[countymounty]

Look like Carrol did not read the 10th amendment, or the Constitution for that matter.
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.

This dimwit has sent letters to Tennessee and Montana Guns shops telling them their state Sovereignty laws are not valid.

http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/A...freedomact.pdf

Mr. Carrol I say come and take them. But we all know, The ATF will shoot your wife and kids first….that is a proven fact.

[shartley]

That is another example of why the Federal Government is WAY out of control. I see some real problems headed our way, and they are not going to be one sided problems.

[Mpov]

I don't read the letter as saying that at all. It says that Federal laws supercede contrary state laws, which is correct. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


If you want to argue that the federal government shouldn't have the power to regulate sales of guns within a state if the guns are manufactured within that same state because interstate commerce is not involved, that's a different argument (and the courts would probably rule against you), but I think you are misinterpreting the letter.

[JEB]

America is dead. That is another fact.

[paul289]

Originally Posted by Mpov

I don't read the letter as saying that at all. It says that Federal laws supercede contrary state laws, which is correct. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


If you want to argue that the federal government shouldn't have the power to regulate sales of guns within a state if the guns are manufactured within that same state because interstate commerce is not involved, that's a different argument (and the courts would probably rule against you), but I think you are misinterpreting the letter.

However, this is in reference to the Constitution and such laws that abide by it. If these federal laws violate the Constitution, they are invalid, and the States have the right to make their own laws regarding the matter.

The way I see it, all gun regulation should be purely up to the discretion of the States. If Texas wants to let everyone that is of sane mind and safe demeanor have a fully automatic weapon, they should be allowed to do so. The federal government's duty is to regulate the transfer of those guns across state lines. Otherwise, the federal government should have very little authority in the matter.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by Mpov

I don't read the letter as saying that at all. It says that Federal laws supercede contrary state laws, which is correct. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


If you want to argue that the federal government shouldn't have the power to regulate sales of guns within a state if the guns are manufactured within that same state because interstate commerce is not involved, that's a different argument (and the courts would probably rule against you), but I think you are misinterpreting the letter.

That is exactly what the State Sovereignty laws state and that same purpose is even spelled out in the letter. In the past when the government bullied the states and citizens with federal laws their justification for the bullying was interstate commerce. This is not interstate commerce, and they have no authority here.
The 10 amendment say any power not in the constitution is up for the individual states to decide….it does not say anything in the constitution that the federal government can make laws just because they are not In the constitution.
And any federal law passed must be constitutional. And any gun law passed by the federal government is unconstitutional. Right of the citizens shall not be infringed. That is why since the loss in the DC gun ban the anti gunners have been saying that just because the federal government can’t take away the right doesn’t mean the state can’t take way the right. Which is quite odd as they have always said states can’t pass laws that are unconstitutional………I always thought the second amendment was part of the constitution?

[ONEZ ST]

I think folks are mixing the issue. The letter from ATF applies to Federal Firearm Licensees and addresses the manufacture and sale of firearms, not the right of citizens to possess firearms.

And even in the case of firearms ownership there are prudent restrictions on who cant own them. . . such as convicted felons.

[BlueStreak03]

Looks like we're heading for another Ruby Ridge sometime in the future.

This memo from numbnutts is completely contrary to to the power of the US Constitution. It is nothing more than the ATF trying to bully FFL licensees into doing as the ATF says. As long as those weapons remain within the borders of Tennessee, then the ATF has absolutely NO valid claim to power of regulating them. The argument really IS that simple. If the ATF wants to push the issue, I know of at least one lawyer who is able to make a Supreme Court case out of it.

[shartley]

Originally Posted by ONEZ ST

I think folks are mixing the issue. The letter from ATF applies to Federal Firearm Licensees and addresses the manufacture and sale of firearms, not the right of citizens to possess firearms.

And even in the case of firearms ownership there are prudent restrictions on who cant own them. . . such as convicted felons.

Convicted felons lose their right to own a firearm because they did something "bad". The basic right to bear arms (which I have said many times in the past week... here and other places...) is not the same as "owning" arms though. If you own a firearm and it stays in a locked safe, you are not really bearing arms, are you? And the right to bear arms is not a privilege, but a right.

But on I go...... the argument that the Government is only preventing the issuing of FFLs, manufacture, and sale of firearms and that is somehow not the same as the right to possess a firearm is like saying, "Drinking alcohol is legal. But the sale, manufacture, or distribution of it is illegal." And then saying "See, we didn't make having a beer illegal." Of course this would not be an issue if a beer was to suddenly just materialize in your hand... maybe from a higher power?

