Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act To Pass Without Signature
Posted on June 12, 2009 at 5:52 pmGovernor Phil Bredesen will not stand in the way of House Bill 1796. He will allow it to pass without his signature.
Bredesen, in a letter to Speaker Kent Williams, states that the bill which says that federal laws do not apply to firearms, accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee, will likely be found to be unconstitutional.
“This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.
The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…
…While I share the General Assembly’s commitment to federalism, this legislation contravenes our Constitution. I am allowing it to become law so that it can quickly be dealt with by the federal courts.”
Excuse me? What exactly is our governor saying here? I believe in federalism — except when the states really try to take real power back? I believe in federalism — but not for things like this?
What is unconstitutional about this? If a gun is made here and kept here what the heck business of the federal government is it? If Tennessee wants to make its own laws on firearms why is that bad and how is it unconstitutional?
Bredesen says he believes in federalism but then calls the legislation “based on a fringe constitutional theory.”
What theory would that be other than federalism? This bill doesn’t contravene the Constitution, it contravenes the modern interpretation of it. If you believe in federalism it should be a principle you abide whether the modern court agrees or not.
And if Bredesen does believe the bill is unconstitutional, why not veto it? It’ll become law either way, given our weak gubernatorial veto. The governor took an oath to the constitution, right? How is letting something pass he believes to be unconstitutional in keeping with that oath.
It would be one thing if he wasn’t sure and he wanted to dispatch it to the courts without prejudice. But there seems to be prejudice here.
If he feels the way he obviously does, he should have vetoed it. Otherwise he should have let it pass without comment.
If he doesn’t have enough fortitude to stand up to a “fringe constitutional theory” why do we need to hear about it?
Comments
68 Responses to “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act To Pass Without Signature”
Aside from the fact that you are really showing your colors here, what the governor is saying is that he is choosing his battles, and he’s going to let the federal court battle this one. Duh?
Bredesen is bitter that he is stuck in the last 2 years as a 2 term governor with declining state revenues and with Republicans in control of the Legislature. Oh how he wishes he would have been selected as HHS Director by “the one”. This governor is f@#$ing stupid.
meredith is right - why battle. just leads to a bunch of saber-rattling accomplishing nothing.
It’s called a test case. Let it go to court and get thrown out. Then you’ve established a legal precedent for the entire country.
Also, there’s the very practical matter of getting the General Assembly to pass a budget and get the hell out of Nashville.
Good move on Bredesen’s part, if you ask me.
“why battle. just leads to a bunch of saber-rattling accomplishing nothing.”
Like the governors veto on guns?
precisely, Mr. Rep. At this point there’s no sense continuing to peepee in the breeze … let the courts decide and get out of the way.
Either something is constitutional - or it isn’t…Our legislators and our governor took an oath to uphold the constitution, so if Bredesen thought that it is not constitutional, then he should have vetoed it.
This bill passed with approximately 90% of the legislature’s support - so obviously our legislature (Democrat and Republican) does not believe it is a “fringe constitutional theory”…the same bill is being considered by 30 other states, so we will see how many other states support this “fringe” theory as well
The US constitution is not suppose to have Intra-State authority.
LOL … i wanna know EXACTLY how *anyone’s* gonna guarantee that gun is going to stay in TN.
Kinda like you saying that noone carries in bars and resturants.
You are restricted by Laws of the State you are in and Federal laws when you cross state lines with your firearm.
I can carry in 42 States legally (reciprication [sp]) 36 I can carry inside Resturants that serve alcohol, and July 14th it will be 37 states when the TN State law goes into effect.
“LOL … i wanna know EXACTLY how *anyone’s* gonna guarantee that gun is going to stay in TN. ”
What I want to know is why a guarantee is necessary for the government to step away from regulating it? Why is it necessary for anyone to guarantee that the firearm stays in TN in order to regulate it? This is where liberals become hypocritical on this issue, in order to maintain sovereignty on the issue of guns states must guarantee to the federal government that they will keep the firearm in the state? Hello? The issue here is that the firearm is in the state on TN? Why is it under the their jurisdiction to regulate it in the first place. This has ramifications to alcohol and a host of other things. Liberals should be happy this passed. You want freedom? It starts with things you may not like…..
“The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…”
Words cannot describe the depth of his ignorance! The national government was designed as a government “of the states, by the states, and for the states.” It is the states which were to have the final say in what is, and is not “Constitutional.”
