Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

GUILTY! States Rights DENIED in Kansas

This case puts the Second and Tenth amendments on trial by the Federal government.


GUILTY! States Rights DENIED in Kansas

by Shari Dovale

Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler were wrongly convicted yesterday of violating Federal gun laws.

Cox was found guilty of 8 out of 10 charges and Kettler was found guilty of one count of possession of an unregistered gun silencer.

But this is not just second amendment case. This is also a tenth amendment case.

10th Amendment

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.

In 2013, Kansas passed the ‘The Second Amendment Protection Act’. This law was designed to reign in the Federal government overreach of unconstitutional gun control laws. With this law, overreaching Federal gun control laws are not valid in Kansas. It also allowed for prosecution of Federal agents attempting to enforce the federal gun control within the state.

This law was passed because the people in the State of Kansas have the right to live their life the way they choose within their own state borders. Gun control is unconstitutional and the citizens of Kansas put a stop to it within their state. This law was hailed as the toughest Second Amendment protection law in the nation.

This would be true IF the State of Kansas had enforced this law and backed up it’s citizens attempting to follow it.

The Federal government decided to challenge Kansas on their new law and chose as it’s vehicle the prosecution of a couple of veterans named Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler.

As we learned in the case of the Malheur Protest Trial in Oregon, the Federal judges have too much leniency in what the defense is allowed to present in their case. When someone’s freedom is at stake, they should be allowed to present whatever defense they want.

The judge in this case did not allow the jury to hear their defense using the state law. The judge effectively stopped them from defending themselves. The defendants followed state law and the state did not come to their defense. The state stood by and watched the federal court railroad these men of their rights.

So what does this mean to the State of Kansas, and to the citizens that follow the US Constitution?

It means the citizens of Kansas need to question their representatives in Topeka. They need to hold them accountable and insist that the State of Kansas come to the aid of these men.

It means that this case needs to go all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The US Constitution cannot be ignored by the Federal government. It is the basis of our laws.

It means that we must put a stop to these overreaching judges that do not allow the Constitution in their courtroom.

Let’s hope and pray that the incoming administration can stop the big bully known as the Federal Government and they will finally be called out for their lawlessness.


5 Comments on GUILTY! States Rights DENIED in Kansas

  1. Thanks Shari. Say what ? It’s the duty of the governor to interpose his authority and protect his citizens ? Huh ? Kansas has laws ? Not according to Governor yellowback.His little charade of being the high official there has ended. How about a “White feather” award for this little toady ? mail him a white feather………..

  2. huh? clownback is a joke, that’s about the only thing he got right is gun rights, everything else he has broken, like putting 3500 + senior and disabled people off medicaid since he privatized it and this clearing house cant even find paperwork…making them homeless if they are living in a care center. Also cutting funding for schools and public transportation for the seniors and disabled, higher taxes and other stupid stuff. so really what has he done again?

  3. OK… seems we need a purge of these corrupt judges… based on the evidence of treason and corruption, and their violation of their oath of office… what else do we, the people who hired these treasonous thugs, do? Civil war is right around the corner…

    • All judges are allowed to serve for life as long as they use “good Behaviour” while in office (US Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. The US Constitution and each state Constitution defines “good Behavior” for the state judges – doing their duty as assigned in a constitutional manner, taking and KEEPING the Oath(s).

      It was not unusual in our past for the people to remove judges from office. They got removed for breaking the Oath, unconstitutional actions in court, etc, but they always got/get a jury trial to defend their actions.

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78: “In a monarchy [the good behavior standard] is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body….[I]t is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” This was so that judges cannot be threatened, etc by the other two branches, the “oppressions of the representative body” since here we have no “prince”, instead we have a “representative body”.

      There is nothing found in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges. In fact though it authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, nowhere within it does it say that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such belief.

      Consider that Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, and the conditions that can terminate once serving within the legislative, executive, and judicial officials. Article I, applying to those who serve within the legislative branch provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Article III also lays out the conditions a judge’s time in office as being based upon continued “good Behaviour”; with the clear implication being that misbehavior can terminate that time in office.

      In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal for: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This way of removal from office does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions.

      Article III’s good behavior provision does not refer to Article II’s impeachment provision. Consider that the “good Behaviour” requirement is NOT identical to the standard listed for impeachment – “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The constitutional “good Behaviour” requirement refers to a different form of removing judges.

      John Adams engaged in a public debate with William Brattle about the tenure of judges. Notwithstanding their other differences, both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could be removed only (as Adams said) upon a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation.” Contrast that with Impeachment being a procedure by which someone could be criminally prosecuted in a legislature.

      Consider that the 1790 Crimes Act, the provisions within it provided that any judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” Basically that conviction deprive the judge of office.

      The “good Behaviour’ requirement for judges was a way for them to be held accountable for their actions while serving in office.

      So what is “good Behaviour” for judges? Article 3, Section 2, all clauses put into writing the duties of judges; and state judges are Oath bound to both the US Constitution and their state’s Constitution which both list duties. Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3: “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

      So “good Behaviour” is the constitutional requirements that judges do their duties as (constitutionally – federal and state) assigned, take and KEEP the required Oath(s) of Office. If charged, they get a trial by jury, they get a chance to defend themselves, face their accusers, as any person charged of a crime is required to have in our nation. If convicted, they may no longer serve within any US governmental office again.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.