Tennessee Firearms freedom act?

[ttocswob]

Got my ATF letter re TFFA...really surprised they bothered with sending to C&R's.

IMO - this is just some low level bureaucrat puke trying to justify his position. I may send the letter to my congresscritter, with a request that they de-fund this worthless agency.

[DRM]

I've been away for a while... but has anyone seen mention of anyone testing this law by building - in state, and for their own uses - a suppressor?

[Guest Archminister01]

The fact of the matter comes down to a simple question.."which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you go back and study your history, the STATES made the constitution to help regulate the general matters of the UNION. The STATES created the federal government as a forum with which they originally only met once a year to discuss proper commerce and such to keep everyone on the same page. The federal government was ALWAYS subservient to the STATES unless the STATES came together and voted through proper representation any law that was beneficial to the UNION. The 10th Amendment declares the states individual sovereignty and holds it above anything that the Federal Government declares...after all nothing originally passed as a law in the federal government that didnt get the ok from the STATES. Ben Franklin stated, and I paraphrase, Once they figure out that they can vote themselves money, the system is lost. Well if you look at the current state of affairs on the hill over say the last few decades and maybe more, this is wholly what has happened. If your worried about ATF or anyone else coming in and having their way ..Look first to states that have already gone before us in this mater such as Montana and Arizona and even yes California on the marijuana matter. Its about damn time that the states took back the control that they really always had and never should have let go. In all matter. Todays Federal Government passed the Commerce act many years ago in order to maintain and tighten their control over what the individual states do.

Its amazing to me how ignorant this country has become on how this all started. Heck I watched something the other day where an average citizen could not recite in total the Pledge of Allegiance and yet knew every word to the Mcdonalds Big Mac theme song. Yet most run around and presume that they are politically informed..hahaha.

Well folks this is going to be a fun ride. I for one am glad that TN has jumped on board and given men and women of this state back its rights to do what any of us should be able to do in the first place...regulate our own damn business.

Seriously,,,with the amount of control our current fed government is gaining..how long do you think it will take for it to really enter our homes and what we do inside of them? If a man is king of his castle, then shouldnt a state government be king of its castle?

Ask yourself..why were there individual states to start with...um maybe because they all wanted to do something a little different, which is what the British government wasnt letting them do.. How much different is our current situation from back then? The states always and forever should be the masters of their destinies..

Their is a reason for everything..i am all for a federal government where the states discuss issues to keep them all on the same page...But the states should regulate how each state is run and the laws therein...not anyone else.

You have heard my two cent..lol

[Reservoir Dog]

I've been away for a while... but has anyone seen mention of anyone testing this law by building - in state, and for their own uses - a suppressor?

I haven't heard of anyone, but they would have to be stupid crazy to even try it. Federal law requires an approved Form 1 to manufacture a suppressor, and TN state law still requires all NFA items to be registered on the NFRTR for them to be legal in TN. The TFFA changed none of that, so don't get your hopes up for any sane person to test it.

[DRM]

I haven't heard of anyone, but they would have to be stupid crazy to even try it. Federal law requires an approved Form 1 to manufacture a suppressor, and TN state law still requires all NFA items to be registered on the NFRTR for them to be legal in TN. The TFFA changed none of that, so don't get your hopes up for any sane person to test it.

But the Fed law us contingent upon the interstate commerce (Streeeetched) clause, correct? The basic question here is what grounds does the Fed have to even require you to contact them? Simply saying "we are the Fed and we supersede state law" is not legal justification...

It seems you're using a bit of circular logic in your answer - that we can't because we can't.

[Guest Archminister01]

LOL..my statement though long is simple in content. The states shouldnt have to be accountable to the fed for what happens within the state..even under the commerce act. That deals with interstate commerce. If The states started the federal government then how and when did the states lose the ability to govern itself and why did the roles reverse. The constitution was set up to stop just that from happening. Isnt that why the war with the British happened? To free us from overbearing rule and infringement on the individual rights of men and women. It boggles my mind that even within the ranks of guns rights people on this forum there are some that still are in the mindset that the fed really has jursidiction. I agree with DRM in that the whole sheeple circular logic makes no sense.

[Reservoir Dog]

But the Fed law us contingent upon the interstate commerce (Streeeetched) clause, correct? The basic question here is what grounds does the Fed have to even require you to contact them? Simply saying "we are the Fed and we supersede state law" is not legal justification...

It seems you're using a bit of circular logic in your answer - that we can't because we can't.