Marbury vs. Madison notwithstanding, no federal employee with lifetime tenure has any business deciding the limits of his employer’s power.
Bredesen is one of those illiterates who looks to the national authority for his daily bread; and in doing so, gives credibility to faraway rulers who treat the states as mere voting districts.
Wow, there’s more people here misreading the 10th Amendment than misread the 2nd Amendment; then again, they’re pretty much the same people.
Federal supercedes state. Period.
No one is misreading any amendments…the authority vested to the feds regarding this issue is taken from incorrectly reading the commerce clause and allowing feds to regulate intra (not inter) state commerce.
The courts ruled in the Wicker v Fillburn case and has been subsequently questioned by people such as Clarence Thomas…Thomas says that taken to the expreme - the feds can pretty much regulate ANYTHING and use the cloak of the interstate commerce clause to do so.
That was not what our founders intended and we need the Supreme Court to re-examine that issue - and i believe that is ultimately what this bill is aiming to do since it will most likely be challenged pretty quickly.
Federal only regulates interstate commerce and international commerce, not Intra-state commerce.
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to the Congress of the United States. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as “the Foreign Commerce Clause”, “the Interstate Commerce Clause”, and “the Indian Commerce Clause”, each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
Test case?! ROFLMAO. Repackaging pot activists’ talking points while carefully substituting the word ‘marijuana’ with the word ‘gun’ does not a new legal strategy make. This stunt has a proven track record of failure. There’s no need to ‘test’ anything. It’s DOA.
Foolishness. As is the “test case” argument.
The Governor has a constitutional role to play - if he believes a bill unconstitutional, his obligation to preserve, protect, etc. requires a veto. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility.
As for “choosing your battles” - there’s no ‘battle’ in a veto. He doesn’t need to talk the Legislature into it; he’s not dependent upon anyone else to make it happen; it could be already done, as a matter of fact.
The people of Tennessee are going to see (a) the constitutionality of the law defended by an executive branch that doesn’t believe it; and (b) tax dollars spent on litigation that might have been avoided if the governor had discharged his duty.
On top of all that - the “let the courts deal with it” approach often yields unpleasant/surprising results (witness Bush 43 signing off on ‘campaign finance reform’ expecting it to be held unconstitutional).
This isn’t strategy; it’s cowardice.
Asserting 10th Amendment rights isn’t a stunt. It’s telling the Feds to stop stepping into areas they have no legal right to be.
If nothing used to make the item crosses any state line, it’s not within the purview of the Feds, end of story full stop.
The Gov is afraid to take a stand. The whole is to test the way the Feds have taken away states rights. If now one bothers to test this in the courts, The feds will continue to tax and spend the american public to death. The findings of the court will have far reaching effects on just what the feds can do at the state leve. Far more than just gun control.
Since we’re talking about the veto here and the elections are far enough away to where no one is directly pushing for a new found power, what do we have to do get a REAL VETO? It’s absurd to have a veto that can be overridden by simple majority. We don’t have to make it 3/4 but 2/3 to override sounds right or even a majority +10 to override, something. Any governor that comes in has one of his/her most effective policy tool taken away. I want all my branches of government doing their part,
[...] freedom act passes too, without [...]
Tennessee has the veto that it has in order to make the legislature, not the governor, the primary power. That puts the power closest to the people. It’s a good system, it prevents the governor from being able to block legislation that has majority support.
[...] Governor said of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act that he let become law without signing: This bill is not [...]
“i wanna know EXACTLY how *anyone’s* gonna guarantee that gun is going to stay in TN.”
STRAWMAN alert!
Why should anyone WANT to guarantee that anything stays in TN? The Constitution covers interstate trade also. What it cannot cover is INTRASTATE trade.
The simple solution here is to run Phil’s big fat arse out of Nashville.
It is the great State of Tennessee, NOT the Breeden Plantation.
The “Dear Governor” thinks the Courts will strike it down. That opinion is his right. Others have a different opinion. This USSC has already made it’s position on the 2nd amendment perfectly clear. It’s 10th amendment position isn’t quite so clear, but there are enough real judges on the USSC to keep the artifical judges from passing laws from the bench.
So I suspect Dear Phil is wrong about how the Judges will rule on this one.
