ATF Declares Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Null And Void

82 Responses to “ATF Declares Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Null And Void”

1. TennRod writes
   July 19th, 2009 7:33 pm

   Exactly what the Governor said would happen. What a bunch of ignorant yahoos these gun nuts are.

2. dontcallmemikey writes
   July 19th, 2009 7:40 pm

   I smell a court case coming …

3. Bill Hobbs writes
   July 19th, 2009 8:30 pm

   Wouldn’t it be nice if the federal government would start obeying the restrictions placed on it by the 10th amendment?

4. ATF KILLS TN FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT! - Page 7 - Tennessee Gun Owners writes
   July 19th, 2009 8:39 pm

   [...] It’s starting to go mainstream: ATF Declares Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Null And Void : Post Politics: Political News and Views … [...]

5. SW writes
   July 19th, 2009 8:44 pm

   We should all realize by now that all governments only obey the laws they wish to obey. The 10th amendment means nothing at all.

   The ATF is stating it’s position. It hasn’t the power to nulify State law. At some point it will go to court.

6. MattCollins writes
   July 19th, 2009 8:45 pm

   Rod-

   You do realize this isn’t about guns as much as it is about the federal government overstepping its bounds, right? Firearms just happens to be the object involved in this scuffle. It could just as easily be drugs, fruit, agriculture, or anything else that the federal government unconstitutionaly regulates.

7. jen writes
   July 19th, 2009 9:09 pm

   Well now, let me just say: We told you so. lol.

8. Credo writes
   July 19th, 2009 9:59 pm

   The ATF will get flooded with luzianne tea bags now.

9. Mike Samoose writes
   July 19th, 2009 10:02 pm

   This isn’t about guns never was. The ATF like the rubes they are stepped into a trap. There are those who wanted this to go to court. The whole point of the law was to reassert states rights. This should be fun.

10. Rob Huddleston writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:08 pm

    ACK -

    What? The ATF won’t recognize passed legislation as the law?

    I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked.

    Cheers,

    Rob

11. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:11 pm

    So I want to know how long its gonna be before some enterprising reporters ask the GOP candidates if they (a) support taking this to court (b) how serious they think this issue should be at this time (c) if they personally are willing to stake their candidacy on this issue. Is Ramsey gonna come out for a court fight on states’ rights? Haslam? Wamp? Wamp should be interesting - he could do something about it as a sitting Congressman - and will he urge citizens to fight the ATF from his position as a sitting U.S. Congressman? It should be fun watching them wiggle.

12. Steve Steffens (LeftWingCracker) writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:15 pm

    To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, Mr. Collins, I do not think that the 10th Amendment means what you think that it means.

    And that means you will lose. Again.

13. TennRod writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:16 pm

    Matt, I understand this is and has always been about ridiculous, convoluted, twisted, fringe theories of law and the constitution concocted by the same nutjobs who have tried for years to tell us, for instance, that wages are not “income” and thus not subject to the income tax or that the President is not really an American citizen.

    That your nonsensical interpretations of the 10th Amendment or any other portion of the Constitution are deemed irrelevant stupidity by the courts and the rest of or government may distress you, but that’s not only too bad for you and the rest of you loonies, it is good for the sane members of our society.

14. MattCollins writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:37 pm

    So Steve and Rod - what do you think the 10th Amendment means?

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”

    That is plain English.

    It means what it means, yes it’s just that simple. This is not a fringe theory, this is not some sort of nutjob commentary, this is not an interpretation, this is Constitutional fact.

    So instead of hurling insults and attacking me, why don’t you try to refute the idea? Oh wait a minute…. you can’t because you have no basis to do so. Apparently the only thing you can do is name calling and attacking those with whom you disagree.

15. TennRod writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:53 pm

    Here’s a pretty good explanation for you:

    http://theologicalstatic.blogspot.com/2005/11/10th-amendment.html

16. MattCollins writes
    July 19th, 2009 11:58 pm

    Rod-

    that link was based upon an interpretation by courts using “original intent” which is a fallacy. It is impossible to determine “original intent” but “original meaning of the words at the time they were written” is the only way to determine understanding.

    There is more to it than that, and if I have time I’ll post more later.

    But sorry, the attempt to nullify the 10th Amendment by judicial decree, linguistics, or interpretation, are all erroneous.

17. idgaf writes
    July 20th, 2009 3:52 am

    And people want to turn over health care which is 1/6 of the national economy to idiots like this?

    Tennessee should demand this moron be fired.

