Dear Mr. Holder,
This column finally obtained a copy of your letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownbeck dated April 26,2013. [Readers can view that copy here]
Paragraph 2 in which you state:
“Among its other provisions, S.B. 102 criminalizes the enforcement of federal with respect to the types of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition described in the statute. The law purports to nullify certain federal firearms requirements and to authorize the State of Kansas to charge and convict federal officers for performing their law enforcement duties.”
Thank you for setting the stage. The above paragraph is absolutely correct.
Paragraph 3 in which you state in part:
“………Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Kansas may not prevent federal employees from carry out their official responsibilities……”
There MAY be some truth to that statement, and it will ultimately be up to the courts.
Continuing with paragraph 3:
“Because S.B. 102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and the implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”
This is where you arguments and threats fail strict scrutiny.
“James Madison writes in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) under the 3rd resolution:
“It…[is]…a plain principle, founded in common sense…and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. … The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; … ” [boldface mine]
Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison are saying that because the States alone are “the parties” to the compact, they are the final authority to decide whether their “creature”, the federal government, has violated the compact. THIS is why States have the natural right of nullification!”
Lastly Mr. Holder, since you seem to think that federal firearms laws fall under the Supremacy Clause, would you please be good enough to explain just how any federal firearms laws are Constitutional? If you cannot explain that, then the Supremacy Clause is not relevant to this issue and you know it !
©2013 Chris Woodard – All Rights Reserved.
Interactive Map to find, and contact your members of Congress
Gun Rights Examiners……
Other sites of interest….
War on Guns, notes from the resistance
Armed and Safe