ATF sends letter to Tennessee gun dealers

[Birdmang]

If your reasoning was true, do you realize that the federal government would have the authority to regulate everything?

My reasoning is EXACTLY from most supreme court cases involving regulation of commerce. I study this crap.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I hope Tennessee goes head and starts making it's own guns, while putting it's armed citizens, State Police, and National Guard on high alert. Would the ATF have the balls to go into the state and try to arrest anyone if it meant a showdown like that?

*fixed it for you*
I wonder about that too.
With the current Prez at the helm, I'm unsure if he and Holder want a rumble to start in TN with the people.

I'm moving just over the border into TN in a couple of weeks too.

 

[Jim Watson]

If your reasoning was true, do you realize that the federal government would have the authority to regulate everything?

The federal government has TAKEN the authority to regulate everything.

As Heinlein said in 'Tween Planets, it might have meant something 50 years ago. Now you may have a lawyer or you may have a cookie. The cookie will do you more good, it is more nutritious.

 

[mgregg85]

The tenth amendment may as well be considered repealed because of continuing abuse of the commerce clause. Of course the idea of state's rights really died in 1865.

What Tennessee tried to do was take back some power from the federal government, not a wise thing to do unless you are ready for a fight. Maybe someone will try to defy them and challenge this but I think they will go down hard if they do.

 

[ManBearPig]

It would certainly be interesting to see the ATF's reaction to Tennessee standing up to them. The ATF's automatic weapons and swat vehlicles would be outmatched by the Tennessee National Gaurd's military grade weapons, tanks, and artillery; not-to-mention adding in the State Police's armory which be the same as the ATF's armory.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

It would certainly be interesting to see the ATF's reaction to Tennessee standing up to them. The ATF's automatic weapons and swat vehlicles would be outmatched by the Tennessee National Gaurd's military grade weapons, tanks, and artillery; not-to-mention adding in the State Police's armory which be the same as the ATF's armory.

Outside of the imagination of Unintended Consequences fans, such "standing up" takes place in a courtroom, not a battlefield.

 

[Z-Michigan]

The 10th Amendment withered away in the 1930's as a result of FDR's manipulations and Congress's cooperation. His actions against federal judges who didn't rule the way he wanted were tyrannical and most worthy of a word that begins with "F". FDR should be viewed in the league of Harding and Nixon, in my view.

Anyway, there is room for a judicial reversal of this area of law, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

BATFE's position is consistent with current law as determined by federal courts since the 1930's. The legislation in TN and MT and other states was specifically intended to challenge that line of case law. We'll see if it actually goes anywhere.

 

[gc70]

It is early in the game and the game is political, not judicial. Just as FDR exerted pressure on the court to see the commerce clause in a different light in the 1930's, the states are trying to build political consensus to exert pressure on the court to revitalize the 10th Amendment.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Well I think it is a pretty low deal when a state goverment takes upon them selfs to pass a law or anything else as a show against uncle and then wants some poor smuck to fight their case for them. let them do it them selfs or at least make the dealer selling the firearms a employee of said state goverment with the backing of all aspects of said state including the guard and such.
then if anyone is arrested they are arresting a state employee for doing their job.
I would think a raid would be hard to pull off without tipping your hand someway?

 

[taliv]

nothing feds like better than busting state/local officials

 

[lobo9er]

how'd this work out in Montana?? didn't Montana try and or do this?

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

Quote:
It would certainly be interesting to see the ATF's reaction to Tennessee standing up to them. The ATF's automatic weapons and swat vehlicles would be outmatched by the Tennessee National Gaurd's military grade weapons, tanks, and artillery; not-to-mention adding in the State Police's armory which be the same as the ATF's armory.

Outside of the imagination of Unintended Consequences fans, such "standing up" takes place in a courtroom, not a battlefield.
Jorg is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message

a battle is only won in the court room if the executive branch can enforce it. There have been plenty of things deemed unconstitutional that are still passed into law.

and as for the Tennessee National Guard surpassing the other states resources, you have to remember that the members of the Tennessee Natty Girls is made up of Tennessee residents. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were members of Oath Keepers too.

 

[j-easy]

between the medical marijuana states, the states passing laws saying Federal Firearms Laws no longer apply, and the states trying to pass legislation barring the implementation of the new federal health care system in there state there is a decent number of states that need to get some kind of coalition going to bring back the 10th amendment rights

 

[PTK]

Outside of the imagination of Unintended Consequences fans, such "standing up" takes place in a courtroom, not a battlefield.

Hear, hear! While I fully agree with these laws of "if it's made here and stays here, Feds have no bearing", I believe each and every test case should be based on a locally made single-shot .22lr rifle. That way, any jury would see it and be able to understand that it really is a common gun - even though the ruling would apply to ALL types of guns in the law.

