******
*****I am not advocating anarchy or the overthrow of any gubmint. The founding fathers couldn't have predicted the State would have Stealth fighters. Muskets and powder won't help us. :-)
Posted on 07/21/2009 8:18:35 PM PDT by FromLori
The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states' rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.
In the last few months, a grass-roots, federalist revolt against Washington, D.C. has begun to spread through states that are home to politically active gun owners. Montana and Tennessee have enacted state laws saying that federal rules do not apply to firearms manufactured entirely within the state, and similar bills are pending in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, and South Carolina.
Yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives now claims that that not only is such a state law invalid, but "because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes the act."
Tennessee's law already has taken effect. The BATF's letter on July 16 to firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state says "federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state."
A similar letter was sent to manufacturers and dealers in Montana, where the made-in-the-state law takes effect on October 1, 2009. Neither law permits certain large caliber weapons or machine guns, and both would bypass federal regulations including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.
While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government's powers are limited only to what it has been "delegated," and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment "carefully reserved" some authority "to the states." That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept "all powers not expressly and particularly delegated" to the federal government.
More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce."
(In an impassioned dissent at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.")
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said in an interview with CBSNews.com on Monday that he expects to be facing off against the Obama administration in court soon. "We will find the right test cases to get us in court," he said.
Marbut believes that the letters were't that meaningful because they were addressed to gun manufacturers and dealers who already are licensed by the federal government. "Those people already are under the thumb of the Feds," he said. "We've assumed they wouldn't want to put their circumstances at risk in dabbling in the state-made guns business. The people who the letters are addressed to are pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion."
Translation: If you're a gunsmith talented enough to build a made-in-Montana gun under the state's forthcoming law, give Marbut a ring. Just don't be surprised if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives is not entirely pleased.
Here’s an interesting website:
http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/
It’s time for the feds to understand their power is limited.
I bet the next time Obama talks to the Russians he may try to sell us back to them, he really really hates Alaska, seems like its been nothing but a prickly thorn under his saddle.
He's already the biggest failure in the nation's history, and the only openly socialist pig ever elected to the seat.
That he only got there by lying, hiding the truth, and with the complicit aid of the venal lapdog media would shame any normal human being. He just happens to be the kind of human filth who doesn't care about such societal norms.
There is a medical term for this, and it's "sociopath." We have a mentally deranged, anti-Christian, anti-American scumbag thug for president, and history will most assuredly so record this shameful episode... if America survives his onslaught intact.
;-/
A true revolution is brewing. It has been sown by Wall Street, Washington and the Fed and nurtured with the handouts to those who do nothing for themselves. When their day comes, and we are liberated from them then we can claim to be Americans. We’re too tough for these button pushers and we only need that final push to kick bloody ass. I’m raising my son the way my father raised me - as a patriot.
Justice Thomas has it right. Hopefully, there are at least four more like him.
******
*****I am not advocating anarchy or the overthrow of any gubmint. The founding fathers couldn't have predicted the State would have Stealth fighters. Muskets and powder won't help us. :-)
Hope this happens in Texas...
Alas, it was just a dream.
Oh, well, that's just silly. What the 10th actually says is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, see, the Constitution specifically states that the BATF has supreme jurisdiction...oh, wait a minute. I can't find that anywhere in the Constitution. Drat. Well, at least the States don't have the right to reserve to themselves any power from the federal gov...oh, wait a minute. The 10th specifically says that they do, doesn't it?
Well, fancy that.
The ATF will start killing people for selling shotguns again, after they and the FBI pays someone to saw the barrel off.
Sotomayer Overlooks All 14
Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases
High Court has examined every aspect of self defense
Entire nation falsely believes the issue has never come up
For Immediate Release:
Sotomayer Misses All 14 Self Defense Cases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2009
Full contact info at end
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn’t think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, “I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing tenet of American law.
The Bloomfield Press book “Supreme Court Gun Cases” (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme Court’s library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time. Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” released in 2008. The fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in “The Heller Case” book, http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm, and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company’s website, http://www.gunlaws.com, using the National Directory button.
The brief index below is a convenient research and navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one.
The news media, pundits, Congress and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer have unfortunately exhibited complete ignorance of these cases, and public policy is harmed by that lack of knowledge.
The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate. The news media is encouraged to correct any misconceptions that may exist on this subject and in Ms. Sotomayer’s sworn testimony.
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER:
KEY: Name Date Citation Page
Acers v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 388 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].
Alberty v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 499 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].
Allen v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 492 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].
Allison v. United States 1895 160 U.S. 203 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].
Andersen v. United States 1898 170 U.S. 481 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].
Beard v. United States 1895 158 U.S. 550 208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].
Brown v. United States 1921 256 U.S. 335 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].
Gourko v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 183 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].
Logan v. United States 1892 144 U.S. 263 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].
Rowe v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 546 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].
Starr v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 614 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].
Tennessee v. Garner 1985 471 U.S. 1 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].
Thompson v. United States 1894 155 U.S. 271 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].
Wallace v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 466 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].
If this report works for you —
please tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery:
alan@gunlaws.com
Wanna bring the whole 10th Amendment issue to the front FAST? Change those laws to permit machineguns. Just one tiny little law, 922(o), stands in their way - bringing the sovereignty question in to sharp focus very quickly.
Pity machineguns are a third-rail in politics.
Tennessee FFL dealers report to the TBI per law. If it is law that the TBI reports to BATF then they have a point. Outside of that, the Fed BATF is out of bounds without case-law.
Oh not they’re not invalid..infact the only thing that is invalid is the burocracy which would act against Tenn, and MT, and others.
This is going to be interesting..pass the popcorn!
I believe you are forgetting one very serious SERIOUS important thing...
After the Hurricane katrina BS when bush was blamed for everything...Bush said the hell with it and got a law passed that allows the president of the US to command all national guard troops without approval from the governors. His excuse for doing so was so that next time an inept governor risked the safety and well being of his citizens during a crisis, the president could step in the take up the slack...ha.
It seems we’ve been set up. And I suspect the SETUP was designed way before obama ever even thought about running for president.
A follow-up. If the law cited by the BATF is rooted in the “Commerce Clause” they have a real problem.
Including my dumb ass brother and even dumber, dyed in the wool demoRAT sister-in-law. My brother justified his vote for 0booooooomba by exclaiming to me "What about Bush?" To which I replied more energetically, "Yes, what about Bush? Is that supposed to be a reason for something?" Five minutes later and much higher decibels, he stalked out of the room and after 8 months, it is still chilly between us. I didn't confront him at his daughter's high school graduation open house, but I felt like it, just to say, "So how's that 0booooooomba thing working out?" My sister was concerned there would be fireworks between my brother & I over his dumb ass decision, but I maintained a polite civil demeanor. However I have a hard time with people who stupidly voted for this unknownn commie pig, who is likely not a citizen of the U.S. and most assuredly is not a natural born citizen.
This video is from “Oath Keepers”. The speaker is Sheriff Richard Mack. It’s not a long video, but it told me a lot of things I didn’t know before. For instance, deputies have president over federal agents in a county.
http://www.youtube.com/user/OathKeepersOK#play/all/D22C249F48FEFCDE-all/1/bLJgPuNAh60
Let’s roll!
“Hopey Changemas”
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.