ATF KILLS TN FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT!

[DaveTN]

The next step from them does not matter. The next step from the state is what’s important.

If the ATF arrests a Tennessean that buys a suppressor made here is the state going to step in and release them and drop the charges? I don’t think they could if they wanted to (Federal charges) and I wouldn’t want to be the poor guy trying it to find out.

<O:p</O:p

And who are they going to buy it from? The Feds would revoke the license of both the manufacturer and the dealer. Which they have an absolute right to do since it is a Federal License.

<O:p</O:p

Does it bother me as a Tennessean? Not really. What will bother me is if the state doesn’t address that letter before someone gets crucified because they believed the state has the horse power to back this up.

<O:p</O:p

The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act has nothing to do with anything except firearms. You can make all the 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment and States Rights arguments you want to, but I want to see decisions on this act specifically.

[Guest GunTroll]

"From them" I mean what else will they do besides this blatant disrespect for your laws/ this bill specifically. I understand its the states ball on this topic.

[Guest Jcochran88]

So what If you make your own? Then what?

[Jasongar8]

So what If you make your own? Then what?

You will spend thousands if not millions of dollars trying to keep yourself out of jail. And prob. still end up in Federal prison. What a lot of people dont understand is that the government will out spend anyone, they dont have a budget, they will fight it out in court until the end.

-Jason G

[DaveTN]

Why does the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act specifically exclude full auto weapons? The same state law that prohibits machine guns also prohibits suppressors. (Unless registered under Federal law)

Would it really be a good thing or would it just be a state agency you make the check out to?

Edited July 19, 2009 by DaveTN

[Jasongar8]

Why does the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act specifically exclude full auto weapons? The same state law that prohibits machine guns also prohibits suppressors. (Unless registered under Federal law)

Would it really be a good thing or would it just be a state agency you make the check out to?

I would guess because the manufacture of new full auto weapons for civilians was banned by the feds in 1986 but the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Where suppressors, sbr's, sbs's, and aow's have been regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1934. But no further regulations have been put on them as far as new manufacture either by a company or a individual (by doing a form 1).

-Jason G

Edited July 19, 2009 by Jasongar8

[Guest SUNTZU]

I'm just waiting for them to up the tax from $200 to the same spread back in 1934 between $200 and a $10 or $20 shotgun.

Tax man: "If this piece of steel is shorter than 18", then by God, boy, you're gonna pay. If the stock is too short, I'm hauling you in, and if the overall length of this shotgun isn't long enough, we'll bury you under the cell."

Gunowner: "Do what?"

Ron Jeremy: "Take it!"

"They say that if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish...then he has to get a license, but he doesn't have any money, so he has to get a job, then get into the social security system and pay taxes, and then he'll get audited and the IRS will show up and take all your stuff and it all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on you, all because you didn't carry the one because you were worried about eating a fish, and you couldn't cook the fish because you didn't have a permit for an open flame, and then the EPA is asking you all kinds of questions about where you are going to dump the scales and guts because THIS ISN'T A SANITARY ENVIRONMENT, and at the end of the day, if you're sick of it all, its illegal to even kill yourself." - Doug Stanhope

[DaveTN]

I would guess because the manufacture of new full auto weapons for civilians was banned by the feds in 1986 but the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Where suppressors, sbr's, sbs's, and aow's have been regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1934. But no further regulations have been put on them as far as new manufacture either by a company or a individual (by doing a form 1).

-Jason G

But full auto weapons are still manufactured. What part of the Constitution either allows the Feds to regulate them or bans the state from doing so?

[Jasongar8]

But full auto weapons are still manufactured. What part of the Constitution either allows the Feds to regulate them or bans the state from doing so?

They are not manufactured for civilians, they havent been since May 1986.

-Jason G

[DaveTN]

They are not manufactured for civilians, they havent been since May 1986.

-Jason G

I understand that. My not trying to argue with you; I’m trying to understand why that would make a difference to those arguing the 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment.

[Guest MattCollins]

I have written a blog about this:

Campaign For Liberty — ATF to TN: Firearms Freedom Law Is Invalid

There are others too:

The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution|Tenth Amendment Center

and

Rebellion Blog

I will get this in front of several radio show hosts tomorrow including Phil Valentine, Ralph Bristol, Mike Church, Steve Gill, and Judge Napolitano. It's time to try to get this to be a mainstream issue.

Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman and I are having a public discussion on this issue here:http://www.facebook.com/LibertyMatt

Also I have sent an e-mail to Sen Beavers and Lt Gov Ron Ramsey to see if they have any thoughts on the issue.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I have written a blog about this:

Campaign For Liberty — ATF to TN: Firearms Freedom Law Is Invalid

There are others too:

The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution|Tenth Amendment Center

and

Rebellion Blog

I will get this in front of several radio show hosts tomorrow including Phil Valentine, Ralph Bristol, Mike Church, Steve Gill, and Judge Napolitano. It's time to try to get this to be a mainstream issue.

Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman and I are having a public discussion on this issue here:Log In | Facebook

Also I have sent an e-mail to Sen Beavers and Lt Gov Ron Ramsey to see if they have any thoughts on the issue.

Great news!

[Guest MattCollins]

It's starting to go mainstream:

ATF Declares Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Null And Void : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

[Guest mustangdave]

No offense guys, but this is going to end badly for us (as far as this particular issue) in the long run/big picture of Federal vs. State - 10th Amendment. It will be spun by the left and ruled against by SCOTUS as another "Sensible Control".

After reading the 10th Ammendment...here's my take...the FED walks all over the states in a lot of matters. IF the state DOES NOT prohibit the FED from taking a specific action it will do so without regard to the STATES or peoples desires. I see this probably going to the SCOTUS...the Fed is again trampling on STATES RIGHTS

[Tim Nunan]

Montana FFl's got the same letter: <!--StartFragment -->http://www.atf.gov/firearms/071709-montana-openletter.pdf

[Guest GunTroll]

Can you say TN,MT vs US ?

[pegasusrider]

tngunowners was mentioned here

The Right Side of Life States’ Rights Update: FL and AK on Sovereignty; Firearms and the ATF

[pegasusrider]

And another mention here...

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan

[G27]

More here: Obama Administration Takes Aim At Gun-Rights Revolt - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Guest Courageous Lion]

OK, here is the problem...A federal firearms license is a license to do something that would otherwise be illegal. If you join in with that scam then you are regulatred by it. If the FFL guys would all rescind their FFL's then claim protection under the Tennessee law, that would be different. The other point is this...the state of Tennessee has placed no TEETH behind the law. If they were to declare that the law was in force and effect and tell the Feds that they are now evoking the MILITIA act and starting a state militia THEN the Feds would seriously sit up and take notice because if the other 36 states that have been passing sovereignty resolutions did the same, what could the Feds do? The guy who stands under TN law and then the local sheriff arrests anyone trying to screw with him from the ATF...see where this could head? The problem is that the STATE OF TN leaders need to put some TEETH in the law and then well...I guess we can start putting the Fed back at our feet where it started. We also need the states to INSIST that Gold and Silver coin be put back into circulation and NOW WE THE PEOPLE would control the economy.

[towerclimber37]

AAAaaand another mention here.

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan

I've been following this as closely as the rest of you guys. I can only hope that the legislators of Tennessee will actually stand up and say enough is enough, and give our 10th amendment rights some backbone.

[DaveTN]

If the FFL guys would all rescind their FFL's then claim protection under the Tennessee law, that would be different.

They would be broke. They could not sell most guns made.

what could the Feds do? The guy who stands under TN law and then the local sheriff arrests anyone trying to screw with him from the ATF...

Well…. The Feds would take the guy into custody. If the Sheriff tried to stop them (Which isn’t going to happen) he would be arrested also.

The Feds aren’t going to do anything crazy and neither is local law enforcement.

What you believe is exactly what was being discussed on the floor when they voted on thus… Someone is going to think this is the law and the state will protect them; the state can't and they will end up in Federal prison.

<O:p</O:p

see where this could head?

No where. No one is going to do anything.

<O:p</O:p

Don’t believe me? Watch your out of control Socialist President tonight tell you that he thinks everyone has a right to health care and that he has decided you need to pay for it.

And you know what? No one will do anything.

<O:p</O:p

[Guest redbarron06]

Well…. The Feds would take the guy into custody. If the Sheriff tried to stop them (Which isn’t going to happen) he would be arrested also.

The Feds aren’t going to do anything crazy and neither is local law enforcement.

They cant take the entire National Guard into custody.

ohh wait that would take the signature or our spinless govna' now wouldnt it.

[Chief07]

The ATF is using a perverted definition on the Commerce clause to assert authority it does not have.

They know better, but who in government is going to say anything.

It is just more of a power grab. It must be challanged in the Supreme Court to stop

Congress from aquiring power it does not have under the Constitution.

Buy'em cheap and bury'em deep.

[Guest CXDMG]

Something like this got tried before, in the 1860's, and brought on the War of Yankee Aggression. The FEDS will maintain the Union, no matter what the cost. I believe if we push it, the same thing will happen again, just for different issues. And maybe that is OK.

Our "messiah's" goverment has learned to not listen to the people or what the people want just look at the way that are treating the people who oppose them in the town hall meetings on obama care. They are labeled as mobs or people organized by the "BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES". In realaity the goverment for the people by the people is coming to a close unless the PEOPLE do not stand up for our rights.

The civil was about states rights not the freedom of slaves, and I think that it will have happen again,(I pray that it doesn't) for the peole the retain any rights not just the right to bear arms