Remember ALL the bills signed by the Usurper will be null and void once he has been impeached for not being a ‘natural born citizen’. That includes any Supreme court selections.
I am always interested in a constitutional debate in here. It doesn’t happen often because it takes two sides to effectively debate an issue and the libs run out of logic pretty quick; returning to their tried and true tactics of exaggeration and hyperbole. When it comes to misinterpreting the constituion as a wacked wingnut Left Wing Craker explains it perfectly; “Federal supercedes state. Period”.
Ignorant.
So, and I’m really just asking here, does that mean if I fly on a plane from Knoxville to Memphis, FAA regulations shouldn’t apply? Is that next?
And here are a few more questions I have. I’m fine with the guns in bars and guns in parks- I truly don’t believe law abiding citizens should have there rights taken away. But this bill worries me a little.
Is this simply protecting gun owners from prosecution of federal gun laws or does it also exempt local manufacturers from federal regulations like safety locks? Does it mean that if a Tennessean buys a gun made in Tennessee there is no requirement to register it?
Not that AC will respond, but he demonstrates clearly his republican bias here. Soon this page will just be called “Blogging with AC Valentine”, because thats all it has become.
Definition (Mirriam-Webster):
interstate - of, connecting, or existing between two or more states especially of the United States
If that gun is sold or used outside TN, then it is subject to interstate commerce laws because it directly affects citizens of two states - there is a connection between the gun made in TN and used in KY, for example. doesn’t have to be taken there legally, or illegally …
Not a strawman at all - its the crux of the problem. You can say its intrastate right up to the moment it is discovered across state lines, sold across state lines, or fired across state lines. At that moment, there’s a direct link between two states.
JohnnyC - you need to educate yourself on guns laws. Gun owners in TN (& most other states) have never been required to register guns - unlike nanny states like IL & CA
Mikey,
The way it is being applied in this instance is a strawman.
The minute it moves over state lines, it enters the world of federal law. Not until them.
At that point, the possessor of the weapon would need to pay the relevant Federal Tax.
You do understand the ATF is a tax collection agency and its entire power to regulate firearm is derive from interstate commerce and the power to tax?
Man, if jobs weren’t so scarce these days, I’d move to Tennessee tomorrow!! I travel there a lot for work and love it there. Not only is it beautiful, it’s freedom loving.
Not that AC will respond, but he demonstrates clearly his republican bias here. Soon this page will just be called “Blogging with AC Valentine”, because thats all it has become.
How would you like me to respond? Are you looking for some apoplectic denial of your accusation of bias? A little belligerent defensiveness?
Sorry, we don’t do that here. Not how I roll.
I’ve been marked conservative by liberals and liberal by conservatives. A shill for Democrats and Republicans.
I’ve been accused of trying to get Bill Hobbs fired and I’ve been accused of being his ideological soulmate.
And you want me to respond to you? Okay.
I am whatever you say I am. I haven’t labeled myself in at least two years. If you would like to, you may go right ahead. I won’t protest.
Ok, back to the subject at hand………
Ask the US attorneys who make every convenience store robbery they choose into a federal Hobbs Act violation. Ask those who vote consistently in Congress to expand the federal police forces and the federal criminal statutes. If any of them is honest, they’ll you: No one, as that term is used today, believes in intrastate commerce. Otherwise, they couldn’t do what they do.
Except now and except as it relates to guns, where suddenly a maker of high-powered automatic weapons in Murfreesboro who invites legislators to an annual blast-away is the first cousin of the colonial village smith, forging local ore mined in Cumberland Furnace and fashioning shooting irons out here on the frontier, never to be rafted to Kaintuckee or walked down the Trace to Natchez.
Holy Old Hickory, Batman. Where did the raw material come from to make the gun? Where was it finished? Where did the equipment come from? The electricity to run it? Where did the manufacturer get his computer software, internet service, office furniture? Where does the money come from to buy the weapon?
That’s what fringe about the Firearms Freedom Act: Intrastate commerce is an 18th century conceit. It no longer exists.
The way it is being applied in this instance is a strawman.
The minute it moves over state lines, it enters the world of federal law. Not until them.
At that point, the possessor of the weapon would need to pay the relevant Federal Tax.
You do understand the ATF is a tax collection agency and its entire power to regulate firearm is derive from interstate commerce and the power to tax?
