PDA

View Full Version : Bill Would Prevent Federal Government from Regulating Firearms in TN - John Dunn


Flavius22
05-07-2009, 07:48 PM
Tennessee lawmakers may soon send the federal government a loud messagehands off our guns.

A new law is under consideration that would say if firearms are manufactured and sold inside the state of Tennessee, federal gun law would not apply.

Visit any gun store right now, and youll hear the same story.

Gun buyers are stocking up on weapons, and ammunition is in short supply.

http://www.wztv.com/newsroom/top_stories/wztv_vid_5694.shtml

Utah legislators eye Montana gun law

May 4th, 2009 @ 8:05am
By Andrew Adams

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are considering following Montana's lead and claiming state's rights in the war over gun control.

The Montana Legislature passed and its governor signed into law a measure making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations. That means they're exempt from things like background checks, licensing and registration.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553

Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

he USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points - If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. Th

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977674743
sinophile
05-07-2009, 09:23 PM
I think this is really important. Not because of the gun issues, but because state's rights need to be reasserted.
brainplay
05-07-2009, 10:46 PM
Ouchies, this is going to be a major deal when it clashes with the Supremecy Clause. Feds can't let this one go or risk letting other states do the same with this subject or others.
chalk_2
05-08-2009, 01:17 AM
I wish Texas would do the same.
khaz
05-08-2009, 01:45 AM
The supremacy clause would not affect it, the 10th amendment fully supports the actions of these states, so the supremacy clause is moot.
vryhpyammoadded
05-08-2009, 09:50 AM
I was hoping someone would get around to picking a fight with Federal Frankenstein this way but I wonder if the Tennesseeans are ready to tough it out when the yum yums addicted to entitlement crack and the suits consuming pork find that master blaster has shut off the main valve and given Tennessee the finger? This place finished!

To be successful it will ultimately take many other states and quite possibly some radical measures to intercept the Federal tax revenue stream grabbing the beast on the Hill where it counts by the balls and yanking hard. One can only hope this confrontation will grow and eventually humble those corrupt scumbags in DC but I doubt it will go anywhere seeing too many junkies simply won’t kick the crack habit.
click
05-08-2009, 09:55 AM
Good news. Lets hope this proves States rights is still alive and kicking...
Laconian
05-08-2009, 10:19 AM
I saw a report on this last night. MT passed their bill, UT was working on one, as is TX. Now TN. This will probably quickly make it's way to the SCOTUS, The Pres's pick to replace Justice Souter is now very important. How many states will be able to cast off the Fed dollars if political pressure is applied? Will this really change anything? Some, probably most, firearms/ammo will still travel in interstate commerce, thus be subject to regulation. However, you may see growing mom & pop manufacturer's in the individual states. I'm guessing the state will have to regulate these also.
Dan2004
05-08-2009, 10:21 AM
Hopefully OH will do the same.
Blue_0
05-08-2009, 12:37 PM
So, if I buy a weapon made in Montana under this plan, and then take it home to wisconsin and bury it in my backyard, am I in violation of any federal laws?

*I am not concerned with being in violation of Wisconsin, Montana, or any of the states I passed through. Soley the federal government.

*it should be noted I am not transporting it for the purpase of commerce.
Laconian
05-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Blue 0, yes. Under this law weapons/ammo would have to be made in the state and remain in the state. The way the Fed law reads now, if it crosses state lines, it travelled in or effected interstate commerce, and is subject to Federal regulation.
MaverickCowboy
05-08-2009, 04:27 PM
GO GO GO.

Hope all states pass it.
Kaplanr
05-08-2009, 04:29 PM
So, if I buy a weapon made in Montana under this plan, and then take it home to wisconsin and bury it in my backyard, am I in violation of any federal laws?

*I am not concerned with being in violation of Wisconsin, Montana, or any of the states I passed through. Soley the federal government.

*it should be noted I am not transporting it for the purpase of commerce.

Breach of possible EPA regulations prohibiting the leaching of heavy metals through sub-strata aquifers.
JJC
05-08-2009, 04:36 PM
The supremacy clause would not affect it, the 10th amendment fully supports the actions of these states, so the supremacy clause is moot.

It has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause. If the Feds can establish that these firearms depend on ammo or accessories made in other states, the plethora of legal precedence will back the Feds through "interstate commerce" and "stream of commerce" arguments which give Congress the powers to regulate. There is little doubt that these firearms will depend on ammo made in other states...
NLRB v. Steel Corp, Stafford v. Wallace, Wickard v. Fillburn (just some cases that deal with commerce, Congress and State rights)
SilentType
05-08-2009, 07:53 PM
The Constitution intended the Federal government to make "regular" interstate commerce. That was the sole role of the Federal Government in the eyes of the founders not to regulate every little thing regardless of its impact on commerce between the states and whether it even crosses a state line. I mean forget firearms for a second the regulation from the Feds and overlap from the states is just making things insanely complex these days and is WAY out of hand.

Our Founder understood that we're not a "one size fits all" nation. What works in California may not work in Texas. We're 50 independent states not forced together, but in a shared union. It's what has worked for this nation and I think the more heavy handed and top heavy the government becomes the more conflict and division we have.
SilentType
05-08-2009, 07:55 PM
It has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause. If the Feds can establish that these firearms depend on ammo or accessories made in other states, the plethora of legal precedence will back the Feds through "interstate commerce" and "stream of commerce" arguments which give Congress the powers to regulate. There is little doubt that these firearms will depend on ammo made in other states...
NLRB v. Steel Corp, Stafford v. Wallace, Wickard v. Fillburn (just some cases that deal with commerce, Congress and State rights)

How do firearms have a substantial impact on the flow of interstate commerce between the states?

They don't.

If your argument is "crime" than the Supreme Court did strike down an attempt by the federal government to make it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 100 feet of a school. It was rightfully a state police power and function and not one that had a substantial impact on commerce between the states.

The federal government just can't come in and regulate something simply because it crosses state lines in the flow of commerce. It has to have a substantial impact on the flow of commerce and then the Federal government can regulate it.
Walter Sobchak
05-08-2009, 08:47 PM
I wish Texas would do the same.

They's talk up in Austin, brother. My state representative is interested, and he says there is a lot support. Hell, we'll go back to like it was when the original 13 colonies had their own weapons factories.

Up the Feds!!
chalk_2
05-10-2009, 02:44 AM
They's talk up in Austin, brother. My state representative is interested, and he says there is a lot support. Hell, we'll go back to like it was when the original 13 colonies had their own weapons factories.

Up the Feds!!
we could only hope. p-)
Brasi
05-10-2009, 04:05 AM
How do firearms have a substantial impact on the flow of interstate commerce between the states?

They don't.

If your argument is "crime" than the Supreme Court did strike down an attempt by the federal government to make it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 100 feet of a school. It was rightfully a state police power and function and not one that had a substantial impact on commerce between the states.

The federal government just can't come in and regulate something simply because it crosses state lines in the flow of commerce. It has to have a substantial impact on the flow of commerce and then the Federal government can regulate it.

I agree completely. Building and keeping something in a state has nothing to do with interstate commerce, even if those home built weapons need out of state ammo to feed them.