 

[DeepSouth]

What kind of suprises me is that the NRA seems to siding with the ATF on this one, just judging by the side bar article in the September issue of American Rifleman (P20) I guess they figure there's no need to fight a loosing battle, funds could be better used elsewhere...I guess.

 

[DMF]

I suggest researching the US Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and how that relates to US v. Stewart (2003) in the 9th Circuit. That along with Article III and Article VI of the Constitution should show you how this is likely to end up.

 

[Dannix]

Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't any attempt by the ATF to muscle their way in TN result in ATF agents getting arrested by local police for armed assault charges or some such?

Now that would be interesting. A few big headline reports on "rouge" ATF agents getting arrested could influence public opinion nationally. ...actually instead they would probably talk about gun makers = terrorist or some such.

Same thing going on nowadays as in FDR era. Kick in enough "survival instinct" and people will sacrifice all kinds of freedom.

 

[PTK]

I suggest researching the US Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and how that relates to US v. Stewart (2003) in the 9th Circuit. That along with Article III and Article VI of the Constitution should show you how this is likely to end up.

Indeed. It's a long shot, but... why not try?

While many break Federal laws on marijuana, the state forces simply don't care and don't report anything. I assume (hopefully correctly, though one never knows) the same would hold true re: firearms in the states with these laws, in that if you're caught by anyone Federal, you're still breaking laws on the Federal level, even though the state wouldn't care as no state laws are broken.

 

[zxcvbob]

Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't any attempt by the ATF to muscle their way in TN result in ATF agents getting arrested by local police for armed assault charges or some such?

That didn't work so well with Idaho's arrest of Lon Horiuchi; a federal judge sprung him, and then coveniently dropped the charges. (of course TN might refuse to release them, then you have your constitutional crisis again -- a standoff between U.S. Marshalls and the State Police.)

I don't think it will be anything that dramatic. This will end up with the state of Montana or Tennessee or ??? Attorneys General suing the federal government in the Supreme Court, and it's gonna take a while for them to get everything lined up to make the next move because the stakes are high.

 

[PTK]

This will end up with the state of Montana or Tennessee or ??? Attorneys General suing the federal government in the Supreme Court, and it's gonna take a while for them to get everything lined up to make the next move because the stakes are high.

Agreed. It will be a slow, uphill fight, but it may (slim chance) result in a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

 

[bensdad]

While many break Federal laws on marijuana, the state forces simply don't care and don't report anything. I assume (hopefully correctly, though one never knows) the same would hold true re: firearms in the states with these laws, in that if you're caught by anyone Federal, you're still breaking laws on the Federal level, even though the state wouldn't care as no state laws are broken.

This seems like a pretty good take on it. Firearms, however, are a little more "scrutinized" than basement grow-light weed.

 

[PTK]

Agreed, but we'll see how things pan out. Since I currently live in a MJ-friendly state and am moving to another MJ-friendly state that also has one of the firearms-freedom laws, I'm very interested in laws such as these.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Have you read Gonzales v. Raich? It basically does allow the feds to regulate anything. For example, it is now illegal to sell children's books printed before 1985 because they may contain minute amounts of lead.

My reasoning is EXACTLY from most supreme court cases involving regulation of commerce. I study this crap.

The federal government has TAKEN the authority to regulate everything.

As Heinlein said in 'Tween Planets, it might have meant something 50 years ago. Now you may have a lawyer or you may have a cookie. The cookie will do you more good, it is more nutritious.

We are arguing from two different points-of-view. You are arguing based on what the law says. I know what it says.

I'm arguing based on the way I think it should be. The majority of people I speak too agree it shouldn't be the way it currently is. Instead of beating the drums of defeat, I'm trying to change it to the way it should be using a little pragmatism. Democracy usually works.

 

[ijosef]

There's an established line of legal cases that basically says the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the feds to regulate anything that is in or affects interstate commerce.

You are indeed correct. It's a complete bastardization of the interstate commerce clause and totally ignores original intent, but it is precedent and the law. The ATF is acting withing their power, but that doesn't mean it's right.

As far as Gonzales v. Raich goes, keep in mind that my favorite Justice (Clarence Thomas) as well as former justicies Rhenquist and O'Conner dissented. Precedent can be overturned, although historically when the SCOTUS overturns precedent, it's usually to limit freedoms, not restore them. One good exception to that would be things like the Dred Scott case and how that was eventually blown out of the water.

I don't think we can look to the courts, however. It might take a brave governor and state legislature to tell the Feds to pound sand. If more than a few states do it, perhaps they can force the feds' hand in the matter.

 

[IAJack]

Again I gotta ask what about Montana? They are doing the exact same thing and more. Where is their letter?