18. Kaitian writes
    July 20th, 2009 7:48 am

    idgaf, unfortunately you’re pretty obtuse in realizing that healthcare which you say is 1/6 of the economy is mostly private. You seem to be an advocate of state-run healthcare economy.

    With that, don’t pay attention to this idgaf.

19. Henry Bowman writes
    July 20th, 2009 7:55 am

    Matt,

    I completely sympathize with the intentions here. It seems obvious what the 10th Amendment means what it rather plainly says. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise. Notable in Gonzales v. Raich, the California medical marijuana case, the court basically said the Feds can do whatever they want even when the acts in question (a) do not affect interstate commerce and (b) are restricted to one state. Things will only get worse when the super-statist (and village idiot) Sotomayor gets on the bench.

    I suspect the only way to clear things up is to pass the proposed Federalist Amendments.

20. Eric writes
    July 20th, 2009 7:56 am

    It doesn’t really matter what the 10th amendment says because, as liberals have told us since Wilson, the constitution is a ‘living’ document. The 10th amendment means whatever we want it to mean. And we say it means that the federal government stays out of purely intrastate commerce. I don’t see how liberals can argue against this. Are liberals admitting that the constitution is not a ‘living’ document?

21. SayUncle » Montana too writes
    July 20th, 2009 8:38 am

    [...] last week that ATF issued a letter that, unsurprisingly, said the TN Firearms Freedom Act was no good. They’ve issued a similar letter to Montana, the first state to pass such a [...]

22. Jon writes
    July 20th, 2009 8:46 am

    When republicans start working to eliminate federal raids on California marijuana dispenseries, I’ll start taking their 10th Ammendment concerns seriously.

23. Rick Caird writes
    July 20th, 2009 8:56 am

    As I recall, in Gonzales v. Raich, SCOTUS was relying on the Commerce clause. Via some incredibly weak argument, the court decided that growing your own pot, affected the interstate market for pot and, hence, fell under the ever expanding commerce clause. The fact that any interstate pot market was illegal did not seem to make a difference.

    So, if this goes to court, it will again be a commerce clause issue because the only way the ATF regulations can apply in the state is if the commerce clause applies.

    Rick

24. Lou Gots writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:00 am

    Of course the state law is a prelude to a constitutional chalenge. The expansive reading of the Commerce Clause has not found the same favor in gun cases as it has in drug cases. U.S. vs. Lopez, striking down the Federal safe schools zone law is what we should be looking at.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

25. Paden Cash writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:20 am

    Jon: Have you checked which SCOTUS members voted for the more expansive reading of the commerce clause. 3 of the four conservative members voted for the minority opinion, which holds that the commerce clause does not give the fedgov the right to regulate intrastate commerce. The 4 liberals and Scalia voted for the more expansive reading. You should read Justice Thomas’s dissent. The man is awesome. I have lost much respect for Scalia over this.

26. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:24 am

    Lopez isn’t the precedent, Raich is. The concept of the pot spreading beyond the borders of CA is equal to the concept of the guns spreading out from TN. It is impossible to contain the guns inside state lines forever. And if you can’t keep them in the border, the potential exists for sale and distribution outside the state - making it a classic commerce clause case. And Scalia himself drew, as I remember, the distinction between Lopez and Raich as it applies to commerce v. implied commerce. Lopez, Congress tried to say commerce was affected because a law was passed limiting guns in school zones; Raich applied to the state and state law, which SCOTUS deemed unworkable.

    From wiki:
    Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:
    “ 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.” Lopez

    So Scalia makes the distinction between something actually sold - the gun - and something non-economic (gun free zone). Congress, through the ATF, can regulate an economic enterprise through the commerce clause, but Congress shouldn’t use commerce clause to restrict guns from certain areas.

27. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:28 am

    The ATF cannot interpret law… Until the law is overturned and ruled unconstitutional by the court, it is still a valid law.

28. Mark Turner writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:49 am

    “jen writes
    July 19th, 2009 9:09 pm
    Well now, let me just say: We told you so. lol.”

    Of course they were going to fight it. everybody knew that. The point is to push this into the couts.

    You could have comprehended that but Jen, you have time and again demonstrated you simply A person who Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.

29. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:50 am

    ATF can’t nullify, but they can arrest and throw in the pokey any company or group that doesn’t obtain a license to manufacture or sale of the items - “even if [they] remain in the same state,’ because the state law is not valid.

    So the ATF will administer the law on the books federally, and ignore the state act as having no standing or, the state will pursue the matter in Federal court.

    Either way, you get a court case.

30. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:55 am

    Dontcallmemikey

    Who says the state law is not valid?

