Brownback said at the conclusion of his letter. "It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so."

Kansas' law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items.

The new statute says that Kansas-only guns, ammunition and accessories aren't a part of interstate commerce, which the federal government regulates under the U.S. Constitution. But in a letter to Brownback, Holder said the Constitution prohibits states from pre-empting federal laws.

Holder sent his letter April 26, the day after the Kansas law took effect, and the U.S. attorney's office for Kansas released it Thursday.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote in his letter. "And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities."

Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said gun rights supporters were prepared for such a response from President Barack Obama's administration. The president has sought new gun control measures since December's deadly mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Republican governor is a gun rights supporter, and the measure passed the GOP-dominated Legislature by wide margins. Kobach also is a Republican.

"I think the people of Kansas are going to back this up," Stoneking said. "Probably thousands of grass-roots citizens are all in."

Brownback said in his letter to Holder: "The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear."

The governor added, "The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right."

The Kansas law is modeled on a 2009 Montana law that is being reviewed by a federal appeals court, and Alaska lawmakers approved a similar measure last month. Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma lawmakers are considering similar legislation.

Supporters of the Kansas law softened it - to say that federal agents wouldn't be arrested or detained while trials were pending - and insist that it will withstand court scrutiny. A federal agent convicted for the first time under the Kansas law could face six months in prison, though probation would be the presumed sentence.

"These hard-working federal employees cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution and the continued performance of their federal duties," Barry Grissom, the U.S. attorney for Kansas, said in a statement Thursday.

But Kobach called Holder's analysis "simplistic and incorrect" and said the Kansas law is valid to protect the state's residents against unconstitutional measures enacted by Congress.

"We are very, very confident of our position," Kobach said in an interview. "The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge."

The office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has already anticipated a potential legal challenge from the federal government, and has asked legislators to increase its budget by $225,000 over the next two years to cover litigation costs.

Stoneking said a dispute could arise after a local gunsmith sells a firearm manufactured in Kansas to a state resident without complying with federal requirements for a background check on the buyer or registering the gun. Kobach agreed.

"Until that actually happens, there won't be any litigation," Stoneking said. "The federal government will have to have some way of finding out."

Supporters of the Kansas law have said they worry about attempts by the federal government to restrict or ban the sale of some weapons - or even confiscate them.

Holder said in his letter that federal law enforcement agencies will "continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.

"Moreover, 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.

---

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/02/2786301/holder-to-gov-new-kan-law-is-unconstitutional.html#storylink=cpy

Make non gun owners pay a $500 fine...

Don’t miss reading and thinking about THIS ONE! Please forward

A novel approach to the gun ownership issue...

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'.
He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."
Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

JUST A SHOTGUN

Subject: Just A Shotgun

You're sound asleep when you
hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly
paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers.

At least two people have broken
into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you
reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the
chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out
two shadows.

One holds something that looks
like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it
as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to
the floor.

One writhes and screams while
the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to
call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were
outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently
regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First
Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney,
he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I
get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he
replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be
out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is
the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow,
you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are
represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives
can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the
article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times.

But the next day's headlinesays it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been
transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story
takes wings.

The national
mediapicks
it up, then the international
media.

The surviving burglar has
become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is
preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The mediapublishes reports that your
home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been
critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you
told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this
to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to
trial.

The charges haven't been
reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of
you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the
jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life
in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin
of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to
defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with
the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales
were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of
1920expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
shotguns..

Later laws passed
in 1953 and 1967outlawed the carrying of any
weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun
confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally
disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting
everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17
people were dead.

The British public, already
de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher
restrictions.
(The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objectiveeven though Ryan used a
rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane,
Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and
a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had
portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real
kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week,
the media gave up all
pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane
Inquiry, a
few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private
citizens.

During the years
in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the
notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as
vigilantism.
Authorities
refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that
self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or
robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were
released.

Indeed, after the Martin
shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the
law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had
been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were
severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of
antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by
burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry
ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to
local authorities.

Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited
by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't
comply.

Police later bragged that
they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know
who had handguns?
The guns had been registered
and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound
familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR
CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a
majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush
fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel
Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to
everyone you know!!!


Even If you don't have the brains to realize
that this is important, please forward to everyone you know,
anyway!!!



And there are stupid people in
congress and on the street that will go right along with
him.