Okay, take the federal violation out of the picture. TCA 39-17-1302 still requires that a suppressor be registered on the NFRTR to be legal in TN. Which means that you would still have to have an approved Form 1 for your "Made in TN" suppressor to be legal under state law. Which makes the whole TFFA moot.

I fail to see why people are all excited about the TFFA. It does nothing. It's a joke. However, if you think it is so great, you can be the first test case. Let us know how it turns out for you.

[DaveTN]

I've been away for a while... but has anyone seen mention of anyone testing this law by building - in state, and for their own uses - a suppressor?

I haven’t heard of anyone yet. It would require someone that is prepared to do prison time. That’s not me; I have stuff to do.

[DaveTN]

LOL..my statement though long is simple in content. The states shouldnt have to be accountable to the fed for what happens within the state..even under the commerce act. That deals with interstate commerce. If The states started the federal government then how and when did the states lose the ability to govern itself and why did the roles reverse. The constitution was set up to stop just that from happening. Isnt that why the war with the British happened? To free us from overbearing rule and infringement on the individual rights of men and women. It boggles my mind that even within the ranks of guns rights people on this forum there are some that still are in the mindset that the fed really has jursidiction. I agree with DRM in that the whole sheeple circular logic makes no sense.

"States Rights" is alive and well. It is the reason the 2nd amendment has been battled in court for the last 75 years. You do not have a right to bear arms and you never will unless it comes from the state.

[Guest Archminister01]

Im not saying break the law at the state level. Im just glad as DaveTN stated that states rights are alive and well. The federal government shouldnt have shinola to say about what a state does or doesnt do within its own borders. I agree also that if you try and use this law to buck the system then you deserve what ya get. It isnt a free pass to to whatever you feel. There still has to be some rule of law.

[JayC]

Im not saying break the law at the state level. Im just glad as DaveTN stated that states rights are alive and well. The federal government shouldnt have shinola to say about what a state does or doesnt do within its own borders. I agree also that if you try and use this law to buck the system then you deserve what ya get. It isnt a free pass to to whatever you feel. There still has to be some rule of law.

That was true until the States gave away that right when they ratified the 14th Amendment (and some like would say the 17th Amendment)... They agreed to be bound by the limits of the US Constitution as seen by the US Federal Court system.

I suspect the long running argument DaveTN and I have over the right to bear arms will be addressed in the next two years in Palmer v DC... I suspect in the long run DaveTN will be proved wrong that it will be the federal courts who force the right to bear arms issue.... but I could very well be wrong

[Guest Archminister01]

Well this definitely will be interesting to see how things play out. By the federal court system, I presume that means the supreme court. Last I heard the ATF is not part of the legislative branch. I am going to look up the court case that you referenced. Looks interesting.

[Guest Archminister01]

Umm..i just went back and read the 14th Ammendment...cant seem to find the spot where the states gave away the right to rule themselves under whatever laws the fedral court system deems fit. It is about equal rights and protections from state law. My point has been in this thread is that the federal government ie the atf has no jurisdiction in any state regardling laws that the states pass. federal law should never supercede state laws. The states created and should dictate what the federal government does. After all thats why the federal governemtn was created...as a means for the individual states to represent themselves and coordinate between themselves. I think we have been hitting on two different issues..lol.

[DaveTN]

That was true until the States gave away that right when they ratified the 14th Amendment (and some like would say the 17th Amendment)... They agreed to be bound by the limits of the US Constitution as seen by the US Federal Court system.

I suspect the long running argument DaveTN and I have over the right to bear arms will be addressed in the next two years in Palmer v DC... I suspect in the long run DaveTN will be proved wrong that it will be the federal courts who force the right to bear arms issue.... but I could very well be wrong

It can’t happen. States like California, New York, and Illinois will refuse. The worst war our nation ever fought was over States Rights….. It will not happen again. Can you truly not see that the SCOTUS has dodged this issue? They have had two chances recently to make a decision. Both times they have decided that you have a right to own arms, but the right to bear arms is regulated by the state. Send all the cases you want to the Supreme Court; they will refuse to hear them. If they decide to hear a case that involves them ruling on the right to bear arms it is because they are going to rule the state controls that.

I’m not proud of the fact that I’m right, and I won’t be happy when you are proven wrong. But it just can’t go down any other way. The Federal government does not have the right to force a state to allow its citizens to carry guns.