    Has a federal Court ruled on the law? NO.

    Until then the law is valid.

31. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:59 am

    TNVol73: I see that GED in Law is working out nicely for you.

32. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:04 am

    TNVol - the ATF will say it isn’t valid when/if they arrest the person making or selling the firearm or ammo who is using the TN law as a guide. Until then, everything’s lying in the weeds like a hungry wombat …

33. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:06 am

    I am curious as to what the threat to interstate commerce could be from the production and sale of guns in a state. Perhaps a new James gang knocking over suvs on I-40 as they enter Arkansas? Or enraged Volunteer fans burning Athens GA after a Bulldog victory in football?

    Simply because someone might commit a crime in another state with a gun made in Tennessee does not make it a threat to interstate commerce. Reducing the power of the states at the expense of Congress and the federal courts made sense in issues like civil rights but on issues like this, it simply weakens the ability of the states to be laboratories of Democracy and it undermines the most fundamental principle of the Constitution, balancing power.

34. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:15 am

    Someone’s been reading their Thomas and O’Connor!!

    It isn’t that its a *threat* so much. But, suppose the law says the gun is for use and sale and implies that the state will insure as much. So, some nut goes to Arkansas and knocks off a liquor store, and kills a clerk with a TN gun. Is the state of TN now liable for damages resulting from its inability to keep the gun within its borders?

    Also, commerce affects all states. If TN sells a gun only for its citizens, then companies licensed in other state will be affected, as will workers who make those guns, companies that ship. Also taxes that would be levied on the gun by the Fed would not be collected, etc.

    And, even though people scream ’second amendment, second amendment’ like Gomer yellin’ ‘citizen’s arrest,’ the government has placed restrictions on firearms and must be adhered to. This law supposes that those laws are not binding.

35. gullyborg writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:18 am

    Mark wrote:

    “I am curious as to what the threat to interstate commerce could be from the production and sale of guns in a state”

    It is not about threats to commerce. It is about regulation of commerce. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states. This means Congress can do things like require licenses and fees, set rates and limitations, etc., on goods in commerce. This applies to firearms in that Congress has the power to regulate the flow of guns through commerce from one state to another. The controversy is over the definition of “commerce.” In some prior cases, most notoriously Wicker v. Fillburn, the Supreme Court has ruled that pretty much anything falls under commerce because of the potential to impact the flow of goods. In Wicker, a farmer was charged with violating production quotas on crops for his own personal use. He never sold what he grew. But the court said this affected commerce because by growing his own crops, he didn’t need to buy crops that someone else might have grown in a different state. That was a huge stretch. More recently, cases like US v Lopez discussed above have cut back at this to an extent, but the sum total of relevant caselaw still pretty much gives the ATF all the backing it needs - whether rightly or not.

36. oldguy writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:23 am

    A word to the wise; Do you understand why the government doesn’t mess with the Muslims throughout the Western world? How have Muslims become so powerfull in such a short time?

37. Chestoff writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:27 am

    oldguy brings the crazy in 3, 2, 1…

38. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:30 am

    Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:59 am
    TNVol73: I see that GED in Law is working out nicely for you.

    Well Myz GED Tachar, wuz good at tehc’n Civucks.

    If’n unz wood reed that thar US Cornstatution, unz wood sea thut thar, aricul tharee, stets thut the coarts isn supoooozen ta N’tur’reet those thar lauz. Uinz nottase that thar ATF isn that thare Xecutave Buranch, and taint gots no parz ta N’turpreet Lauz.

    Artucle 3 Sectun 2z

    Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    “TO CONTROVERSIES THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY”

    Iz Guzzen miz GED torumps yoz publics schoolin educashun.

39. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:32 am

    TNVol - that took some time to do! I’m impressed … seriously!! daggone, that took some effort!

40. Chestoff writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:39 am

    You gotta be impressed with TNVol’s effort. His reasoning is suspect occasionally, but he’s not afraid to bring it.

41. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:44 am

    Thanks, I grew up speaking Mountian William, that helped.

42. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:51 am

    TNVol73: LOL, nice!

43. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 10:55 am

    Mikey,

    I think your hypothetical would be more difficult for my position if the gun were to be defective because Tennessee had lesser standards for production quality. Say a Tennessee gun blows up and kills the legal owner, whether in Tennessee or Arkansas. Could the owner’s family sue the state? Not being a lawyer, I cannot say but I would be in favor of the suit.

    In your scenario, I cannot imagine the state being responsible for the gun’s use.

    “Also, commerce affects all states.”

