Tennessee Needs This

[AuEagle]

Missouri Bill Would Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

[No_0ne]

1 hour ago, AuEagle said:

Missouri Bill Would Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Nullification has never worked out very well for states attempting it in the past.  Numerous court cases have rejected the theory, attempts to introduce legislation that would effectively nullify federal laws, tariffs, or statutes have been repeatedly shot down by other states, and at one point we fought a war over this, and similar issues.  That didn't turn out too well for the nullifiers either ...

[joe4vol]

Why not? How many states have legalized marijuana when it is illegal on a federal level? It should work the same with guns. 

[JunkiCosmonaut]

I would say nullification works one way but not the other. California can ignore federal immigration laws as they see fit because they know the Republicans will sit on their hands. If tennessee decides to do the same for firearms then the democrats will come down anyway and the Republicans will comply. You'll also hear news stories night after night about how tennessee is a hotbed of criminal activity and gun violence because they don't comply with federal law. The law is not about what is legal its about what you can get away with and I just don't think Republicans, as a political group, have proven they have the gumption to weather the attacks they would face by doing this much less make any real push back against the democrats. If you're playing football your team will not win if they take a knee everytime they get the ball. Republicans hava tendency to get a ball and a clear path and then just take a knee or at random a member of the team starts helping the other team....etc

I may be wrong, this is all based on my opinion and what I've seen. 

[Randall53]

11 minutes ago, joe4vol said:

Why not? How many states have legalized marijuana when it is illegal on a federal level? It should work the same with guns. 

While I agree with the concept, firearms stand in the way of the total control of our lives that the democrats are seeking. Guns are in the way of that and they’ll fight hard to git ‘em gone. That said, anything we can use to make it harder and goes on record as something We The People don’t want and will fight against, has got to be a plus though.

[No_0ne]

17 minutes ago, joe4vol said:

Why not? How many states have legalized marijuana when it is illegal on a federal level? It should work the same with guns. 

I'm not sure that's a good analogy.  It's true that federal authorities have decided, for now at least, not to enforce their statutes on marijuana sales and possession in those states that have legalized it, however should they decide to do so any person charged under federal statutes will receive no leniency based on their state laws.  You can't say the same about gun law enforcement though, witness the recent actions on braces, 80% lowers, etc. In any case, whether it be marijuana or gun law violations, state laws will be irrelevant if you're brought up on federal charges.  I see this Missouri bill much like the "2A sanctuary" laws, mostly fluff ...

[DaveTN]

Its good that this kind of legislation is continuing. But just like the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act or ATF “letters” folks need to go into those things with their eyes wide open.

1 hour ago, joe4vol said:

Why not? How many states have legalized marijuana when it is illegal on a federal level? It should work the same with guns. 

It does work the same way for guns. The difference being is that the Feds have chosen to back-off on pot offenders; but that could change any day, although not likely in the next 4 years. The Feds have made it absolutely clear they will not back-off on firearms offenders. When the TFFA passed, because I hold a C&R, I got a letter from the Feds saying they would prosecute me, or any manufacturers for any violation of Federal law.  

[Daniel]

So did any TN NFA makers take* the state up on its offer to legally make NFA items for in state commerce only?

Edited December 21, 2020 by Daniel
somehow I put "to" instead of "take"... small brain.

[DaveTN]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

So did any TN NFA makers to the state up on its offer to legally make NFA items for in state commerce only?

I never heard of anyone testing it. A manufacturer would immediately be arrested on Federal charges and if they had an FFL, it would be revoked. No firearms manufacturer would risk that.

I’m sure there many machine shops ready and willing to make suppressors, but after the FEDS addressed the issue; that pretty much went by the wayside.

[JunkiCosmonaut]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

So did any TN NFA makers to the state up on its offer to legally make NFA items for in state commerce only?

I knew one guy (unnamed for obvious purposes) claim he wanted to..... he was jokingly reminded that his kids could always visit him in jail and he reconsidered after some more thought.

Edited December 22, 2020 by JunkiCosmonaut

[hipower]

6 hours ago, JunkiCosmonaut said:

I would say nullification works one way but not the other. California can ignore federal immigration laws as they see fit because they know the Republicans will sit on their hands. If tennessee decides to do the same for firearms then the democrats will come down anyway and the Republicans will comply. You'll also hear news stories night after night about how tennessee is a hotbed of criminal activity and gun violence because they don't comply with federal law. The law is not about what is legal its about what you can get away with and I just don't think Republicans, as a political group, have proven they have the gumption to weather the attacks they would face by doing this much less make any real push back against the democrats. If you're playing football your team will not win if they take a knee everytime they get the ball. Republicans hava tendency to get a ball and a clear path and then just take a knee or at random a member of the team starts helping the other team....etc

I may be wrong, this is all based on my opinion and what I've seen. 