[Guest Archminister01]

Im lost..are you talking about the TN state constitution? I am hoping so because i just read the 17th ammendment as ti was stated in your post. hat ammendment deals with the election of senators for each state by popular vote?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I thought the idea of incorporating the 2nd Amendment meant that neither federal,state and

local governments could not abridge the 2nd Amendment. That is after that is tested. Just

wondering.

[JayC]

Umm..i just went back and read the 14th Ammendment...cant seem to find the spot where the states gave away the right to rule themselves under whatever laws the fedral court system deems fit. It is about equal rights and protections from state law. My point has been in this thread is that the federal government ie the atf has no jurisdiction in any state regardling laws that the states pass. federal law should never supercede state laws. The states created and should dictate what the federal government does. After all thats why the federal governemtn was created...as a means for the individual states to represent themselves and coordinate between themselves. I think we have been hitting on two different issues..lol.

Well the states largely gave up those rights with a series of amendments between 1865 and 1920... The 14th Amendment basically states (among other things) that rights protected by the Constitution, apply to actions by the State governments, not just the Federal government.

I'm strictly talking about the courts (SCOTUS) imposing 2nd amendment case law on all the states whether they like it or not... DaveTN contends they can't and won't make a ruling that the right to bear arms is covered under the 2nd amendment, and only states will grant access to those god given rights as they see fit...

My argument is they've already started to impose the 2nd amendment (correctly) on the states, with McDonald v Chicago, and the upcoming bear part of the 2nd Amendment in Palmer v DC...

As for the ATF... the solution to that problem won't be popular but is very simple... get rid of the 17th Amendment... Most of the problems involving the Federal government imposing things on the states will go away is very short order.

[JayC]

None of the cases before SCOTUS in the last 100 years has raised the issue of the right to bear arms... On purpose attorney's choose to attack the keep part of the right first... and are just now taking the first bear case through the lower courts.

BTW, my reading of Heller, SCOTUS left the door wide open to there being a right to bear arms, even going so far as to say there are limits on the restrictions placed on where you can have a firearm, although 'sensitive areas' would still be restricted.

We'll have to see how it plays out... the right to keep and bear arms is not given to us by the Constitution nor SCOTUS, but by God... SCOTUS forcing states to allow the right to bear arms is going to be a LOT less painful than SCOTUS ruling that no such right exists.

CA, NY, IL aren't the states to be worried about, TX, AK, TN, AL, AR, MS, etc should concern them a lot more if they rule incorrectly.

It can’t happen. States like California, New York, and Illinois will refuse. The worst war our nation ever fought was over States Rights….. It will not happen again. Can you truly not see that the SCOTUS has dodged this issue? They have had two chances recently to make a decision. Both times they have decided that you have a right to own arms, but the right to bear arms is regulated by the state. Send all the cases you want to the Supreme Court; they will refuse to hear them. If they decide to hear a case that involves them ruling on the right to bear arms it is because they are going to rule the state controls that.

I’m not proud of the fact that I’m right, and I won’t be happy when you are proven wrong. But it just can’t go down any other way. The Federal government does not have the right to force a state to allow its citizens to carry guns.

[JayC]

Im lost..are you talking about the TN state constitution? I am hoping so because i just read the 17th ammendment as ti was stated in your post. hat ammendment deals with the election of senators for each state by popular vote?

Corect before the 17th Amendment, most Senators were chosen by the state legislature... and could be recalled if they voted against the state's interests... The 17th Amendment was the last nail in the coffin of states rights...

[DRM]

Okay, take the federal violation out of the picture. TCA 39-17-1302 still requires that a suppressor be registered on the NFRTR to be legal in TN. Which means that you would still have to have an approved Form 1 for your "Made in TN" suppressor to be legal under state law. Which makes the whole TFFA moot.

When the State legislature gives us conflicting laws - I hardly call it "moot". What it means is, someone needs to write a letter to the SAG for clarification on the contradiction in law. I am wondering why nobody has done this yet, as SAG opinions carry quite a bit of weight on the state level.

[DaveTN]

When the State legislature gives us conflicting laws - I hardly call it "moot". What it means is, someone needs to write a letter to the SAG for clarification on the contradiction in law. I am wondering why nobody has done this yet, as SAG opinions carry quite a bit of weight on the state level.

This isn’t a “state level†issue; it is federal issue. I would be interested to hear the opinion of the USAG on it, but the SAG opinion is really meaningless on Federal weapons charges.

I have a letter on this issue from the Justice Department, so I’m pretty sure what his opinion will be.