If an item can move across state lines, and does so - then it is subject to the laws of interstate commerce. As Albert points out, today EVERYTHING goes across state lines.
Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court in US v. Lopez, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:
* the channels of interstate commerce (highways, etc)
* the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce (this gun, which will likely be impossible to keep from going out of state), and
* activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce
In US v. Lopez, the Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce… :
2. Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
The gun - when it goes across state lines - is, by taxes and otherwise, subject to Federal law AND the commerce clause. Not to mention, as Albert has noted, if any product in the manufacture of the gun - computer software, etc. - is from outside TN, it will be subject to interstate commerce.
Judging by the debate this is receiving on this post…this is exactly what this law is meant to entice. Hopefully the new Supreme Court will get to examine this issue once again, and with similar legislation being considered currently by 30 other states, this could get real interesting…
Good job Beavers
mikey,
So you think the federal government should have the power to regulate anything that has any connection to interstate commerce no matter how infinitesimal that connection may be? That is how the courts interpret it nowadays, but do you really think that’s a good idea? That pretty well gives the federal government power to make any law they damn well please, and investing that kind of power with the very flawed people in Congress just strikes me as a bad idea.
Should I have to register my bench grinder because it travelled in interstate commerce and it could be used to make dangerous things like knives? Can the fed ration how many pieces of toilet paper I’m allowed today to prevent deforestation because the TP is made from out of state trees? Wouldn’t it be nice if I could bypass that Department of Energy mandated thermostat and set the AC below 80 degrees even though it’s reducing my carbon footprint? I can’t however because even though every component of my home was created in my home state, the guy who mounted the tires on the construction workers’ truck was wearing tennis shoes made in Indonesia. That’s the problem with allowing them to take it to the nth degree. There is no limit as to what laws they could create with the exception of violating a portion of the Bill of Rights, which isn’t much considering all the reasonable regulation and sacrifices for national security that are already tolerated by the courts. Believe me, Congress needs well defined limits and structure.
Adam -
A little history for you.
When examining whether some activity was considered “Commerce” under the Constitution, the Court would aggregate the total effect the activity would have on actual economic commerce. Intrastate activities could fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if those activities would have any rational effect on Interstate Commerce. Finally, the 10th Amendment “is but a truism” United States v. Darby (1941) and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines.
The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate Ollie’s Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
And, more recently:
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce… among the several States,” Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
Justice Scalia, in concurring, said: Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. … This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”
Justice Thomas took your argument in dissent: If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
I might point out, this was the Rehnquist Court.
I think they’re all (and most of you) missing the point completely concerning the federal government’s subversion of commerce clause of the constitution. It is not so the federal government can subvert the rights of individuals/states to freely trade what they want, it is to ensure that commerce REGULARLY FUNCTIONS between the states, with no one state having an unfair advantage over the others.
You can call bovine defecation caviar, but that don’t necessarily make it so.
This is a question of whether Tennessee is a soveriegn State or not a soveriegn State. The only jurisdiction federal courts have in this case is the jurisdiction allowed by OUR legislature. We elect a State Legislature to be the appointed guardianship of our liberties against all comers. Now is the time for Tennesseans to get on the phones and call State Reps., and Senators and let them know that they make the laws in Tennessee, and no one else and we expect them to uphold the laws they make protecting our rights.
ALL THE ARGUEMENTS WOULD BE GREAT IF NO STATE RECIEVED FEDERAL TAX MONEY, WE ALL DID TO STOP SENDING THE TAX MONEY TO THEM AND THEY CAN NOT USE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARGEEMENTS THAT STATES “” THEY BY ACCEPTING THIS MONEY YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL FEDERAL LAWS”"” THIS WERE THEY AND THE COURTS CAN AND DO INFRINGE ON US IT IS GREAT THAT IT IS TRIED BUT ALL THE ELECTED BODY WILL DO IS USE IT TO GET MORE TAX DOLLARS AND NOT HELP THE PEOPLE..
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That is the law no state or federal government can infringe on the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. This means we should all be allowed to walk into a gun store buy a gun and walk in public with it. No need for a permit, maybe a FBI background check by phone but that is all. This is how our country has remained free from fascism, communism and dictatorship. You want to have a free country? Then the people need to own guns.
meredith writes
June 12th, 2009 7:24 pm
Aside from the fact that you are really showing your colors here, what the governor is saying is that he is choosing his battles, and he’s going to let the federal court battle this one. Duh?
