From Tennessee Firearms Association:I put out a second Gun Rights Examiner column today that presents both the Tennessee act and the ATF letter telling them they don't recognize it.The ATF - as expected - has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists. [More]
Tell a friend?
19 comments:
It is now time for the Tennessee legislature and the sheriffs in the state to inform the ATF that any attempt by them to violate Tennessee law will be followed with arrest, conviction and imprisonment. Further that attempted rescue of violators by other federal law enforcement will be met with the same action, or worse.
That is, if they are serious about taking back their liberty and not just posing.
I'm betting on posing.
I'm with Straightarrow. It's high time for the states to make a stand, and take back what's rightfully ours....
It's time.
Waaaay past time. Is it too late?
I don't know why people are hoping for a federal case or a SCOTUS decision, because it ain't going to amount to a pinch of owl dung. The Feds are going to do what they want to do, anyone elses ideas notwithstanding, unless some one forces them to do otherwise.It's all they understand. Worrying about the rule of law, or what is lawful doesn't matter to the communists, because they decide what the law is. Hussein has already stepped way outside what his Presidential powers are, and so has his gang. How is this supposed to be any different, or make any difference to them?
Wouldn't the executive branch of TN state gov't have to be the driving force to push this through the Fed courts as a 10th Amend issue?
TN's Governor didn't sign the law and made a statement that he was opposed to it, so I can't imagine the TN Att Gen's office will expend much effort to fight the Feds.
I have been "off the air" so to speak, what's been happening around the other states who've passed this law?
Always do what the Feds say. That's the Obama way!
Let's see now.
1770's - Revolution over local governance issues
1860's - Revolution over local governance issues
2000's - 50 years overdue? Or will it be resolved by other means?
Atf drew a line in the dirt...
I smell another Ruby Ridge coming down...
My advice to them is "Don't go there".
Ya'll ain't gonna Waco nobody again. We all gonna Waco you...It's high time we confiscated ATF's weapons. Ya'll learn NOTHING from history.
Straightarrow nailed it.
It is now up to the County Sheriffs to do their DUTY to the citizens of their counties. Those citizens elected the Sheriff to be the Peace Officer with the highest authority. No one has higher legal authority in the county and the elected Sheriff.
Sheriffs in Montana and Tennessee now have the Obligation to defend local citizens against unlawful federal action.
Sorry longbow, and all. It is way past time to go to war with the feds. Unfortunately our states will not support us. The state and the Feds will go to FEDERAL court, where that court will then rule against the state. The state will then give up and these freedom acts will be voided. I know I'm not really going out on a limb here, but let's not get our hopes up. A sheriff is in the position he is because he is a statist.
You are wrong, zach.
The county sheriff has the authority and duty to stop any Federal incursion into the county that he is in.
What the Sheriff needs is the support and backing of the PEOPLE of the county.
Those clowns at "F" Troop have had their way and say for entirely too long.
Read "Neither Predator Nor Prey".
Bob
III
I keep seeing the assertion made that the sheriff is the highest legalauthority who even supercedes the feds.
I never see anyone who makes this claim prove it, with an authoritative cite that shows people with more guns will recognize and respect that, as opposed to just arrest, try and convict him if he gets in the way of federal edicts.
And yes, I've seen the stuff about Mattis and Mack.
Typically these refer to Castaneda v. USA which is a case that was settled by the parties and dismissed, with no ruling made.
There is a lot of disinformation out there, and plenty of people who would love to discredit us by seeing us pass along BS, or even worse, rely on it and get in trouble.
If you're going to make a claim and assert it is true, please be ready to prove it to us with a link to a credible source.
Look, I'm not trying to diss anybody here, I wish this were true myself. But I hope you understand my concern with this, and why I can't let such statements stand without asking for verification.
Maybe you know something I don't, in which case, educate me and let's work on making it known.
I don't believe there is any proof.
Under Federalism and in early America, the sheriff was the chief law enforcement official in a community or county. He was also many times the head of the local citizen militia. I think it's from this fact that today people Wish it was still so.
It is actually a matter of who is willing to kill the most, at personal risk, if necessary, and who has the means to do it. That is the county sheriff if the people of his jurisdiction back him.
The feds are most willing to kill, and kill the most, but not usually at personal risk. Any and everywhere they go, they are surrounded by people who are not them. They are outnumbered and if only a small percentage took a hand and backed the sheriff, they are outgunned. Unfortunately, we, the American people have spent more than 70 years training them to believe we will never stand up to them and resist with arms, if necessary. Therefore, issuing threats and/or warnings to them is useless because from their perspective we will do nothing at the end of the day. They may well be right.
Which leads us to the conundrum. If they had a basis upon which to believe us, we could most probably settle the issue peacefully. But since almost a century has gone by with no effective protest or action by us, they feel safe in ignoring any warnings we may make, and history is on the side of their opinion. So while we may desire a peaceful solution, they offer us one. The same one that has won the day for them every time on every issue. The peaceful solution they offer is for us to surrender to their whim again and they won't kill us or imprison us, at least not immediately.
That solution has been accepted by us for so long and so many times that they have no reason to believe it will not be accepted again. Hence, the conundrum, only violence can bring us a peaceful solution. Ironic, isn't it?
When I say the legislature and the sheriffs, the idea is that the sheriff will bring violence to them if and when the law is violated and the legislature will do whatever is necessary to immunize the sheriff and his deputies (permanent and topical) up to and including mobilizing a citizens' militia. This fight cannot be won on paper or in the courts for the other side ignores the law, the constitution, and morality in order to gain their objectives.
So, as I say, I bet on posing.
"It is now time for the Tennessee legislature and the sheriffs in the state to inform the ATF [...]"
The chance of a county Sheriff doing the right thing about the 2A and 10A is about the same as the SCOTUS declaring most of the government unconstitutional. Government doesn't work.
"Government doesn't work"
The organizing principle with the best track record for helping the ordinary man is COMPETITION. Perhaps you should found the "Deacons for Defending Weapons Manufacturing"?
As I've posted elsewhere:
As I understand, SCOTUS has said that requiring an arrest to challenge a law is unfairly burdensome. So it should be possible to file a case on the concept without needing to be arrested.
However, SCOTUS also said, in re: CA marijuana laws, that said legally grown MJ affected the illegal market in other states, that said illegal market was “interstate commerce,” and the Feds had the right, responsibility and interest in controlling it under federal law.
So don’t expect that such a concept as “Made in Montana” legally exists.
Yes, they actually decided that legally grown and distributed pot reduced the demand and price for the illegally grown stuff, and that was a BAD THING.
This particular sovereignty issue is a non-starter. We’ll have to start with something else.
Adding: I know in this state, the state Constitution says the Sheriff is the supreme LEO of the county. City and Sheriff fought it out a couple of years ago. The much smaller sheriff dept won and is in charge.
I believe there was a case in FL of a sheriff arresting DEA agents who refused to consult with him before running their ops.
Whether or not this will matter is a matter of speculation.
Post a Comment