Ramsey Has Joined Effort To Tell The Fedgov To Go Fly A Kite

By Kleinheider Posted on October 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm

From 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.”

permalink | 18 Comments

Tags: Ron Ramsey, Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act  

Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act To Pass Without Signature

By Kleinheider Posted on June 12, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Governor 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?

permalink | 68 Comments

Tags: firearms, guns, Phil Bredesen, Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, veto