The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution

10th Amendment Center ^ | 7/18/09 | Bryce Shonka

[Cboldt]

-- Which subsequent courts have completely twisted to mean something else and is now considered "settled law". --

Yep. And SCOTUS itself joined in the mangling game when it issued the Heller decision and opinion.

Defendants are FORBIDDEN from presenting the Miller case to juries!

The federal legal system is utterly corrupt; and so is Congress for not impeaching judges who undertake such obvious malfeasance. The people are asleep at the switch.

[Mogollon]

Nearly every person in the state of Texas has a gun.

Yep. And most of us in Arizona have multiple guns.

[blackie]

Way to go, Tennessee!

[bill1952]

Will the state challenge the ATF in court?

LOL! The state challenge the Federal government in Federal Court?
They might as well roll over and put their collective butts in the air.

Challenge them with reality within the state.
If the AFT continues to be adversarial - and it will - escort them to the state line and put a boot firmly to their ass.

Then be prepared.

If they are not willing to do this, then just surrender now before they are beaten down and look like fools. - Even 1861 was backed by action - and men of action.

[ctdonath2]

Wickard eventually mutated into Raich which expanded the commerce clause to include actively prohibiting anything which _allegedly_ REDUCED demand in an ILLEGAL interstate market. This in turn bounced Stewart, which addressed firearms which never were and never could be in interstate commerce (machineguns built by a felon); SCOTUS refused Stewart citing applicabilty of the just-decided Raich.

So what happens when SCOTUS tells TN "no, you can't exempt that"?

[DuncanWaring]

Can the States use their respective National Gaurds units to protect their citizens from unlawful Federal intervention?

There was a desegregation case in the 1950s (Little Rock, AR?) in which the state Governor called out the National Guard to enforce a segregation policy contradictory to a Federal ruling; the Eisenhower administration "nationalized" the Guard and ordered them not to interfere with the integration process.

[ought-six]

“The second American revolution will begin in response to the left overturning the 2nd amendment—whether directly or indirectly. That is, the trampling of our right to keep and bear arms will either start the revolution or end the nation and our liberty.”

Well, that will start the “hot” revolution, anyway. There are a lot of Americans who are not going to give up their guns, and they won’t bury them or hide the away because they realize that when it gets to the point they have to do that, then it is at the point when those guns have to be used. The Founders would expect nothing less of us.

[mojitojoe]

I would guess 95% will not give them up. Some of them may hide them, they will not give them up. I honestly don’t think they would risk a gun grab. They are well aware of what the results of that move will be.

[stumpjumper]

I believe it was Yamamoto ( yes the Pearl Harbor one) that said:

“No country could invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

BATFE needs to consider their position carefully.

[wolfcreek]

“Nearly every person in the state of Texas has a gun.”

No they don’t but, my friends and I have a few extras we could share.

[ExSoldier]

PING! Man you sure picked the right state in which to set the 3rd book! Let's hope that's the extent of your prophetic abilities.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Even if they wanted to challenge it they couldn’t until the feds actually attempt to usurp their laws. I certainly hope that when it happens the state does not back down and does take it through the federal courts. The Commerce Clause has been abused for years and they’re not going to find a more sympathetic USSC than what’s there today although do I admit your plan b sounds a lot better...

[Travis McGee]

Yeah, what’s up with those crazy Tennesseeans!?

“Born To Fight,” to steal Webb’s line.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I am ready for Tennessee to secede. If one state does it, several will follow.

[redgolum]

The ATF will kill (literally) someone rather than let the states make their agency obsolete.

[redgolum]

The National Guard is under the control of the Army now.

That is why they can be called up and sent overseas. Started in WWII.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks JSDude1! I'm arriving late to the dance - as usual.

Just my thoughts on these developments, but I think the federales will likely end up in a no-win situation. Unless something breaks the momentum of these State initiatives, like the Murrah bombing coincidentally put the brakes on an earlier one, almost anything the feral government does to quash this will be seen as either overreaching or heavy handed. And it wouldn't hurt for conservatives to get a break or two along the way.

The BATFE jackboots have entered the room!

Click the 10th Amendment button for articles tagged "10thamendment". A "statesrights" link is atop the forum page.



A little change of scenery...

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped scouring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.

Additional Resources:

Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Find Law(Brief narrative on 10th Amendment)

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[Still Thinking]

Well the problem of taking it to the federal courts is that isn’t it sort of an admission of the supremacy and jurisdiction of the federal courts. If you put yourself in a position where to win you have to get a federal court to rule against their pay masters and for a state, and you’re resolved to abide by their ruling, you’re asking for trouble. I would hope that if SCOTUS rules against them, as I find all too likely, TN would take the position that SCOTUS has a conflict of interest, since they are part of one of the litigants.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[MrB]

Wow, I was going to reply to the same post, and in the same way.

The point here is to NOT recognize the “supremacy” of federal authority over the authority of the state legislature. Yes, SCOTUS would be ruling against its own authority if it sided with TN.

So, even if a federal court rules against the state, it still should be considered a moot ruling, like Iran outlawing the US military or the equivalent.