Kansas judge throws out pro-gun law, setting up epic battle over Gorsuch


By Marcin Wichary from San Francisco, U.S.A. (Welcome to America) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
By Marcin Wichary from San Francisco, U.S.A. (Welcome to America) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
A Kansas judge may have just made the nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court a massive battle for gun rights.

Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler were arrested in October 2015 after Cox sold Kettler a suppressor they believed was exempt from the National Firearms Act.  In their trial they cited Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act, which states that any Federal law infringing upon constitutionally-protected rights is null and void.

“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,” it reads.

They were nonetheless convicted, and appealed their case.

Now they have a ruling.  U.S. District Court Judge J. Thomas Marten not only rejected their appeal, he ruled the Second Amendment Protection Act is unconstitutional.

That ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If confirmed, Gorsuch would be one of the nine justices hearing that case.

The consequences are enormous.  If Gorsuch is confirmed, he could be the deciding vote to uphold, or strike down, state laws nullifying Federal gun control.

That means anti-gun groups are about to take their anti-Gorsuch campaign to even more extreme levels.

  • my understanding has always been,”if you break a law, you should and will be punished. ” what happened to that idea?. i see people throwing bricks to break windows, stealing, setting fire to everything including police cars which my money helped buy, and beating people just to name a few. i know i’m old,80, but if there is no law why bother to pay for police, jails, prisons, judges and their office people just to name a few. if the lawless can get away with what they do, can we ,the people that pay get away with not paying any more for any reason? THINGS TO PONDER! 44JON

  • Billy

    44Jon – Very interesting question. If our local PD, Mayor, etc fail to react to rioters, like some we have seen recently, your idea could be an option for us lawful tax payers.

  • GenEarly

    One Feral Lawyer (Judge) in a dirty black robe can issue an edict that 250 million+ people, 50 governors and 50 state legislatures must Obey.
    In the case of Trump’s immigration order, even the Feral gov. has to Obey one black robed Feral lawyer who assumes godlike power not granted in law.
    Thomas Jefferson warned of the Tyranny of the Feral Judiciary.

  • luvsgunsandamerica

    Another judge that deserves a quick dirt nap

  • Brian_E

    The Supremecy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution says that Federal Law prevails over State Law. The problem is that the Kansas law claiming to nullify an unconstitutional Federal law (2nd Amendment related or not) – isn’t the right way to fix this. Any such unconstitutional Federal law must be overturned. A State law can’t ‘over-ride’ a Federal law, even when that Federal law is interpreted to be unconstitutional. Gorsuch on the bench or not – this case isn’t likely to turn out the way they think it will. Unless they’re *trying* to get the state law thrown out…. :-/

  • GoldBeachBiker

    I liked that typo, GenEarly …. “Feral gov” lol

  • G.Mann

    Article 10 of the Bill of Rights reserves to the States, and to the Citizens ALL powers NOT SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government.

    Is there some part of that Article of the Bill of Rights you do NOT understand?

    Article 10
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • jdangiel

    They don’t have to override it. They can nullify by refusing to enforce it or to assist the federal government in enforcing it. The federal government cannot coerce states into doing anything. And, as the founders and authors of the constitution have clearly established for us, any federal law that is unconstitutional is indeed null. I recommend everyone go to the tenth amendment center’s site for a real education on nullification. I agree that ultimately, the unconstitutional law should be done away with, but since we cannot always count on Washington to do the right thing, nullification is an option.

  • Dogpatch

    Only one thing to say…10th Amendment.

  • Rob Waddell

    The second amendment is perfectly clear! Enough said!

  • Jim

    It’s time for war. Not overseas though.

  • garrylynn

    There’s a whole lot of egotistical “clowns in gowns” trying to have their 15 minutes of fame. Time for the Supreme court to shut them up once and for all, and for President Trump to systematically have them replaced.

  • Anthony Manzo

    How do these IDIOTS get confirmed. And they give me all kinds of trouble over the second amendment. My pinky is more American than these two STUPID Federal judges can’t we impeach them. One day the AMERICANS will have to take BACK our Country, we have let them get away with too much.

  • GrumpyOleMan

    Yet another judge that has apparently never read the Constitution and therefore makes rulings that are unsound and not even legal! We have standards for grade school. We have uncommon core for high schoolers. When are we going to require lawyers to study Constitutional Law in Law School?? If we did, it would have to lower the incompetence and ignorance of so many in our current judicial system. It might even mean we would quit having illegal people serve as president of the United States. Like Obama. First Ted Cruz understood he wasn’t eligible, but apparently changed his mind when he found out that only he and I actually knew he wasn’t eligible.
    We’ve got to start getting some intelligence back into the judiciary!

  • GrumpyOleMan

    I almost agree with you. Thing is, most who have actually attended and accredited law school know that there really isn’t any way to enforce rulings that people are not willing to accept. If society stops obeying laws/rules we just become a lawless society. Just look at the last 8 years for tons of examples of this. OBozo ignored any ruling he didn’t like and no one did a damn thing about it. Then look at the riots. What law+order?

  • acs1949

    One more excellent reason to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the ext Supreme Court justice. We need a strict constitutionalist on the Court to finally lay to rest all unconstitutional restrictions on the Second Amendment. Americans deserve the right to self-defense against the wave of criminal violence threatening to engulf our nation. With all due respect to our dedicated law-enforcement professionals,, it is clearly impossible for the police to be everywhere at once, and response times are dictated by traffic and physical distance. Under the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to defend their lives and property from criminal violence nationwide(it amazes me that narrow-minded jurisdictions like New York and New Jersey blindly claim the “right” to defy the supreme law of the land and deny their citizens their basic Constitutional right to keep and bear arms on the basis of bogus “feel-good” notions that “gun control” equals “crime control”-especially when history has proven such notions to be utterly wrong and a danger to the ” public safety” they presume to protect). It is time to assert once and for all that law-abiding Americans have a federally-protected right to self-defense, regardless of backward-looking liberal fools who believe otherwise. A Justice like Neil Gorsuch, who believes that the Constitution means what it says, will be a breath of fresh air in the festering swamp of self-important liberal tripe that passes for our federal judiciary.

  • MyronJPoltroonian

    I have, for quite awhile now, advocated for lawmakers to take and pass the “Free!” Hillsdale online course on the Constitution (at hillsdale.edu) and pass it before taking office. Apparently I must broaden the scope of my advocacy to include government judges, lawyers and, for good measure, law enforcement too.

  • MyronJPoltroonian

    Methinks the typer typeth not in error but, rather, in truth.

  • MyronJPoltroonian

    Sir, I am a mere 5 years behind you in “Eld”, but I believe our forefathers had a phrase about this very idea: “No taxation without representation!”. They had a solution too. If the city “Father/Mothers” (as Arlo Guthrie put it) will not spend the monies confiscated from their constituents for their very protection, then we will keep our money and protect ourselves without their hinderance.

  • Dan

    Judges are supposed to interpret the law not make it. WAKE UP JUDGE !

  • facebook is Dero

    I’d settle for a dip in a barrel of tar and sprinkling of feathers

  • firehawk69

    Where I come from a person who decides not to obey a certain law is called a “scofflaw”, ie, they scoff at the law. Very common to see people shooting off fireworks on the 4th even though it is against the law in my state. I can see where people will not obey laws that are against the constitution or unlawful laws.

  • firehawk69

    Not that I would ever do that mind you…..!

  • Azgunsel

    Judges like this one don’t ever make very good Cooks, because they just cannot bring themselves to follow the ingredients in the Recipe and use the appropriate amount of heat in the oven. Result, nothing edible, just gobbledy gook.

  • GenEarly

    Feral Judges acting as Political Legislators passing laws out of their hats is what?
    Obamy broke the law. So what? We only have laws for the peasants like us.
    Don’t hold you breath waiting on the Hilarity prosecution. Fc’k their USSA.

  • Snake

    Judges are not supposed to interpret anything, they are supposed to FOLLOW the law.

  • AZtejas

    The intent of State laws of this nature are to challenge the Federal law. The State and probably this Judge wants it moved to the Supreme Court. States rights should prevail in this case and many more.

  • Michael

    Obama got away with everything since he was the “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT”.

  • Patriot47

    Protecting a Constitutionally CONFIRMED right is un-Constitutional? Is this IDIOT choking on his own tongue yet?

  • Jones2112

    Another activist leftist judge that needs to be handed a tin can and sent down the road…

    …and proof that law licenses are given out from a box of crackerjacks…not much else to say except it’ll go to the SC and when this so-called judge’s ruling is ruled unconstitutional he should be removed from the bench immediately…and made to pay a hefty fine…

  • reagangs

    It’s time for a show down at the OK Corral.

  • Freeholder1776

    Hard to believe a Kansas judge would do this. He must be an import from one of the coasts as there is almost no one in Kansas who would get behind such an absurd idea.

  • loony1975

    MADISON vs. MARBURY…ANY law that contradicts or conflicts with the Constitution is ILLEGAL, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE, the citizen is not bound to obey such laws, and such laws ARE TO BE SEEN AS NEVER EXISTED…

  • mark k.

    One word…Obama. Our jihadist trojan horse.