=======
Nope, it’s called wussing-out and turning his back on TN. He’s either “for” or “against” it, not merely stepping-aside to choose not to take part in what the people want (their 4th Amendment Rights). Don’t know what world you live in, but an elected official should NEVER side-step such an important issue. Vote the clown out, and get someone who will represent the people, and their rights!
Yes, well, the framers also tolerated slavery. We don’t think that’s ok anymore.
I don’t think that the 60,000 women who were victims of domestic violence in 2008 would consider themselves “free”. Violence doesn’t make us more free, nor does the threat of violence. Nor does the right to carry a weapon. What makes us free is the power of the human spirit - which is being shown today by Iranians who are yearning for something different. Our freedom is not based on our ability to bully others. Our freedom depends on our will to be free.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Sorry I know I’m always getting in the way of the federal government trying to turn this country into a third world dictatorship but I do have something to say if all you so called Americans would just read and study me! I mean I am the foundation of the freedom this country still has. Wake up people and educate yourself.
[...] Source: Nashville Post [...]
The amazing thing about this debate is the fact that the line is drawn between rep. and dem …..when will americans awake to see that neither of these partys are protecting or defending the constitution period….Law states that congress and the senate should not draw wages BAM WAGES ARE DRAWN….CONSTITUANTES are gained and the law and the constitution are flushed down the drain…..always…..It is time for us to stand up get the constitution out relearn it and redo about 85 years of complete and total B.S. WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK DEM AND REPUBLICAN GROW BALLS AND THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX FREINDS
“The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…”
This is ass backwards! The constitution states that the federal government has no authority to interfere in states rights issues.
Bredesen is an idiot who obviously never heard of the 1st , 2nd, or 10th amendments.
It is reasoning like this that makes me so happy that this jack-ass will be out soon. Thank God he will never be re-elected! The general assembly had to override his veto of a bill allowing CCW permit holders to carry their firearms in restaurants. Now he doesn’t even have the balls to sign a sovereignty bill! Could it be because he is still hoping for a cabinet position under Obama when his term is up? He was being considered for Health and Human Services Secretary but he is obviously not qualified for it. His reasoning for vetoing the guns in restaurants bill was “We would have no way to enforce this new law.” How do you enforce an expansion of freedoms? This guy is the king of double speak.
I only hope that when his term is up that Nashville Mayor Carl Dean gets voted out too. What kind of idiot would endorse spending almost a billion dollars on a convention center when no one is having conventions due to an economic downturn? I also hope the next mayor fires the 2nd amendment hating police chief Ronald Surpass. He is scared of a bill that allows law abiding citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves! What is the big deal? Is he afraid crime rates will drop and we won’t need as many power mad cops?
This govenor needs to be recalled. He can’t stand up to the federal government and do whats right and stand for the constitution. He’s weak. Letting somebody else do his job. Just washing his hands of the whole issue. What a puke.
Wow! I will not bolster my knowledge of the constitution debate here because I need to read more of the fine print. It does seem that there are a lot of defeatest attitudes here. I do know that there are more than a handful of laws that have been introduced in the house and senate in regards to gun control. These include HR 45 (section 102 is good example), the international treaty that Obama pledged Mexico he would attempt to pass in the senate(if passed, international gun law would supercede soverignty), HR 6676 (more regulations on background checks),HR 2159 (anyone on domestic terror list would lose all 2nd ammenment rights with no trial, there are over a million on this list already), and finally Kurt Nimmo of Inforwars wrote May 11, 2009,
“Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.”
There are other laws that have been introduced in addition to this. My point is the fact that TN is doing the right thing. If you dont think that there are many members of congress who want your guns you better consider counseling. I am not saying tha everyone should be requried to own or like guns, but Americans need to fight for our constitution. The founding fathers designed this for us to follow and prosper. Our rights are under attack and until people realize that the “big media” that controls the minds of most is owned by less than a few, we will continue down the road of tryanny.
What is wrong with you people?
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
The federal Governments authority basically ends at “protecting the rights of the people and the states to Govern themselves”….
I’ve friggin had it with you ignorant trolls claiming that the supreme court has the right to “translate” the Constitution.
The Supreme court has the job of “applying” and NOT translating the Constitution. it needs no translation. It’s literally explicit.
