Posted on 09/23/2009 7:28:59 PM PDT by HogsBreath
NASHVILLE - The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told Tennessee gun dealers to disregard a state statute that exempts firearms made and sold inside Tennessee from federal gun laws and registration.
The ATF says the federal laws still apply regardless of the state's move.
The Tennessee legislature considered and approved several bills this year to reduce restrictions on firearms, including one bill that its sponsors labeled the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act." It passed overwhelmingly, the House 87-1 and the Senate 22-7, despite warnings by some lawmakers that it could subject Tennessee citizens to federal prosecution and imprisonment.
(Excerpt) Read more at commercialappeal.com ...
The Nashville police and State Police need to keep a close eye on James Cavanaugh and bust his ass every time he breaks any law.
If he goes 26 in a 25 zone they should pull him over, make him get out of the car, handcuff him, and make him sit on the side of the road while they search his car before they write the ticket.
They should also refuse all BATF requests for assistance.
It would also be a good idea to blanket the state with reminders of the Good Old Boys Roundup the racist thugs at the BATF used to hold in Tennessee.
In Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), it was declared:
“[Re: Implementation of the State’s “police powers”] “....The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers of a state, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the general government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210, 6 L. ed. 23, 73; Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 243, 16 L. ed. 243, 247; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 626, 42 S. L. ed. 878, 882, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488.”
As stated by Justice O’Connor in California Coastal Comm’n. v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987):
“[S]tate law can be pre-empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre-empted. [Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190,] 203-204 [(1983)]; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., supra, at 248.”
The Founders would burn that building down.
Not just burn it down, but the whole "Carthage treatment" (ie, sow the ground upon which it stood, with salt, so that nothing would grow there again...)
the infowarrior
state conviction felons here who have had their rights restored can still get nailed by the jackboots and pick up a fiver with no parole in Atlanta or Terre Haute USP
sux...ain’t America great?
Tennessee almost did not secede....the eastern half except for some valleys here and there was Yankee sympathetic
funny...today those areas are the most proud to fly any CSA flag...
i love it.
The New Deal Commerce Clause is the issue here. Montana is not defying fedgov over the 14th Amendment.
Not in the case of “physician assisted death” in Oregon, Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-623
Oh yeah, the A.T.F., that little American federal govt. agency that murders woman, children and innocents.
Hitlers goons had nothing on our A.T.F.
Kind of like "well-regulated militia".
Actually, the 2nd says "...shall not be infringed".
The 1st says "Congress shall make no law...".
Do Texas patriots need to go to Tennessee THIS time?
Perhaps so. But what the state CAN do is to forbid any cooperation or interaction between any state law enforcement agency and the BATFE. Including not accepting any federal grants which would be conditional on such cooperation.
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market.
Our country did not die in October 2008. It's been terminally ill since at least FDR, or probably 1865.
IMHO, a Contitutional Convention is a stark raving disaster that must be avoided by any means necessary. With the current political makeup of the nation, not one shred of the original would remain. And I can only imagine in my most shuddersome dreams what sorts of new "rights" would take the place of the old ones.
One solution: repeal the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Election of Senators) amendments, and force the federal government to get their revenue according to Article I Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.In other words, if the federal government needs $YYY Billion, and Virginia accounts for X% of the population of the US, then Virginia's state legislature needs to raise and send in X% of the money that the feds request.
Now, instead of the feds bribing the states with federal grants, any federal program would have its funds coming out of the various state treasuries.
This would create a powerful incentive for the states, though the Senators which the state legislatures would once again appoint, to limit all federal programs to just what CANNOT be done at the state level.
Yeah, what you said. I guess my fingers started typing before my brain engaged. I knew it was in there somewhere.
Thanks for the correction.
Thank you for the case law reference!
Since there is precedent there is practically no way they will side with TN. Even if they are Constitutionally accurate. Gotta love the SCOTUS!
That's what I try to keep in the spotlight around here. People act as if the Constitution was turned on its head suddenly in Oct 2008, or during the last decade, or since Reagan.
The Constitution was just about the only part of America that didn't recover after the Great Depression.
It's just now that people on our side are coming to realize what the "greatest generation" has been doing with the nails and the hammer on that wooden box all these years.
Thanks for the correction. And you are right.
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.