To: sovereignty2
>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. ..."
I suspect no court
would ever uphold this law--
won't see a "battle."
To: theFIRMbss
I suspect no court would ever uphold this law-- won't see a "battle." 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.
11 posted on
07/18/2009 8:05:59 PM PDT by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: theFIRMbss
suspect no court would ever uphold this law 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.
20 posted on
07/18/2009 8:32:14 PM PDT by
Lurker
(The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
To: theFIRMbss
This battle is practically indistinguishable from Raich (re: California-legal pot). The battle, officially, is already lost - unless the next box is applied.
28 posted on
07/18/2009 8:49:23 PM PDT by
ctdonath2
(John Galt was exiled.)
To: theFIRMbss
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.
36 posted on
07/18/2009 9:08:18 PM PDT by
BOBWADE
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson