On Friday, we saw the letter ATF sent to FFL dealers in Tennessee telling them the Bureau was overriding the state's Firearms Freedom Act, and would continue to impose federal requirements in disregard of state law.Today's Gun Rights Examiner notes a federal progression to snuff out a movement...
They've done the same thing to Montanans. [More]
Tell a friend?
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: You bet it's personal!
- Austin: Does civilian gun ownership cause bloodshed?
- Boston: Sotomayor: Unfit to serve
- Charlotte: Sotomayor: Where for art thou, NRA?
- Chicago: Judge Sotomayor thinks gun rights are about hunting?
- Cleveland: Ohio Highway Patrol may get carbines next year
- DC: Sotomayor: latinas, guns, and werewolves
- Denver: Lessons from "bring your guns to church day"
- Los Angeles: On Sotomayor: The Judiciary Committee needs to get it, too.
- Minneapolis: It takes a gun to stop a gunman
- Seattle: NRA takes stand against Sotomayor; committee vote Tuesday
- St. Louis: The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'
- Wisconsin: Party like it was 1773
7 comments:
ATF is correct in this sense: every Federal Licensee is obligated to follow federal law or surrender his license (or have it revoked).
The Tenth Amendment is still in effect.
There must be a test case. That case must involve a person who manufactures, or intends to manufacture, firearms outside the scope of Federal Law. That person must not be a Federal Licensee.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Intrastate commerce, then the U.S. Constitution is finally a dead letter. We will Formally enter the phase of empire.
I would agree in the sense of them acting in the capacity of a federal licensee, although that in itself is a made-up "power".
Still, it shoud not rule out them acting in a separate capacity as an intrastate arms dealer, apart from wearing their FFL hat.
Or, having someone who never applied for such a license in the first place (or no longer has one) set up a shop to construct firearms from materials not requiring an FFL to obtain. Either firearms and ammunition would stick in the BATFU's craw.
If the Federal government’s acronymic army had ever shown any intention of recognizing the 9th and 10th Amendments, Tennessee’s and Montana’s recent legislations would not have been necessary. If the federal government hadn’t begun the practice of establishing unconstitutional agencies, Tennessee’s and Montana’s recent legislations would not have been necessary. If the Federal government would acknowledge and conform to the limitations established in the Constitution, Tennessee’s and Montana’s rec … well, you get the picture.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, secession is still a viable option. The first time it was attempted, the matter was settled out of court.
All I got to say is "screw you guys, I'm going home (to my guns)! If either of these states had an ounce of testosterone left between them, they'd tell the ATF to kiss off. And if I were an FFL in either of these states, I'd return the FFL, and commence to manufacturing automatic weapons! If for no other reason than to "level the playing field". Nanny.gov's monopoly on force needs to end, quickly.
Mayberry III
When I read the letter to the TN FFL holders I was initially so thankful I never went down the road of getting a FFL.
Then I had this vision of a flame getting closer and closer to a powderkeg.
The Constitution has been a deal letter for some time now, Hastert, Hyde, and GW said so. Not to mention the voting records of the leeches in DC.
Post a Comment