    Do you really really want to go down that path? Where does this stop or should there be no limit to federal power under this bastardization of the Commerce Clause?

    Is there no such thing as economic privacy or is the ‘general welfare’ always the default?

    gullyborg,

    You are confusing ideas here. The Framers were rightly focused on federal power to prevent states from using regulation to interfere with commerce.

    Do you agree with the fundamental holding in Wicker? Are there no private economic acts? Does the power of the feds to regulate behavior require a showing of economic benefits or is the power absolute?

44. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 11:08 am

    Mark, there already are limits. Lopez set those … that’s what makes the Cali case so important. Limits were drawn in Lopez, and Raich was within them with a case similar to the TN law.

    As for the other, the law says:
    ” 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.”

    And remains in TN … that’s the kicker. The state is saying it is exempt if it ’stays in TN.’ and through some unstated way, the state is going to ensure this … so, if it doesn’t, and is used in a robbery, then the state *has not lived up to its own law.* That would, it seems to me, make the state liable for damages … not a lawyer, but I think its a logical case that could be made.

45. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 11:11 am

    also, mark - economic privacy is like right to privacy, its implied sometimes but not guaranteed. General welfare, given we’re a union of states and people, should always be the default, IMHO.

46. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 11:36 am

    Mikey,

    “economic privacy is like right to privacy, its implied sometimes but not guaranteed. General welfare, given we’re a union of states and people, should always be the default, IMHO.”

    So does the federal government have the power to prevent people from fathering or giving birth to additional children if they are unable to care for existing children?

    The economic and social impact of such children is enormous. Far greater than many of the things that the feds currently regulate. So, in your view, do the feds have the right to restrict parentage?

47. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 12:47 pm

    I think that question strays a long ways away from commerce clause restrictions, Mark … not applicable - but, I’ll play to this extent …

    short answer, no - and, to move it to the states’ rights- do you think states have the right to restrict parentage?

48. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 1:02 pm

    Mikey, I don’t but then I do not believe that the State or state has the absolute Right to control my life.

    You are the one who said “economic privacy is like right to privacy” so the logical conclusion is that your philosophy justifies limits on parenthood.

    This takes the debate out of the context of the Commence Clause and moves it into a larger terrain. You equated privacy with economic privacy. That means the government has the power to do just that. Regulate parentage. One can imagine all sorts of economic and social arguments in favor.

    The only defense is to hold that some Rights transcend the General Welfare. And you just said that wasn’t true.

49. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 1:22 pm

    no - i meant only to the extent they are both *myths.* not that they are alike. I personally believe in a right to privacy, but I am willing to admit it isn’t explicit in the Constitution - but no, I don’t equate business regulation with personal regulation, or lack thereof. Businesses are instruments, not people.

50. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 1:25 pm

    The Cosntitution states plan and simple, the Federal Government only has control over INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL commerce.

51. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 1:40 pm

    Mikey,

    If the right to privacy is a myth, then what prevents the government from deciding who can and cannot have children? Public welfare being the province of government and all.

    Regulating what a person can or cannot do with his or her economic life in the interest of the commonwealth is no different from regulating parenthood if the right to privacy doesn’t exist.

    And if the right to privacy exists, who determines the extent of that privacy?

52. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 1:44 pm

    If the right to privacy is a myth, Roe V Wade is based on an unfounded right

53. TennRod writes
    July 20th, 2009 2:02 pm

    Well, TNVolunteer73, what’s the word for what you just stated? Oh, yeah…

    WRONG

    Of course you have the right to privacy. Ana woman’s right to have an abortion is none of your damn business. And our courts were right to say so.

54. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 2:25 pm

    TennRod,

    Go back and read Mikey’s posts.

    “i meant only to the extent they are both *myths.* not that they are alike. I personally believe in a right to privacy, but I am willing to admit it isn’t explicit in the Constitution”

    I realize that, unlike Mikey, complex thoughts are tough for you, but TNVol’s conclusion about Mikey’s position is exactly correct.

    Now if you want to participate with the adults, the ante is whether you believe that the right to privacy has any components that cannot be abridged in the public interest.

    If you say yes, then you can have a right to abortion but you also have to explain prohibitions on private economic behavior. In particular, ‘public welfare’ loses its use as a justification for all sorts of things.

    If you take the no position, say bye bye to Roe.

    You cannot have this both ways. Either there is a limit to the right of the state to compel us or there isn’t. The Right of the Individual to a certain control of his or her life is either absolute or it isn’t.

