Fight brewing!!!....bATFe vs. States.....
This is a discussion on Fight brewing!!!....bATFe vs. States..... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As most of you SHOULD be aware, some states have passed legislation pertaining to firearms, made in that state, NOT being subject to Federal law.
July 18th, 2009 03:31 PM
Fight brewing!!!....bATFe vs. States.....
As most of you SHOULD be aware, some states have passed legislation pertaining to firearms, made in that state, NOT being subject to Federal law.
Some of these states include: Montana, Minnesota, South Carolina, Florida, Texas & Tennessee.
In brief these states are saying that if a firearm is manufactured in their state & doesn't leave the state.....The Federal government has NO right to place any restrictions on it!
Now the BATFE is trying to ignore the 10th Amendment & tell the states that the legislation doesn't mean anything & that they will still regulate firearms.
Check out these links & comment....
ATF to Tennessee: We're above your law
The ATF - as expected - has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.
We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority…
This bill 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. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state. This bill states that firearms accessories imported into Tennessee that are subject to federal regulation do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce simply because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Tennessee.
....Tht Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearm accessories, & ammunition manufactured in the State, from most Federal firearm laws & regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws & regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, & all provisions of the Gun Control Act & the National Firearms Act, & their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.....
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
July 18th, 2009 03:31 PM
July 18th, 2009 03:42 PM
I would expect no less from a government that feels that it no longer believes that it works for it's citizens but that feels the citizens should just let the government do what it feels is in their best interests
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
July 18th, 2009 04:14 PM
As has been said already in prior threads, these "10th amendment laws" are meaningless. They are a gesture of defiance but have no teeth or ability to actually prohibit the fed government from enforcing the NFA. Marbury v. Madison put an end to that sort of thing.
In the end, the Fed Gov will prevail in any contest in a court of law. The ONLY hope these states have is to sue the Federal Government under the 10th amendment to have the NFA declared unconstitutional as an infringement on States' Rights. The outcome is doubtful as to the States' winning such a suit. Which is why it hasn't been done in the past 40 years.
July 18th, 2009 04:16 PM
Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
July 18th, 2009 05:36 PM
There is a direct parallel here between the actions of states which have legalized weed, and the actions of states legalizing certain guns manufactured within their state; and there have also been similar "mexican standoffs" between the political entities here over assisted suicide.
In the end it comes down to two things. The willingness of the executive to
attempt to enforce the federal law and what the courts do in any particular resultant case.
I do think the supremes have already ruled against the states in both the area of assisted suicide and weed. In the former, Oregon re-wrote their law to step past Federal issues on the use of controlled substances, but I am not sufficiently familiar with that subject to speak with real knowledge of the issue.
Regarding weed, I think it has been partially resolved by EO that the Feds won't enforce in states where weed is legal.
July 18th, 2009 08:55 PM
Let the fight(s) begin...
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
July 18th, 2009 09:02 PM
I think this is exactly right and I couldn't agree more.
Originally Posted by dukalmighty
"Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
Who is John Galt?
July 18th, 2009 10:08 PM
+1, hide and watch
Originally Posted by retsupt99
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
July 20th, 2009 11:35 AM
I think the fight with the federal government over its overreach should be fought over something that most State's oppose so they will get together. As I have heard on Mike Church, the No Child Left Behind Act, which most State governments loath would be a unifying cause that would draw many State's to join together.
A fight like this over gun rights will not get the numbers required to make a difference against the federal government. Remember the State's were able to get the Federal 55mph speed limit reversed by sticking together and refusing the Federal governments mandate of holding money (which originates in the State!!). It can be done, but must be on an issue more unifying than gun rights issues.
I think these laws are aimed at the Constitutionality of the Federal goverments regulating Intra-State commerce vs. Inter-State commerce. The problem is that the SCOTUS has ruled numerous times in favor of the Federal gov. in cases like this.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment
July 20th, 2009 01:01 PM
July 20th, 2009 10:24 PM
For the inevitable gun ban fight!
July 20th, 2009 10:34 PM
Funny how a state passing a law less restrictive than GCA '68 is "trumped" by federal law, but if a state passes a law more restrictive than GCA '68 that's alright. All of a sudden federal law doesn't trump anything??? Go figure.....
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 13th, 2009, 10:20 AM
By DaveH in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 29th, 2009, 05:29 PM
By Pete in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: March 22nd, 2007, 02:40 PM
Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.