Posted on 06/12/2009 9:51:04 PM PDT by LeoOshkosh
NASHVILLE — Gov. Phil Bredesen today signed a bill that will allow persons holding handgun carry permits to take their weapons into state, local and national parks. The move came after a tentative arrangement with sponsors of HB716 fell through. Under the proposed deal, the sponsors would recall the bill from the governor’s desk and amend it to remove provisions dealing with local parks. Republican Sen. Mae Beavers said earlier Friday that “the deal is off” and said an override would be attempted if Bredesen vetoed the measure. Instead, the governor chose to sign the bill into law. In a letter sent to the House and Senate speakers, the governor said: “I continue to have concerns about the inclusion of local parks in this bill. The suggestion made by the sponsor to remove these local parks was good and I am sorry he withdrew it. “I do want to urge local governments to use the opt-out provisions of this bill to remove parks from its effect where they are located close to schools and other places where large numbers of children gather.” Bredesen also Friday allowed HB1796, entitled “the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act,” to become law without his signature. In a message to the speakers, Bredesen said the bill “is not about firearms. “It represents a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts,” Bredesen wrote. The bill, also sponsored by Beavers, declares that any firearms manufactured within the state and stamped “made in Tennessee” can be bought and sold without complying with federal firearms laws. More details as they develop online and in Saturday’s News Sentinel.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Sounds like Tennessee gun-owners have kicked Bredesen so much he’s just keeping his tail between his legs!
lol
He has been a good Governor. He knows the rule of law. Compare him to the previous (R)Govs he wins hands down.
He has been a good Governor. He knows the rule of law. Compare him to the previous (R)Govs he wins hands down.
____________________________________________________________
Amen, much better than Sunquist.
He suspended Tenn Care and rejoined the rolls, He revamped the THP and kicked out the players, he’s a smart guy and I respect him.
These morons, like so many other morons around the US, just don’t get it: law-abiding citizens are no threat to anybody - not anywhere or under any circumstances; criminals, meanwhile, WILL NOT OBEY YOUR LAWS!!!
Have it tattooed on your forehad if you need to, but get it through your thick numbskulls!
““It represents a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts,””
Hey Dumbazz!
It’s called the ‘Bill of RIGHTS’.
NOT the ‘Bill of SUGGESTIONS!’
The lawyers and judges take advantage of the fact that the RKBA is named in the 2nd amendment, to peddle the falsehood that the RKBA is associated ONLY with the 2nd amendment. That is, they get people to believe that if the 2nd amendment didn't exist (or isn't incorporated) then the RKBA doesn't exist.
But the Supreme Court said otherwise, about both the 1st and 2nd (before it decided to federalize all our rights - i.e., make it so your rights come from and depend on the largess of the federal government), in the Presser case.
... the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ...
2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki: "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states." cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006)
How the Presser Case is misconstrued
How Scalia screwed the people on RKBA, in Heller
It represents a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts
What he's saying is that the state won't defend itself or its citizens against federal overreaching.
Montana's version of the "made in state" law was proposed with a section that WOULD have the state defend its citizens. That provision was stripped out before the bill was passed.
Bredesen is correct on this point, it's sad to say. Any federal law uttering "or affecting interstate commerce" is used to give jurisdiction to the feds; and the states say "thank you sir, may I have another."
Law proposed and REJECTED:
Section 7. Duties of the attorney general.Law as passed <- Link
(1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.
(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.
Under what Constitutional authority does the federal government even have to take State lands??
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.