55. MattCollins writes
    July 20th, 2009 2:50 pm

    Same thing is going on in Montana too:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/030403.html

56. lhtx writes
    July 20th, 2009 3:48 pm

    Mmmm. 1st Amendment, the right to speak out against the federal government. 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, states to have militia, to protect themselves from what? An out of control tyrannical federal government (read about the founding father’s fear of dictatorship). 10th Amendment, limit powers of the federal government to what is given to it in the Constitution, the rest of the powers go to the states (the people). The Amendments seem to form a theme that the federal government should not be trusted. Plus the fact that all the 1st 10 Amendments were meant to protect the states (the people) from the federal government.

    Yes, our supreme court (part of the federal government) has sided with the federal government and has found plenty of ways to mis-read it. After 220+ years, its about time for the states to start reasserting themselves. This will go to the supreme count. And if it is overturned, the Foundng Father’s of our country will have been proved correct in fearing the federal government that they created.

57. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 3:56 pm

    with all due respect, ihtx, that’s baloney. The founders most certainly believed in a strong federal, and did everything post-constiution to assure it - from Hamilton to Washington, from Jefferson (not the intellectual - the practicing president) to Jackson and beyond - Jackson was VERY strong that federal had considerable power over states, that states couldn’t go around nullifying laws they didn’t believe in. Marshall established a lot of the commerce clause laws - he was a founder.

    It’s a cannard. More accurately, the founders were elitists who trusted neither individuals or states, but instead trusted only the wealthy land and biz owners like themselves. The 10th amendment was nothing more than a sop to the south - its never really had much teeth unless a southern or now conservative court let it.

    Keep in mind when you go attributing democratic ideals to the founders - they couldn’t understand why Washington didn’t want to be King. Says a lot …

58. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 4:59 pm

    Tenrod.. I did not say we did not have a right to privacy.. that was Dontcallmemikey…

    I stated if there was no right to privacy, then Roe V Wade which was based on the right to privacy (I will buy you a donut if you can find the right granted in the US Constitution on which Mickey was c coorrect RTP is not in the constitution just the right to not self incriminate amendment 5.)

    Mikey. the Founders feared a strong Central Government. They felt that the Federal Government should only be strong enough to unite the states.

    That is why the 10th amenement said that RIGHT NOT SPECIFICLY LISTIED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE LEFT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATE’S AUTHORITY.

    Post 1935, the Federal government has abused the “General Welfare” clause of Article 1.

59. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 5:27 pm

    Not really, TNVol - though I suspect we’ll never truly know for certain. Remember, tho, that states doing whatever the heck they wanted led to the Convention - the Confederation was a disaster, and no one wanted to repeat that mistake. A strong federal government was *the only way* to solve the problem. Keep in mind Hamilton and the New Yorkers wanted no states rights at all - and the founders didn’t even think a bill of rights was needed. They were cobbled together as amendments so some states would sign the constitution. Remember Shays Rebellion from the history books? Remember the Whiskey Rebellion, where Hamilton quashed a revolt on the right of the Fed to collect duties?

60. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 5:39 pm

    That is why the founders went to a republic instead of a Confederacy..

    They had a federal government that was just strong enough to keep the states united.

    The founders gave the federal Government 4 responsiblities. and no other responsiblites

    The nation began huge problems after the federal Government began forcing itself on other state doing other than those 4

    1. National defence

    2. Promotion of Interstate commerce and relations (no control over intrastate commerce or relations)

    3 Promotion and creation of International commerce and relation

    4 Law enforcement.

    No Retirment systems, No welfare programs, No Nationalization of any sectors of the economy

    Runaway deficts began in the mid 1930s with the creation of the New Deal and Social Security.

61. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 5:44 pm

    TNVol - the founders wanted the fed to be EVERYTHING. The southern states got concessions, but - keep in mind - every time they went for anything remotely like nullification, the hammer came down. The Fed was always supposed to be the big kid on the block, the states were to be coerced into going along, and the people really didn’t matter …

62. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 6:08 pm

    Mikey,

    Regarding the Rights of States being some odd Southern myth, you should note that the first threat of secession by states came from New England.

    And you still have not explained why you want women to be forced into back alleys for illegal unsafe abortions.

63. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 6:21 pm

    LOL - Mark, I don’t and you know it. LOL - I believe abortion is best left to the individual - its neither the fed or the state’s right to regulate it. That’s why I’m pro-choice … and I presume, from your argument, that you are as well. Roe v. Wade is important in that it protects the individual’s right — while there is no right to privacy, there is a defacto right of privacy, derived from decisions like Roe, Miranda, etc.
    I’m a firm believer in a new Constitutional Convention, btw - settle right to privacy, rewrite the second amendment, tackle the War Powers Act, torture - I’m Jeffersonian enough to think we need to sit down and settle these nagging constitutional questions once and for all, then move on.

