Posted on 07/18/2009 7:52:40 PM PDT by sovereignty2
A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610, the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. It previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.
The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-
“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
Push, meet shove.
All tho they are correct in their Constitutional view, it doesn’t matter. The 10th amendment has been totally erased by the courts. For all practical purposes it is not even in the Constitution.
Maybe some day we will return to real Constitutional rule but I am not holding my breath.
There is no case, Constitutionally, from the Federal standpoint. Not that that matters to political cronies, I mean judges.
Section 1 article 8 does not give the federal government the authority to form the ATF!
As I recall, many or most of the Federal gun laws specifically refer to a gun that has “moved in interstate commerce.”
I hope TN is ready to take this all the way
Perhaps that's because no federal court has the jurisdiction to hear this case in it's administrative form, and no federal court will agree to hear it in it's common law form.
Now they are trying to regulate carbon and oxygen which flow with the wind across states and continents.
Is TN receiving any federal funds for law enforcement, criminal-justice programs, and gun-related crimes?
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...."
The Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 ("1:8:1")
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."
The Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 ("1:9:4")
Bingo I don't see it either ! what pinhead thought this up?
The Gov. let it become law without signing. In doing so, he said...
“This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.
The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…
…While I share the General Assembly’s commitment to federalism, this legislation contravenes our Constitution. I am allowing it to become law so that it can quickly be dealt with by the federal courts.”
BTW, he’s a Democrat.
Someone is arrested, by ATF, for violation of Federal law.
The attorney for that person is then free to make the Constitutional case, and inform the jury of the State opinion on the matter.
Jury nullification is the most likely outcome.
Which means it won’t get to SCOTUS, but it will send a message.
Holy crap...your governor said that?
Why don't you go on down to Tennessee and enforce your cute little letter there Madame Assistant Director.
L
But Sotomeyor will stop them because there is no precedent -- she always relied on precedent . /s
Wonder how she would rule. The CO2 was designated a pollutant so it could then be regulated by the EPA. Guess they will soon be regulating (with fines) marathons, sports matches and gyms for "excess production of CO2".
You suspect wrongly. Another Federal circuit has already decided that a machine gun manufactured in one State isn't subject to Federal laws if it never left the State in question.
The ATF of course ignored that decision.
If the court is sitting in it's administrative aspect, then the Constitutional case will be considered under the presumption that the accused has voluntarily accepted federal administrative jurisdiction and it's transformation of all rights into privileges.
The accused will then be found guilty of violating the limits of his privileges, and if it is appealed all the way up, SCOTUS will find that there was no violation of authority in the restricting of those privileges, since the presumption of administrative jurisdication was never refuted.
No, the Gov. of Tn. said that. LOL
As far as the Feds threatening to withhod Fed funds to Tenn. the people of Tenn. can withold income taxes. No more money sent to D.C. So there.
I think you have nailed it. We will be controlled by the carbon/oxygen cycle --- all will wear CO2 monitors and will be taxed on the CO2 we produce.
Not immediately. It takes time to set up, design, and import from China.;)
I'll cop to cynicism. And I'll agree that breaking a law challenges it. But effectively? There was this little disagreement in the 1860's that indicates, at least to me, how seriously the Feds take this issue. I just don't see them backing down an inch, especially when it's so easy for their courts to dismiss it as frivolous (which is exactly the legal position of the ATF at this point, and they're not just namecalling - they mean it for the technical reason I described).
LOL - I'm not challenging you, or disagreeing with your point. But if Tennessee did that - actually did that - there would be civil war. Because the alternative would be the collapse of Federal power, and that wouldn't be accepted without, quite literally, a fight.
Different decision.
Bring it. Step out from behind the desk and inforce.
Actually, what would be subject to dismissal is Tennessee's defense. It's a Federal court issue concerning a pre-standing Federal law. So no matter what formi it takes, Tennessee (or a Tennessee litigant) would be arguing against that law, which means the Feds would take the position of applying the law in the first place, and see any response from Tennessee as a defense against violating it.
Its a state court matter. Screw the feds. They have not jurisdiction. The state should just rely on the state courts and tell the feds to get bent. 10th amendment is pretty clear.
The defendant would be free to argue that the Federal law was not Constitutional, on its face, and then cite, as evidence, the opinion of the Tennessee Legislature, through the enacted State Legislation.
It would be the Federal law, that would be tested in Federal Court, and the State Law would be used as evidence against the Constitutional legality of the Federal law.
It is the CITIZEN who must decide what to do.
Some brave soul needs to violate the Federal Law, and then use the State Law as support for the Constitutional argument that the Federal law is not valid.
Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.
Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
This week, Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by State Rep. Susan Lynn. The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”
The House passed the resolution on 05/26 by a vote of 85-2 and the Senate passed it on 06/12 by a vote of 31-0.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/tag/tennessee-sovereignty/
 |
Like my father before me I’m a working man Like my brother above me I took a rebel stand He was just eighteen, proud and brave But a Yankee laid him in his grave I swear by the mud below my feet You can’t raise a Cain back up When he’s in defeat The night they drove old Dixie down All the bells were ringing The night they drove old Dixie down All the bells were ringing... |
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I am not arguing with your basic concept, and I did say that the actual legal process could take a number of forms - civil, litigant; criminal, defendant.
BUT, my point is that there is adminsitrative and common law jurisdictions, and they are different. A federal administrative State is not a constitutionally created original state. And the Feds WILL presume federal administrative jusridiction, because with it, they win (for example, ATF is a federal agency, i.e. operating under federal administrative law).
It's jurisdicational warfare, and federal courts simply DO NOT acknowledge anything outside of administrative jurisdiction. In fact, they call any attempt at an argument outside of that jurisdiction "frivolous" (their term, not mine).
So, if there is a way to force a federal court to sit in their common law capacity, they ain't saying what it is. In fact, I have never heard of a court-acknowledged refutation to their presumption of administrative jurisdiction - ever.
It's a judiciary thing - the judges simply refuse to sit under common law. And nothing I know of can force them to, unless Congress passes a law that they do so. But why would they, since their power comes from imposing the presumption of federal administrative jurisidiction?
I fully support the 10th and detest all gun laws that don’t deal with teh actual hurting of people. There should be no NICS checks, bans, age limits, FFL licensing, abolish the NFA, etc., but I have to point out one problem with this law....
TN state law requires all firearm sales from FFL dealers go through their state system called TICS. This law does not provide an exemption to the state law mandating buyers undergo a background check through the TICS system. So, due to an (intentional???) omission, the law is almost purely symbolic.
The challenge will come from manufacturers who wish to sell them directly to non-FFL holders without going through the TICS system.
(I owned a storefront gun shop for 2.5 years in East TN, and 2 years in NH.)
Well, first of all the feral government is the result of a compact by pre-existing states so I can't see why they would lack the power. But that's beside the point. In this case, they're not "limiting the power and authority of the federal government" so much as insisting that the limits already built in to the Constitution be honored, for the first time in decades. The limit is already there. To gripe at these guys for having the temerity to notice is to shoot the messenger.
Well, I think, and I’m by no means an Attorney or scholar, that the ATF is setup to be a taxing authority. That being the case the Commerce clause comes into play, which has been widely abused. Specifically, I remember the United States v. Lopez, and Rehnquist slapped them down with (IIRC) a precisely worded defeat.
In such a case, who would fight against the state of Tenn.?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.