So, you think this is going to be a problem?

I suppose whether there's ever a problem or not depends entirely on whether or not a firearms manufacturer decides to manufacture Federally illegal firearms for sale in TN.
 
z0mbi said:
I suppose whether there's ever a problem or not depends entirely on whether or not a firearms manufacturer decides to manufacture Federally illegal firearms for sale in TN.
Click to expand...

Rest assured that will happen and the state of Tennessee will likely end up kicking out or arresting any federal agent that insists on violating their state laws.

Its time for ALL Tennessee sheriffs to abide by their oaths and do their duty as chief executives in their respective counties.

The ATF has no authority to declare whether federal law supercedes Tennessee's state law. If anything, it is the job of the supreme court to render such a decision.

Read the text of the Tennessee law that now is in effect. The state has declared this and will then be bound to defend it if the feds persist in violating their state law by sending agents into their state to enforce laws which the state has deemed invalid.

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc0435.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say a company taking the chance is somewhat slim, on the other hand, if the State of TN felt strongly enough about state's rights to pass it, one hope's they smack the ATF right back in the kisser with some sort of lawsuit. SCOTUS, so Sotty can issue her first summary judgement there?
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
The ATF has no authority to declare whether federal law supercedes Tennessee's state law. If anything, it is the job of the supreme court to render such a decision.
Click to expand...

"Declare" just means to say something, and no authority to do so is required. However, I take your statement to mean that ATF, an agency subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, has no authority to adjudicate a state statute to be invalid, and in this assertion you are quite correct. That authority resides in the federal courts (all of them; not just the Supreme Court).

However, I don't take the letter as purporting to adjudicate, only to inform licensees of any obviously correct legal proposition.
 
Seems like Montana passed a similar law recently, wonder if the ATF has addressed that one.
 
I'd love to see the feds try to fight such a manufacturer. If the manuf only sells the guns in state, and makes them 100% from scratch, then the feds
legally have no jurisdiction because they have no avenue via the commerce clause- much in the same way that the DEA can only raid certain weed producing individuals in CA because many are not violating the commerce clause. It shouldn't be any different whether the "seed" is a piece of bar stock metal or a seed of a pot plant. You cannot argue interstate commerce if the end product does not travel interstate. Every federal agency has to obey the commerce clause to some degree or another, it's just that BATFE gets away with abusing it more than all the others combined, and frankly, they
need to bitchslapped over this.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
I'd love to see the feds try to fight such a manufacturer. If the manuf only sells the guns in state, and makes them 100% from scratch, then the feds
legally have no jurisdiction because they have no avenue via the commerce clause- much in the same way that the DEA can only raid certain weed producing individuals in CA because many are not violating the commerce clause. It shouldn't be any different whether the "seed" is a piece of bar stock metal or a seed of a pot plant. You cannot argue interstate commerce if the end product does not travel interstate. Every federal agency has to obey the commerce clause to some degree or another, it's just that BATFE gets away with abusing it more than all the others combined, and frankly, they
need to bitchslapped over this.
-Mike
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Raich

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
 
jar said:
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Raich

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
Click to expand...
We've been raping the commerce clause with a broom stick non-stop since the civil rights era...

Instead of ruling that "the state" whether Federal or otherwise has no right to determine who eats at what restaurant, who gets what job and who sits where on the bus, they ruled that the Federal government gets to make those decisions as a means of ending institutional racism... Right idea, very wrong approach... We are paying dearly for this mistake...

It should not be a surprise that government did not and does not know how to give up power, only change who gets to take/keep it...

We'll never know if segregation could have been stopped "faster" or at the same rate without these measures, but the destruction of civil liberties begs our consideration of continuing down this path of "ends justifies the means" increase in government power to decide every aspect of our lives...

I doubt you could find anything they would not claim involved interstate commerce if push comes to shove... If the market for the end-product doesn't do it, they'll look at the components, the labor, the opportunity cost, etc...

I am very glad these issues are brewing at such a high level... It increases the chance that we can turn this boat around peacefully. It might look like "making sausage", but I'll take messy politics that works over a civil war any day...
 
jar said:
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Raich

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
Click to expand...

Wow. I thought that the DEA primarily tiptoed around CA because of the ICC, but there must be other issues at play. According to that article,
apparently they're just letting people slide.

I find Scalia's "concurrence" opinion somewhat bizarre. [sad2]


-Mike
 
TomH said:
Nice that their governor is so useless on the issue. He thinks the feds will be in the right.
Click to expand...

Pehaps a little "political self preservation" going on?.....or so he thinks?

Frankly, I think not signing it and writing that letter sealed his fate and he'll be out of office at the earliest possible convenience of the people of Tennessee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jar said:
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Raich

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
Click to expand...


I have seen rumblings on other forums that they are using that same excuse to try to regulate agricultural products that never leave their local area, according to some people down to and including food grown at home.

This is exactly the kind of crap that might finally lead a confrontation between somebody - somewhere , and the Feds. When you are making or growing a product and it is destined for use only locally or within your home state the Feds are extremely shaky ground trying to regulate it IMHO. They are truly pissing all over state's rights.

I hope Montana and Tennessee and others continue to push the envelope on this. It will only get worse if the economy continues to get worse and people devolve back to more local stuff - and the feds continue to screw with them.
 
I'm interested to note that the ATF main page on their web site links the letter to BOTH Tenn and Montana.

But follow either link and you get a 404 missing page...

Grassy knoll? Or just sloppy web mastering?

http://www.atf.gov/
http://www.atf.gov/071709-tennessee-openletter.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/071709-montana-openletter.pdf

atf.jpg
 
namedpipes said:
I'm interested to note that the ATF main page on their web site links the letter to BOTH Tenn and Montana.

But follow either link and you get a 404 missing page...

Grassy knoll? Or just sloppy web mastering?

http://www.atf.gov/
http://www.atf.gov/071709-tennessee-openletter.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/071709-montana-openletter.pdf

atf.jpg
Click to expand...

It worked for me last night. I checked it immediately after seeing the pdf letter on a board and wanted to verify it.

Maybe they realized how much shit it was stirring and took it down. Maybe a lawyer at the ATF actually read it and realized the claim made in it was wrong.....at least until a court of LAW adjudicates it.

The link to the Tennessee letter is in my original post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
atf

if you remember the comerce clause was used in 1934 because they could not ban or touch the 2nd,but they could tax MG under the commerce clause
then because of kennedy they passed the 1968 law using the 1934 law as cover.so they have gone from a tax to a ban in 98.maybe this will stir up some action.it would be great if we could convince the congress to reject sotomyer not on racist grounds but that she does not follow the constitution.
and get a senator to offer a racial aceptable substitute.a mexican american that can follow the constitution.
 

Similar threads

I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
695
chris_1001
chris_1001
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
507
LittleCalm
L
What kind of Beretta 1934 is this?
Replies
1
Views
123
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Going back to carrying p320x
Replies
8
Views
284
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
373
hminsky
H
Back
Top Bottom