    And yes, perhaps the first threat did, Mark - but c’mon, its no myth. The South is champion at desiring nullification and asserting states rights - wasn’t that the name of Strom Thurmond’s party in the 40s? Not so much now, tho - its a libertarian and far-right GOP cause now. Not all southern states are for it, just the ones controlled by the GOP - and, of course, they’re not really for it - makes for good soundbites like those of Rick ‘Good Hair’ Perry.

64. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 6:39 pm

    Mikey,

    “I believe abortion is best left to the individual - its neither the fed or the state’s right to regulate it.”

    But aren’t you the person who said

    “economic privacy is like right to privacy, its implied sometimes but not guaranteed. General welfare, given we’re a union of states and people, should always be the default, IMHO.”

    So if enough people decide that abortion damages the society and that this is a greater problem than the benefits gained by abortion rights, you have no problem with it being outlawed?

    I am not sure whether you believe yourself. Does the general welfare trump the individual’s rights in all cases or in some and, if so, what is the criteria?

65. jen writes
    July 20th, 2009 6:45 pm

    Well now Mark Turner I didn’t figure you for a coward and an immature one at that.

    Mark Turner Says: Of course they were going to fight it. everybody knew that. The point is to push this into the couts.

    You could have comprehended that but Jen, you have time and again demonstrated you simply A person who Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.

    Too chicken to call me that in the light of day, eh? I’m an East Tennessean, I don’t need a gun to be brave. You wuss.

66. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 20th, 2009 6:49 pm

    Mikey..

    Have you read the Thomas Paine

    http://www.mariettaoh9-12project.com/read/The%20Constitutional%20Convention.htm

    Led by Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason, the faction that became known as the Federalists had serious concerns about the constitution and threatened to block its passage if they were not addressed. Those concerns were:

    1) Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of the individual states.

    2) There was no Bill of Rights. (This was later added).

    3) Constitution gave the federal government the authority to establish a standing army.

    4) Congress, because of the “Necessary and Proper Clause” had too much power.

    5) Too much power in the executive branch.

    They supported a society ordered according to agrarian republicanism, a system in which political power is divided between landowning farmers and where politics at the local level is the focus.

    They wanted a VERY LIMITED federal govenment and that is how the Constitution was written.

67. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 7:08 pm

    Hey Mark, you didn’t answer my question, did you?

    I’m honored to be so quoted and debated … lol, now I know how Jefferson felt (for he was oft-quoted, oft-debated - and oft-contradictory).

    But, since you’re in this mood, Mark - I’ll give it another go. As I said, there is no ‘right to privacy,’ but it has been maintained as a de facto right for many years now.

    Now, definitions: welfare - health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being.

    Tell me how a nation driven would ever find the right for a woman to determine whether or not to have a child is going to be harmful to the general welfare - especially since you passionately believe - apparently - that the individual trumps all. The state, and - for that matter, the federal government - has no dog in that hunt, except to guarantee she *alone* has the right to decide. I don’t see it as contradictory. In the abstract, perhaps I would agree if a nation deemed it not in the general welfare - perhaps, but it isn’t likely that’s going to be the case.

    I can tell you one that’s changing that’s also a good example. Drug laws. It has long been deemed in the general welfare that drug laws need to be strict. And it has been at the expense of the individual. Now we’re finding prisons filled to overflow with drug offenders and society’s beginning to rethink it - perhaps decriminalizing pot. That would be more in keeping with an individual’s right to choose what is best, and would also perhaps promote the general welfare, since there isn’t likely to be too much of an uptick in pot use AND it would be regulated, taxed and those taxes would promote - you guessed it - the general welfare.

    If you’re looking for only a yes or no answer on which trumps what, that’s not possible. They work hand in hand - does it suit the general welfare for assisted suicide? Perhaps. Does it suit the general welfare to tax for armies, navies, etc.? Of course. For every list of government duties and responsibilities, the answer varies - my answers may not be the same as yours. Do I think its in the general welfare for a public option health care package? Yes. Do I think it also supports individual rights. Yes - for many reasons. I suspect you do not.

    Most laws make sense. Many do not. Hence my comment, when in doubt, go with what benefits the general welfare first. Even Spock understood this at the end of the second Star Trek movie, Mark.