The powers of the fed are EXPLICITLY defined within the constitution. It then goes on to say basically that any power not authorized to the fed EXPLICITLY either does not exist or is the power of the people and LOCAL governments………
And another thing The USA was NEVER meant to be a “Democracy”. It’s a friggin Constitutional republic and the bill of rights evidences this fact because those rights are INHERENT in the people and are NOT governable by any other then GOD himself. This means that if the constitution says my right to keep and bear firearms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED then the federal court has no business ruling on the matter and law enforcement has no business enforcing unconstitutional laws in the first damn place.
I’m out of here before you people make my brain explode.
“I’m out of here before you people make my brain explode.”
Alas, one post too late … either that, or gas.
Wow, I never thought I would see the day when Americans Would trade there human rights in for a false sense of security. If you federalist, or just you complete morons think its a great idea for your guns to be taken away, your in for a world of hurt.
Every country who’s only weapons were taken away from the people by there government, ended up slaves to there government. If this is what you Americans want your on the right track. Now To make it clear, I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America. My family was in Cuba when it was taken over by Castro, and All of my family says they see the same thing happening in America today, that they witnessed in Cuba 1958-59. I really hope my fellow American citizens will make the right choice to keep our right to protect ourselves and to live a fruitful life.
“UNITED WE STAND , DIVIDED WE FALL”
This is not a left or right issue. That whole left vs. right mindset has been a trick being played on all of us designed to divide the American people.
United we stand, divided we fall.
“Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors”
As Americans we should believe in and understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution along with every amendment, not just the amendments we like.
We should value every American’s 1st amendment right to free speech on this or any other issue. We should value every American’s 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, and so on.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -1st
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” -2nd
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
A good book containing our country’s founder’s “principles of Freedom 101”:
http://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Miracle-Changed/dp/0880801484
What has happened to America since the beginning of the 20th century if not before, is that it has been slowly taken over by globalists who do not believe in the same principles that our founders believed in.
They believe in a one world government benefiting the governors not the governed.
Our Constitution is being chewed up and spit out before our eyes, yet we do nothing, until now. They have stolen our money murdered our loved ones ( in the name of defense of homeland security) Well enough is enough it is high time for this case. Either we are 100% free or we have no freedom . So bring it on My money is on ” WE THE PEOPLE “
Great posting….
I always ask the question, “don’t believe what is said but what is done”. The GOV simply agreed to states’ rights even though he said otherwise. So, here we see a liberal governor that understands the concept of local state government and does not want to stand in the way of local control, albeit saying otherwise
. So, in the future, when this goes to the courts, we can all happily say that the gov supported states rights by not getting in the way.
Way to go gov!!!
Steve Steffens (LeftWingCracker) writes
“Federal supercedes state. Period.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Article I, Section 8 enumerates powers delegated to Congress… that’s it! The 10th Amendment states VERY clearly that powers NOT delegated to the Fed govt are reserved to the States or to the people. Period. How can you not understand the clear, simple, straightforward language of the Constitution? Why must liberals want to “make alive” the fundamental law which was based on much learning, wisdom and experience of the Founders. Certain basic laws are immutable - they cannot be changed. That applies to science, nature and all sorts of human behavior, including economics and politics. The Founders decided that guarding against the accumulation of power was of utmost importance. That’s why The People MUST guard jealously their right to bear arms - to insure against the vesting of power in one person, oligarchy or dictatorship.
The pre-existent right of self protection is certainly ‘a’ reason for the 10th. But the primary reason is to guard against potential tyranny. Without that right protected, we don’t stand a rat’s chance in hell.
The Tree of Liberty has to be watered!!!!!!
[...] Firearms Freedom Act Passes Video Text Tennessee follows Montana by passing house bill 1796 in an attempt to prevent the federal [...]
[...] From the Nashville Post Blog, by Kleinheider [...]
What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?
Why do ome people seem not to understand that the “commerce clause” of the 10th Amendment applies to international and interstate COMMERCE, and not to any and all things that simple cross state or national boundaries?
For something, ANYTHING, to fall under federal regulatory jurisdiction it must be moving IN COMMERCE, not simmply moving BY RIGHT. In other words, if I transport my gun from my state to another state where I simploy intend to exercise my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and to possess and control my own property, then my firearms are not moving in commerce, they are smply moving as I move, 100% within my constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. My right to move freely between the 50 states includes being able to take my own property with me, and utilize it as I see fit, within state. However, if I ship, carry, or otherwise transport my firearms across state or international boundaries for the purpose of SALE, then, and only then, are they “moving in commerce”, and thereby made subject to federal regulation.
