Skip to comments.ATF tells TN that a federal gun law trumps the state’s
Posted on 09/23/2009 7:28:59 PM PDT by HogsBreath
NASHVILLE - The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told Tennessee gun dealers to disregard a state statute that exempts firearms made and sold inside Tennessee from federal gun laws and registration.
The ATF says the federal laws still apply regardless of the state's move.
The Tennessee legislature considered and approved several bills this year to reduce restrictions on firearms, including one bill that its sponsors labeled the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act." It passed overwhelmingly, the House 87-1 and the Senate 22-7, despite warnings by some lawmakers that it could subject Tennessee citizens to federal prosecution and imprisonment.
(Excerpt) Read more at commercialappeal.com ...
Tennessee seceded once. Will it do so twice?
There’s not going to be anywhere to go...
Yep, just remember folks the tenth ammendment and the rest of the constitution is all fiction now. How’s that hope and changey thing working for us again?
Federal Law oversees State Law whether we like it or not
This was expected. Next comes a test case for the USSC to overturn that earlier ruling Glenn Beck was always talking about.
We need an amendment that will take at least another couple hundred years for Uncle Sham to figure out how to trump.
There’s a states rights list around here somewhere. Those folks need a ping.
Theres not going to be anywhere to go...
Let us pray to Divine Providence...as our forefathers did.
Wickard, I think
Providence won’t be happy with us if we are disobedient to it.
You’re right. There will be NOWHERE TO HIDE:
Constitution trumps Federal Gun Law
Within Constitutional limits.
Not so fast.
Arizona permitted carry was not nixed by the feds.
ATF may be over reaching here.
This ought to become quite interesting.
And the Supreme Court in the KELO case say if the people want change they must get the state to enact them.
And the Constitution trumps federal law.
Can Tennessee simply exclude the FedGuv from within its borders?
There is this little thing called the Constitution that requires the Fed to have jurisdiction. That have none in this case.
The DEA treated California the same way over medical pot at first. It just depends on how serious the state government is about it. State and local police outnumber the feds a thousand to one; and I don’t see Washington sending in troops.
I don't know about y'all but I think the well Armed Volunteers of Tennessee have the ATF outnumbered.
Federal Laws on guns are meaningless if they can’t make a case that it either affects Interstate Commerce or “Domestic Tranquility”.
If they don’t the Federal Government can’t do diddly about it.
The best they can do in TN’s case is to prohibit the sale or transport of these firearms outside of federal regulations beyond TN state lines.
Federal law is trumps when there is a conflict. That is reverse of what the Constitution says but that unfortunately is how the courts have created a new constitution.
I think that this is “within Constitutional” limits
Felons possessing a firearm or such.
The Constitution guarantees certain inalienable rights yet the states can and often do impose certain restrictions
They said that Congress couldn’t pass a law to commerce-clause Kelo away?
What happened with that Montana gun-law experiment?
Montana was going to pass a law that if the gun was manufactured in the state (no interstate commerce) and purchased in the state, NONE of the federal laws apply.
Anyone know what happened with that idea?
They'd have to exclude the $$$, too, wouldn't they? That would be a problem IMO. States probably won't be able to cherry pick.
Only if the Government has jurisdiction.
The Fed’s can’t just say “Blacks can’t vote in TX regardless of what state law says”. They have to have constitutional authority first. In the cases that the feds have constitutional authority then yes Federal Law will always trump state or local law. Then the Supremacy clause would kick in.
You mean Constitutionally speaking or “for all intents and purposes”?
Because you are right in the first regard, but only in those instances where the US Constitution specifically sets forth that it is a federal power. All other rights belong to the states or the citizens...Constitutionally speaking.
The money is taken from the States to begin with. Or do you mean they would have to deny the money to the Feds?
I’d like to see the county sheriffs in TN pull a Richard Mack and not let the feds have jurisdiction.
All other rights belong to the states or the citizens...Constitutionally speaking
I think you said it
All other rights belong to the states or the citizens.
That's Constitutionally false. The Federal Constitution overrides State law, yes. But Federal Statutes can only override State law when they a) are Constitutional, and b) can Constitutionally be applied to the case at hand. In cases where the commerce clause is the primary Constitutional authority for the law, it cannot Constitutionally be applied to any act that is not a commercial transaction crossing State lines. Those are the Constitutional requirements, regardless of what any bureaucrat or invalid-on-its-face court decision may say.
Actually I believe the Feds are citing the Commerce clause.
On the other hand, these guns are made entirely within the state of Tennessee. Also, the people are above the government, and the Second Amendment specifies the Feds can't obstruct keeping or bearing arms.
To great non-violent, peace-loving liberal glee, massively-armed Federal agents don't care a thing about about any of that.
Not if the federal law is unconstitutional. The argument is that a law that regulates purely in-state commerce is unconstitutional. The courts will have to aettle this. Given that a federal court will make the ruling, the argument will likely fail. Then again, the ONLY law struck down on this basis was a federal school zone gun ban.
We need to get this before the USSC before another old fart dies or quits!
I think that would constitute secession. Although I have often wondered if there could be away around it, perhaps a state could declare that they no longer recognize the current Federal Government’s right to authority due to numerous constitutional violations and refuse to recognize the Federal Government until new elections are called and investigations and prosecutions declared or a new constitutional convention.
Perhaps away to “kick the Federal Government out” without leaving the Union. It would be a hail Mary pass to be sure, and odds are would quickly be defeated. Just thinking out loud.
The commerce clause was meant to keep states from imposing trade barriers with regards to each other. The word “regulate” meant “to keep regular”.
“Just in case you believe in that ‘states rights’ thingy.”
Uh, just in case you don’t, please watch how this one plays out, and then get back to us.
See my post 41. Even if it was interstate (rather than intrastate) commerce, it wouldn’t be constitutionally under federal jurisdiction.
I have the knowledge, equipment and ability to construct and manufacture a firearm that could decimate several people in seconds.
If I only manufacture and use it in Texas does that mean it is not covered by the Federal Firearms laws.
And they will burn you alive in your homes and churches if you are insolent or disobedient. Dirty peasants! Base churls! After all that they do for you!
Heck, I’m just downright shocked that our state politicians had the balls to vote ‘yea’ on this one!
We don’t need a Constitutional Convention I think. We need the current one to be enforced.
“Federal Law oversees State Law whether we like it or not”
But the federal government’s power is restricted by the Constitution. The fed seems to think they have no limits. Matter of opinion but who has the most guts to stand their ground is who will win.
I think We the People are becoming meaner than junk yard dogs as we are tired of the tyranny from the feds.
Shhh! Musn’t tell the libs that or else how can they possibly enjoy their socialist delusions?
According to the article, Montana’s law takes effect Oct 1. They beat TN, but TN’s law was in effect sooner.