    I don’t know whether this answers your question, because I think you’re twisting yourself into knots to make some point that is becoming vaguer and vaguer. I don’t see an inconsistency - perhaps I’m not articulating it well, or perhaps you just wanna debate … LOL - could be?

    And this ‘error establishing a database connection notice is pissing me OFF!!’

68. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 20th, 2009 7:18 pm

    Yes, I’ve read Paine, TNVol - and I also know all that about Bill of Rights - referenced it above. But the FED was always meant to be the power. Don’t just read, look at the history from Hamilton’s raid in PA forward - everything was to solidify the FED. All of Hamilton’s Treasury work. Jefferson’s presidency, Marshall’s judicial rulings, Jackson’s presidency - on down through Lincoln, Teddy R., etc. Time after time, the FED was seen - and from the beginning - as supreme, the states as less so.
    Think of it like this - Congress is a massive rabble - that’s the states. Executive - one man. Who do you think is *more equal*? Ask Bush’s opinion … and Cheney’s … Judiciary? First overturned a ’state’s rights case in 1796 - Ware v. Hylton.

69. Mark Rogers writes
    July 20th, 2009 8:14 pm

    Mikey,

    There are a large number of people who believe that abortion has a harmful impact on the larger society by diminishing the value of life to that society. You may not believe that but others clearly do so the possibility exists that at some time there might be enough support to carry the argument.

70. SHURESHOT writes
    July 20th, 2009 9:34 pm

    The controversy over state’s rights, or abortion, or the 2nd Amendment that seeks to see the truth by examining the American political/spiritual/social/financial landscape during the development of the issues will be continue to be argumentative and without final conclusion because of the myriad types of personalities and shifts of power that occurred in our history. I favor a convention to secure a consensus and then to move on. But I have a feeling that we would just divide us further. Gawd knows we have plenty of cavities in our country at this time. But the idea has great merit. I appreciate this blog 98% of which is fact and mature discussion. It gives us old folks hope that in the future some way will appear to choose leadership by something other than cliches and snapshots of thought. We are in a temporary mess, and the 10th amendment issue, the Republic of Texas issue, the 2d amendment issue, and so on are just the tips. God save the Country.

71. Epistemological Primitivism in Action II — The New Clarion writes
    July 20th, 2009 11:16 pm

    [...] Here, in the comments, observe how several Leftists blithely insist that the Ninth Amendment doesn’t mean what the blog author thinks it does. One provides a link.  Then watch what happens when the conversation turns to the Commerce Clause and the Raich decision. [...]

72. Steven Henderson writes
    July 21st, 2009 11:08 am

    While I personally have little interest in states’ rights, except for a temporary convenience, I think it is somewhat obvious that the founding fathers were very focused on states’ rights. I also think that is irrelevant. What is more important is what the law actually states. What is more important still is what is morally and logically right.

    I believe the American civil war laid to rest the question of whether states’ rights have any real meaning beyond words on paper. In the end, I believe that this balance has and will continue to be settled by power rather than by law.

    Abortion is a flawed example, because the arguement first hinges on whether the child is actually alive. If it is, neither privacy nor the public welfare are of any consequence. Answering the question of life is beyond the scope of this discussion, so I doubt it will lead to a meaningful conclusion.

    The arguement of public welfare is the crux of socialism. Who is the public? Not you. Spock said that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (or the one), but who decides which weight is greater? If Spock decides to sacrifice himself because it is right, he is a martyr. If someone else decides it for him, he is a slave. The concept of welfare is similar. If I decide that a hungry person needs my money more than I do, and so I give it to him to buy food, that is charity. If someone else sees him in need, then forcibly takes my money to give to him, that is thievery.

    I consider it a great convenience in life that fools see little reason not to immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. By doing so, they save me the effort of determining whether their arguments are worth reading through.

73. SHURESHOT writes
    July 24th, 2009 12:42 pm

    re: Steve Henderson
    You are right about the ad hominem attacks (ers)… but you must be aware by now that the thinkers who vote and hope to make a difference are far outnumbered by the fools that “like the way he looks” (JFK), “like the way he treats everyman” (Johnson), or “like the way he sounds” (Hussein Obama) and click the lever and hope. At one time, only landowners had the right to vote. That was much closer to a good policy than we are now.

    I hope that like the German saying, we get too soon aldt undt too late schmart does’t apply to countries. Come on 2010… this political insanity has got to stop.

    I Support GOA and NRA, and hope. That buck is a meaningful vote. Join me, please.

    –>Retired military who cared enough to give his butt when it counted.

74. MattCollins writes
    July 27th, 2009 2:51 pm

    Rod - this is an ignorant and twisted view, not to mention erroneous, of the 10th Amendment.

