Kansas Joins The Nullification Fight Over Gun Laws

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Yesterday we talked to my buddy Mark Kreslins about the attempt to nullify Obamacare in the State of Oklahoma and that it stalled in the Oklahoma Senate because of the protestations of one historically ignorant senator, a gentlemen by the name of Clark Jolley.  That’s up for debate as to what’s going to happen with that.  There is another effort in the State of Kansas that is making its way to the desk of Governor Brownback.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Yesterday we talked to my buddy Mark Kreslins about the attempt to nullify Obamacare in the State of Oklahoma and that it stalled in the Oklahoma Senate because of the protestations of one historically ignorant senator, a gentlemen by the name of Clark Jolley.  That’s up for debate as to what’s going to happen with that.  There is another effort in the State of Kansas that is making its way to the desk of Governor Brownback.  We find this last night at The Tenth Amendment Center: “Kansas Bill to Nullify Gun Laws Goes to Governor Brownback for Signature.”

So Kansas, like many other states, has decided that — theirs is a little different than some of the other states that have claimed firearm freedom acts and if we manufacture the gun in the state you can’t say anything about it because it’s not interstate commerce, and because it’s not interstate commerce then it’s not subject to the commerce clause, yada, yada, yada.  As Kevin Gutzman has pointed out on this show many, many times, that’s never going to stand the test of a federal judge.  He’ll just go, [mocking] “(laughing) That’s a good one. (laughing) I issue an injunction against your silly little law.  And if a federal agency decides they want to hold your feet to the fire on that law, I’m probably gonna to let them do that, too, because that would be within their rights to withhold funding for your education programs and highways.”  You still applaud the effort.  Here’s the Kansas story:

[reading]

Tonight, in the final hours of the Kansas state legislative session, the House and Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 102 (previously House Bill 2199) and send it to Governor Brownback for signature.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 96-24, and the Senate voted 35-4.  During the Senate vote, one Senator exclaimed, “Passage of SB102 means that 2nd and 10th Amendment are alive and well in Kansas.”

[end reading]

Mike:  The 10^th Amendment can only be alive and well in Kansas if Kansas is willing to do without federal funding for Medicaid and highways and if Kansas is willing to withhold funding to the general legislature so that it doesn’t have its wealth confiscated from it for these same purposes in the first place.  You may say that Amendment Ten is alive and well, but are you rejecting money from the Department of Education?  I could go on and on and on.  [mocking] “Yeah, but Mike, they’re paying their taxes.”  Well, I’m sure they are.  Isn’t that the point?

[reading]

If signed into law, SB102 would nullify a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas.  It states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

[end reading]

Mike:  This is almost Jefferson’s language from the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 in regards to the alien and sedition acts verbatim, almost verbatim, pretty close.

[reading]

In conjunction with Section 6a, the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court. [Mike: Here’s what they say in Kansas.]

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s bold, brilliant and novel language there.  What is Kansas saying?  Kansas is saying: Look, when we ratified the Constitution, we ratified it as a compact.  We talked about this yesterday with Mark Kreslins and I’ve talked about it for years.  Either the Constitution is a compact or it is a deaf deal with an autonomous dictatorship.  It’s either one or the other.  Most of us that listen to this show and are republicans in good standing view it as a compact, meaning it is an agreement.  There are consenting parties, just like consenting adults to a marriage, and we agree to be bound under the terms of the agreement, which are?  Class, audience, what are the terms of the agreement?  AG, in what document do we find the terms of our agreement to be bound by the compact?

AG:  The Constitution.

Mike:  You’re always so reticent to answer.  Your first instinct is usually correct.  That’s the term, the contract, the compact, the Constitution.  The State of Kansas says: Yeah, okay, we agree to be bound by that.  You’re going to guarantee us a republican form of government.  If someone should ever invade us, you agree that if we call for help you’ll come and aid our militia in repelling the invasion.  We’re agreeing not to emit bills of credit.  We’re agreeing not to print any money.  We’re agreeing that we’ll let you act as our agent in commerce with foreign nations and let you do the treaties.  We’re going to send senators, though, to approve the treaties and to vote on them.  We’re going to cede those enumerated powers to you and everything else we’re going to reserve to ourselves.

If the State of Kansas ratified and accepted the terms of the Second Amendment as it was understood in 1861, and if it accepted and understood the terms of the 10^th Amendment as it was understood in 1861, then they are perfectly well within their rights to say that anything that has happened in the aftermath of that is null and void and they are not bound by it.  This is good stuff here.  I don’t know whether or not it’ll survive and whether or not you people of Kansas are really willing to go to the wall for this, but you’re in close cahoots with Oklahoma.  You only need to roll a few more states in there and you’ve got a nice little confederacy brewing.

[reading]

State and local agents would be prevented from supporting any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce.”

This mass noncompliance with an unconstitutional federal act is both constitutionally sound, and very effective. A future legislative session could also address how to further prevent federal enforcement should these steps prove to not be effective enough.

[end reading]

Mike:  This was posted by my buddy Michael Boldin at The Tenth Amendment Center.  This story is posted in today’s Pile of Prep at MikeChurch.com under the title “Libertarian and Popular in the Same New Stories?”  Read all about it.

End Mike Church Show Transcript