And while federal regulation may render taxable raw materials moving in commerce across state lines, it is not because those raw materials may find themselves eventually being used to manufacture firearms, but only because of their movement across state lines, and for no other reason.
Similarly, firearms cannot logically or reasonably be construed to fall under the commerce clause simply because the raw materials to make them may have crossed state lines, not any more than you or I, or any plane we might fly in, can be deemed to fall under Chinese law because the air we breathe and travel in may have been over china a few days or weeks ago.
For any item to fall under federal jursdiction, it MUST be subject to regulation, and to be subject, there must be a direct nexus between the item and its having traveled across state lines, IN COMMERCE. Mere presence in one state, and then another, is not enough to establish a nexus, because mere private travel, for private purposes, and possession of one’s own private and personal property while doing so, cannot possibly be construed as “moving in commerce”.
Folks, especially those of you that say “Fed” trumps state…Which was first? Which caused the other to come into existence? What is the purpose of government? The ONLY LEGITIMATE purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty and PROPERTY of those who have given consent to be “under” that government.
Whenever government steps outside of those bounds it become LAWLESS and any and all attempts to violate its JUST purpose should be resisted. And of course when I say government I am speaking about those AGENTS who perform the deadly task of ENFORCING other men’s edicts. ALL laws that are on the books that have no victim assigned are null and void on the face and should be ignored by MEN. PERIOD. I do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I have a natural right to my life which means I have a correlative right to DEFEND MY LIFE by WHATEVER MEANS I FEEL IS NECESSARY AND ANY MAN WHO TRIES TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM PUTS HIMSELF INTO A STATE OF WAR WITH ME! No LEGISLATURE or any other MAN has the right to interfere with my right to life. Any law to the contrary is not withstanding and needs to be ignored and resisted at all costs. The people in federal government have no RIGHT to register, tax, regulate or in any way interfere with a persons right to the means to protect themselves.
I suggest reading COMMON SENSE and the RIGHTS OF MAN by THOMAS PAINE and then read A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE By Tom Mullen and while you are at it read “THE LAW” by Frederic Bastiat. WE NEED TO WAKE UP PEOPLE! Those in GOVERNMENT are placing themselves in a state of WAR with We THE PEOPLE with all these violations of our natural rights to life, liberty and property. STUDY THE ISSUES! MONEY, TAXES, ETC.
if the court decides to ban it/tenn should nullify it /and appeal to the other states /for help with a two thirds yes vote /that can override the supreme court on this issue /our government has been proven to be corrupted by the central banks /power to the people thru their states government /we might have too add a new amedment to the constition
Bredesen was right. These are tiresome right wing FRINGE Constitutional theories, the kind that have been thrown out of courts time after time, the kind that have elaborate and ultimately ridiculous arguments against the federal income tax amendment, the kind that claim there is no wall between church and state, the kind that deify the second half of the second amendment and ignore the first half of it, the kind you find on nutjob internet sites, the kind that pervert the natural born citizen clause to exclude the children of immigrants or the President of the United States, the kind that claim America is “Christian nation,” the kind that for decades were used to defend the Jim Crow laws of the old south, the kind we have seen in this very string of blog comments by mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, crypto-fascist gun nuts…
These are the same kind of false, facile, sophomoric, ill-informed, ridiculous, and ultimately rejected Constitutional arguments that brought about the secession of the Southern states and a Civil War that was fought to defend slavery and still is defended under the criminal guise of “states rights.”
Please take your ridiculous and long ago rejected and disproved Constitutional fringe theories and retire to your mama’s basement to masturbate with your gun collection and peep out the tinted windows as you await the black helicopters.
[...] Forced to Surrender Ownership Stakes to Government 06/03/09 Property Rights Take a Hit 06/12/09 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act To Pass Without Signature 06/12/09 This is for the 10th Amendment. Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the [...]
[...] Tom Emmer’s bill - actually borrowed from similar bills that have become law in Montana, Tennesee and South Carolina - is part of a national, grassroots effort to start that same dynamic for the [...]
[...] Source [...]