Damn...I hate when you make sense! 

I actually do agree with you. 

[Grayfox54]

I think its more about sending a message that the people are fed up with Federal restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. I wish them well. 

[No_0ne]

56 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

I think its more about sending a message that the people are fed up with Federal restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. I wish them well. 

I'm not sure how passing a toothless bill with no legal merit sends a message to anybody, but whatever floats their boat, I guess ...

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Grayfox54 said:

I think its more about sending a message that the people are fed up with Federal restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights. I wish them well. 

But “The People” aren’t fed up with it. If they were; Biden and Harris wouldn’t be preparing to take office. Am I wrong?

[No_0ne]

5 hours ago, DaveTN said:

But “The People” aren’t fed up with it. If they were; Biden and Harris wouldn’t be preparing to take office. Am I wrong?

No.  But then again, it seems that most of "the people" aren't overly concerned one way or another about gun rights.  There are certainly some who are rabid anti-gunners, another few who are fervent supporters of unrestricted gun ownership and the RTBA.  Most fall somewhere in between, and don't spend much time worrying about the subject.  TGO is something of an echo chamber for the pro-2A crowd, but the public as a whole just isn't "all in" in the way that most of us are ...

[Moped]

7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

But “The People” aren’t fed up with it. If they were; Biden and Harris wouldn’t be preparing to take office. Am I wrong?

That vote was not against guns. That vote was against Trump. 

[DaveTN]

9 hours ago, Moped said:

That vote was not against guns. That vote was against Trump. 

So I’m to believe that “The People” hated Trump so much they are willing to give up their AR’s, give up their high capacity magazines and be okay with doing away with private sales without background checks to get rid of him? But those same people now want to “send a message” about their 2nd amendment rights? That doesn’t make sense.

[DaveTN]

11 hours ago, No_0ne said:

No.  But then again, it seems that most of "the people" aren't overly concerned one way or another about gun rights.  There are certainly some who are rabid anti-gunners, another few who are fervent supporters of unrestricted gun ownership and the RTBA.  Most fall somewhere in between, and don't spend much time worrying about the subject.  TGO is something of an echo chamber for the pro-2A crowd, but the public as a whole just isn't "all in" in the way that most of us are ...

I agree. I don’t know what he will get done with AR’s and Hi-cap mags, but that’s why he (or she) will get private sales done away with. Most Americans are okay with that, and a big percentage of them think that is the way it already is. My guess is it will pass, and it will do nothing to reduce violence with guns. However, I’m sure they will manipulate the numbers to show that it is helping. Four years from now when Harris is President and running for a second term; it will be a big democratic talking point about what they got done.

[Moped]

10 hours ago, DaveTN said:

So I’m to believe that “The People” hated Trump so much they are willing to give up their AR’s, give up their high capacity magazines and be okay with doing away with private sales without background checks to get rid of him? But those same people now want to “send a message” about their 2nd amendment rights? That doesn’t make sense.

They weren't thinking about 2A. Most are soft on 2A or could care less.

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, DaveTN said:

So I’m to believe that “The People” hated Trump so much they are willing to give up their AR’s, give up their high capacity magazines and be okay with doing away with private sales without background checks to get rid of him? But those same people now want to “send a message” about their 2nd amendment rights? That doesn’t make sense.

Willing to take the chance I guess.

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I agree. I don’t know what he will get done with AR’s and Hi-cap mags, but that’s why he (or she) will get private sales done away with. Most Americans are okay with that, and a big percentage of them think that is the way it already is. My guess is it will pass, and it will do nothing to reduce violence with guns. However, I’m sure they will manipulate the numbers to show that it is helping. Four years from now when Harris is President and running for a second term; it will be a big democratic talking point about what they got done.

If VP-Elect Harris takes over... Im pretty sure that doesnt count towards her terms in office.

[Daniel]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

If VP-Elect Harris takes over... Im pretty sure that doesnt count towards her terms in office.

"22ND AMENDMENT

Two-Term Limit on Presidency

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."


So I guess it depends on how long.

[Garufa]

18 minutes ago, Daniel said:

"22ND AMENDMENT

Two-Term Limit on Presidency

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."


So I guess it depends on how long.

If Joe’s handlers can keep “Weekend at Biden’s” going until 1year and 364 days left in his term we could have Kamala as President for basically 10 years.

[partypilot1]

There isn’t enough feds, they rely on states to enforce laws. I bet the 2A issue will be the event that separates the states, or at the very least, increase the number of people willing to fight for the country. Liberal states vs patriot states