Posted on 09/23/2009 7:28:59 PM PDT by HogsBreath
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?
ping
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.
10th ping
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.
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.