    Constitutional Scholar Dr. Kevin Gutzman has this to say:

    “FEDERALISTS in the ratification debates said, in the words of Virginia’s Governor Edmund Randolph (who was both a Philadelphia Convention Framer and a Richmond Ratification Convention Ratifier) that Congress would have only the powers that were “expressly delegated.” In other words, it doesn’t matter whether the 10th Amendment included the word “expressly,” because that principle was implicit in the Constitution before there was a 10th Amendment. (Leading Federalists said the same thing in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Norther Carolina, and South Carolina, at least)….Marshall was a liar. He knew perfectly well that Luther Martin’s argument in _McCulloch_ was the same as the one his committee had made in the Richmond Ratification Convention.”

    Under the constitution, in order for the federal government to exercise a power it must:

    1. try to find the exact thing they’re doing listed in the constitution

    2. it #1 can’t be found, then they must justify that what they’re doing is “necessary and proper” to an enumerated, or listed, power.

    3. All incidental powers - those that aren’t specifically listed, must also meet the criteria of being a “lesser” power than the enumerated power. They must be only a piece of the puzzle that makes up the enumerated power - like land, staff, electricity, etc for establishing a post office.

75. larry writes
    August 20th, 2009 6:43 pm

    Do you want the feds to control gun laws or the states? Do you really trust the federal government ? if so, you need help

76. TNARNGsoldeir writes
    November 17th, 2009 11:39 am

    So, now on to the bottom line. I am not a lawyer but do have a graduate degree. Can I manufacture my own firearm in Tennessee for my own personal use within the sate without worry of being arrested by the ATF?

77. Dio writes
    December 29th, 2009 4:06 pm

    The key word is “Licensees”
    If you have asked the government for permision to sell or create then you are subject to there laws. You do not need a license to sell or creat there for you are not subject. It’s that simple, the so called government relies on the way things are worded, once you see the true deffinitions of the words used and how they are used.

78. larry writes
    January 5th, 2010 7:11 pm

    He said GUN NUTS” his brilliance might be able to power a 1 volt light .strike that, ¼ light

    For good cause shown, the founders knew the people must have access to firearms to ensure this government does not become as government of Tyrants

    If the King had taken guns away from the people there would not have been a revolution

    Maybe he who said GUN NUTS would enjoy watching his wife and children being raped caused by home invasion , maybe he like feeling helpless , Maybe he think the Cops with always be there to protect him and his family and maybe is not a real man

79. larry writes
    January 5th, 2010 7:14 pm

    TNARNGsoldeir writes

    read nith curcuit case law per your question, short answer NO

80. larry writes
    January 5th, 2010 7:20 pm

    U.S. vs. Lopez ok let us play lawyer

    what element was missing in Lopez that allow the court to strike down his conviction or was there an element missing

81. WestCoaster writes
    January 6th, 2010 12:58 am

    Um, hey Captain America…

    Go google “supremacy clause”.

    Any first year law student would have told you that the Constitution trumps state law where there is a conflict. Remember when cali made weed legal? What did clinton do? He sent the feds in to bust weed stores in San Francisco. Why? Because he can. Thats how it works.

    This was doomed to fail from the beginning and is just a way to get gun cheerleaders all foaming at the mouth, but this things was DOA. Any one in the state legislature with a law degree involved in this bill HAD to know that. And as was mentioned above, there is about 180 years of case law on this so-good-freakin-luck getting this overturned.

    This is a big “duh”.

82. larry writes
    January 7th, 2010 6:57 pm

    Five years spent working this one federal question, bear with me, I am blind,

    Members of the US Congress and the US Senate and President Clinton who singed the bill into law that cause 18 USC 922 G8 knew that state court judges used gender pro filing against all males per any form of protection order

    In addition, the above want federal judges to support the gender pro filing by state agent Judges and send fathers and all a males to federal prison when their only crime is their gender and wanting to be parents to their children

    2005 in US v Larry W.Campbell public statement by federal court Judge Sacramento .cal court All a women needs to do to get a protection order is say “ I am scared him” since he found my guilty per 18 USC 922 G8 he affirmed that federal judge must support gender pro filing ,since I had not had any contact with the ex for 9 years, somewhat hard to caused harm without some form of contact

    Suggestion Write your member of Congress and Senate and tell them you do not support gender pro filing per any federal law with a focus on federal gun laws and request their vote per 18 USC 922 G8, which they will refuse to provide you

    I welcome any person who wants to contact me at lwc95661@gmail.com and wants to read Judge Shubb statements