I have to be honest and tell you I’m not as sold as some of you on the notion that states can simply nullify federal law by deciding that’s what they want to do.

Regardless of whether you accept nullification, I find it simply delicious that an administration so willing to rip the Second Amendment to shreds is suddenly concerned about the Constitution when the states respond to this usurpation by saying, essentially, “Up yours, buddy.”

But I say that only as full disclosure. I’m really not interested in inviting a debate on the subject.

The theory holds that when states find a federal action unconstitutional, they don’t even have to challenge it in federal court. They can just ignore it. I can’t find a constitutional passage that backs this and federal courts have consistently rejected it, so while I know there is a lot of enthusiasm in conservative circles for the notion of nullification, I am not entirely sold.

The Kansas law in question makes it illegal for federal agents to attempt to enforce Obama’s anti-gun measures in the state. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and told him to back off on claims that the law is unconstitutional:

“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will,” Brownback wrote. “It is my hope that upon further review you will see their right to do so.” The chief gun rights lobbyist for the law said Holder’s opinion will not go unchallenged. “We will stand our constitutional ground,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association. “The federal government has far exceeded its boundaries for a long time and it is time to rein that in.” Stoneking said the Kansas law is patterned after one in Montana that is now being challenged in federal appeals court, and that similar measures are under consideration in many other states. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in a written statement on Thursday that the federal government cannot regulate guns that have never traveled in interstate commerce, such as those covered by the new state law.

There’s a reasonable debate to be had over nullification, as practiced here by Kansas or in other circumstances. And I would hope even its backers would recognize that nullification has an onerous history insofar as it was used in an attempt to preserve slavery. (I would hope that, but I wouldn’t expect it from some quarters, particularly the Ron Paul crowd.)

But while you can debate the constitutionality of nullification, there’s really no constitutional defense for any of Obama’s gun-related actions. He and Holder blatantly disregard the Second Amendment because they just don’t like it and it stands in the way of their political agenda. I suppose they’re hoping they can get cover from the Supreme Court like they did for the unconstitutional insurance mandate in ObamaCare - and perhaps they could.

That being said, it’s all the more important that anyone with the intestinal fortitude stand up to them and make it clear that the administration’s disregard for the Second Amendment has to be challenged by someone. And for Holder to respond by suddenly giving a crap about the Constitution is further proof, as if any were needed, that Obama and company only care about the Constitution when it is useful to them.