These are not issues which can be separated IMO.

[countymounty]

ONEZ ST the issue is mixed because they are intertwined. I agree there should be some restrictions but it is not up to the federal government to make those restrictions.

And most of the restrictions being sought are an attempt to deprive citizen of the right. Right after the DC gun ban was overturned they passes measures to outlaw almost every gun outside revolvers, which was directly spelled out that they had no right to do. As it currently sits a reporter covering a story paid out around 700 dollars just to get his permit to keep a gun in his own home….please…. it was also clearly spelled out the cost of the permit could not be used to effect a ban. Anyone here willing to pay a 700 dollar fee for every gun purchase you make?

The whole point of the Sovereignty laws is that they don’t have to follow AFT rules and regulations unless the firearm is going out of state.

need to add... the weapons needs to be manufactured in the state also to be complyant with the State Sovereignty laws.

[ONEZ ST]

County, the two issues are only intertwined because it relates to firearms and it is a hot button topic people love to push.

However, within the scope of the ATF to act as it did, it has every right at a federal level to regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms and issue a letter to holders of federal TF licenses stating such. Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not what the letter you posted is about.

I would argue that state, county and city codes are generally more restrictive on gun ownership and CCL than the federal level and that should be the issue to attack.

So tell me, does a city within your county have the right to invalidate or ignore a county law it is subjected too just because the city wants rid itself of county authority.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by ONEZ ST

County, the two issues are only intertwined because it relates to firearms and it is a hot button topic people love to push. .

That’s like saying “over the river and through the woods” are only related to grandmothers house because that is how you get there.

Originally Posted by ONEZ ST

However, within the scope of the ATF to act as it did, it has every right at a federal level to regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms and issue a letter to holders of federal TF licenses stating such. Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not what the letter you posted is about.

Just what part of the constitution or bill of rights give them the right? You assume they have the right because they have laws in place, but what authority was used to put those laws into place? If the laws are unconstitutional then they are null and void. The letter is from the ATF trying to enforce an unconstitutional law that the citizens of Tennessee and Montana have recognized as unconstitutional and passed their own law in accordance with it.
Its no different then if 100 years ago the county passed a law saying all black people must ride in the back of the bus. If I tried to enforce it would you say it is within my rights to enforce that law?

Originally Posted by ONEZ ST

I would argue that state, county and city codes are generally more restrictive on gun ownership and CCL than the federal level and that should be the issue to attack.

So tell me, does a city within your county have the right to invalidate or ignore a county law it is subjected too just because the city wants rid itself of county authority.

I can’t think of any county ordnance that we would enforce in a city in our county. If anything we would directly ignore them because it’s the city’s job to enforce their laws and why would we waste manpower and time on something that is someone else’s responsibility to enforce?
Plus I guarantee there is no county/city constitution that states the city’s inside this county are Sovereign entities.
When you look at our liberal education system this is the only reason why I can figure people have no idea that the colonies which became state were Sovereign entities, England did not surrender to the American federal government they surrendered to each and every Sovereign State, and the constitution was only ratified because it kept the Sovereign State, as sovereign entities.

[ONEZ ST]

Let me add that State's challenging the ATF by envoking the tenth amendment are doing so under the guise of the Firearms Freedom Act which has two key elements: 1. Manufacture within the state 2. Retained within the state.

So far no State has explained how they plan to ensure firearms manufactured in their state are retained in their state boundries because they know it's impossible. I'm sure someone on this board will know how.

[BlueStreak03]

It's up to the owners of those firearms to make sure they stay within the state lines. If they don't, then and only then do they run the risk of going afoul of the ATF. The manufacturers have absolutely no control over what the gun owners do. The mere idea that the manufacturers are responsible completely violates the idea of Proximate Cause. As long as the makers ensure that the owners are aware of the consequences of those firearms leaving the state in which they are made, then there is no legal recourse against the makers. To say otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

[shartley]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak03

It's up to the owners of those firearms to make sure they stay within the state lines. If they don't, then and only then do they run the risk of going afoul of the ATF. The manufacturers have absolutely no control over what the gun owners do. The mere idea that the manufacturers are responsible completely violates the idea of Proximate Cause. As long as the makers ensure that the owners are aware of the consequences of those firearms leaving the state in which they are made, then there is no legal recourse against the makers. To say otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

Exactly.........................................