Ramsey Has Joined Effort To Tell The Fedgov To Go Fly A Kite
Posted on October 29, 2009 at 2:10 pmFrom a presser:
Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey has joined efforts to uphold the Firearms Freedom Act, which was overwhelmingly approved by the General Assembly this year. Lt. Governor Ramsey is supplying a letter in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed on almost identical legislation in Montana to validate the principles and terms of the Act. The lawsuit was filed after federal officials claimed that both the Tennessee and Montana Firearms Freedom Acts were null and void.
“Tennesseans are tired of continued encroachment of the federal government on state’s rights,” said Lt. Gov. Ramsey. “That encroachment is escalating at an alarming rate. This legislation was overwhelmingly approved in the Tennessee Senate and House. It is within our constitutional rights and should be observed by federal officials.”
The Firearms Freedom Act declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. It is based on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people. The law asserts that if a firearm or ammunition is made totally within the state of Tennessee, and stamped “Made in Tennessee,” then the federal government has no jurisdiction over that item as long as it remains in-state and outside of interstate commerce.
The bill was approved 22 to 7 in the State Senate and 87 to 1 in the House of Representatives. Lt. Governor was a sponsor of the measure.
“The framers of the Constitution would be horrified at how some have interpreted their masterpiece, which has guided this nation and kept it safe for over 230 years,” Ramsey continued. “States cannot continue to sit by and let such misuse of federal power go unchallenged. That is why I have acted to support the plaintiffs in Montana, which is the obvious vehicle to get this issue before the courts.”
Comments
18 Responses to “Ramsey Has Joined Effort To Tell The Fedgov To Go Fly A Kite”
So Ramsey can’t properly interpret the Constitution either, eh?
And how exactly is he misinterpreting the constitution?
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 extreme - 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 hopefully that is what will happen
The Commerce Clause and You: A Tennessee Primer
The heart of the matter is this–it doesn’t matter if you don’t intend for an item to ever enter interstate commerce, what matters is whether its sale would substantially affect interstate commerce. Even in the decisions that were seen as limiting the Commerce Clause, U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison, the conservative justices did not challenge that premise. Scalia even sided with the majority in Gonzales v. Raich, which said that the federal government could ban the sale of medical marijuana and arrest people for using it even if it was allowed under state law, because even if the marijuana were only sold in California, it would still affect the whole market.
Funny, I don’t remember conservatives having a problem with THAT violation of states’ rights. Do they only support states’ rights for certain states or for certain issues?
Now how do you even prevent guns from moving in interstate commerce? Sure, you could say that these guns could only be sold to people who could prove residence. But people move, and take their stuff with them.
And who knows, maybe Sotomayor will rule with Ramsey
(just kidding of course)
The courts ruled in the Wicker v Fillburn case and has been subsequently questioned by people such as Clarence Thomas
And no one else. That’s why he wrote either a separate concurrence or separate dissent in the aforementioned cases. They explicitly left that rule in place in Lopez. The only reason Lopez and Morrison couldn’t be upheld under the Commerce Clause is because they did not deal with economic issues.
Scalia might have sided with the libs on the marijuana case…but i bet his tune changes when you evoke another CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT…thats the beauty of this bill, the courts must rule against two amendments if they decide to challenge this law
“because they did not deal with economic issues.”
Most laws passed under the auspices of the commerce clause don’t deal with economic issues. Rather, the fact that what is being regulated is incidentally involved in interstate commerce. Firearms laws are a good example and so are two flush toilets.
Obviously, what’s needed is a constitutional amendment nullifying the Commerce Clause.
Now, that would be a hoot.
But even so, this deals with articles that are made specifically to move in commerce. If you want to make the originalist argument, this falls under the Commerce Clause even more than the wheat in Wickard did.
The good news here is that it will the Montana legislature, not ours, wasting taxpayer money to defend these theories. Speaker Ramsey could, of course, ask the Tennessee Attorney General to file a similar suit in Tennessee but he won’t do that. If he did, the Attorney General would decline to defend the statute–on the grounds that it is clearly preempted by federal law. The General Assembly would then either have to accept the AG’s opinion or vote to hire outside counsel, at taxpayer expense, to defend a position which has no chance of success. The Speaker is wise to let Montana handle it.
I think Alaska, Montana, and Tennessee should all secede and then form a union together (although not a same-sex union of course)…
Montalaskennessee
President - Sarah Palin
VP - Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey
Atty General - Jud Chairman Mae Beavers
Sec of Treasurey - Matt Collins
Fed Reserve Chmn - Ron Paul
Press Sec - Rep. Stacey Campfield
…oh wouldnt that be a wonderful place to live
Obviously, what’s needed is a constitutional amendment nullifying the Commerce Clause.
The Framers never envisioned that we would move from an agrarian based economy to an industrialized one, allowing for large national industries and corporations. Therefore, we shouldn’t have had the Industrial Revolution.
” this deals with articles that are made specifically to move in commerce”
Aren’t they all? Regulating commerce among the states does not equal regulating all things in commerce. The clause may as well not exist.
As a practical matter, the FFA suit is doomed to fail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpwDwMtddg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_i-vuxhh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYTMbY7BMs
Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs coverage of this issues (TN’s own Libertarian Queen Bee is on one of the clips)
President - Sarah Palin
VP - Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey
Atty General - Jud Chairman Mae Beavers
Sec of Treasurey - Matt Collins
Fed Reserve Chmn - Ron Paul
Press Sec - Rep. Stacey Campfield
That’s not accurate. For one thing, there would be no Federal Reserve. Ron Paul would be Secretary of the Gold Reserves.
““Tennesseans are tired of continued encroachment of the federal government on state’s rights,” said Lt. Gov. Ramsey. “That encroachment is escalating at an alarming rate. This legislation was overwhelmingly approved in the Tennessee Senate and House. It is within our constitutional rights and should be observed by federal officials.””
Hell, I wish DOE would move ORNL lock-stock-and barrel somewhere else, and then lets hear them denounce the federal government.
President - Sarah Palin
VP - Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey
Atty General - Jud Chairman Mae Beavers
Sec of Treasurey - Matt Collins
Fed Reserve Chmn - Ron Paul
Press Sec - Rep. Stacey Campfield
…I would live there, except you never know Palin might decide to kick Collins/Paul/Beavers out of the government
“The Framers never envisioned that we would move from an agrarian based economy to an industrialized one”
GoldnI, since God inspired the framers to write the Constitution, what you’re really saying is that God didn’t envision the changes that would occur in the economic structure of the United States, and contradicting the scriptural fact of God’s omnipotence. SACRILEGE!