TN state rep Faison: unfunding confiscation attempts

[GKar]

Saw this from TN state rep Jeremy Faison today: "I am proud to have introduced legislation today, along with Sen. Frank Niceley, that no state funds or resources will be expended to confiscate firearms should the federal government order such confiscation or limitation. I agree that it is past time for the state governments to reaffirm their parental responsibilities envisioned by our founding fathers over an out of control federal government."

 

I cant link to a bill yet - GA website doesn't have any house bills posted yet, and the Senate version isn't up either.

[mikegideon]

Good!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Very good!

[herr.baer]

I can't wait to move to Tenn. :up: :up:

[Will H]

Good, but not enough imo.  I personally think TN needs to move toward preemptive nullification of additional gun control.  Colorado has already proven with it's marijuana law that the feds will back down when pushed.

[Punisher84]

I'll take it as a very nice first step!

[K191145]

Good, but not enough imo.  I personally think TN needs to move toward preemptive nullification of additional gun control.  Colorado has already proven with it's marijuana law that the feds will back down when pushed.

I give it two thumbs up. We supposably have a law now that makes it illegal for law enforcement to confiscate guns during and after a natural disaster that was passed after the illegal confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, i'm not that familiar with that law. I wonder if it can include or be enhanced that would make it illegal for the state or cities to confiscate guns under any circumstances natural or civil. The feds would have to "attempt" to carry out any confiscations without any assistance from state of city law enforcement.

[Wingshooter]

Good news

[Punisher84]

I give it two thumbs up. We supposably have a law now that makes it illegal for law enforcement to confiscate guns during and after a natural disaster that was passed after the illegal confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, i'm not that familiar with that law. I wonder if it can include or be enhanced that would make it illegal for the state or cities to confiscate guns under any circumstances natural or civil. The feds would have to "attempt" to carry out any confiscations without any assistance from state of city law enforcement.

Realistically that law is already in place, it's the 2A, but I see your point. I think at this point alot of this is posturing, so to speak. it's the states starting to draw little lines in the sand.

[K191145]

Realistically that law is already in place, it's the 2A, but I see your point. I think at this point alot of this is posturing, so to speak. it's the states starting to draw little lines in the sand.

I know it's a shame that we have to make additional laws to protect constitutional rights but that's the reality of the times.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Things like this are very good assertions of 10th Amendment principles and wouldn't be needed if we didn't have that huge

piece of tyranny staring at us right down their barrels. The commie in the White House needs to hear from all states that it is

none of his business interfering in the inner workings of a state by the use of EO's or phony laws abridging other elements of

the Constitution. CT is one of those states, also, but they like to act like the same type of commies as the federal brand, on

most occasions. CT was a useful idiot for Obama.

[JayC]

I give it two thumbs up. We supposably have a law now that makes it illegal for law enforcement to confiscate guns during and after a natural disaster that was passed after the illegal confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, i'm not that familiar with that law. I wonder if it can include or be enhanced that would make it illegal for the state or cities to confiscate guns under any circumstances natural or civil. The feds would have to "attempt" to carry out any confiscations without any assistance from state of city law enforcement.

 

While we do have that law, it has no criminal penalties for violation...  So if a police officer illegally confiscates your firearm the police officer will not face any charges.

 

The best thing we can do is add stiff criminal penalties to these laws, to include a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence for any government official that violates the law.

[gnmwilliams]

I can't wait to move to Tenn. :up: :up:

We'll keep the light on for ya!

[mikegideon]

Things like this are very good assertions of 10th Amendment principles and wouldn't be needed if we didn't have that huge

piece of tyranny staring at us right down their barrels. The commie in the White House needs to hear from all states that it is

none of his business interfering in the inner workings of a state by the use of EO's or phony laws abridging other elements of

the Constitution. CT is one of those states, also, but they like to act like the same type of commies as the federal brand, on

most occasions. CT was a useful idiot for Obama.

 

Let the commie states be what they are. No skin off my 'mater

[Guest MilitiaMan]

Thank God for Tennessee.

[K191145]

While we do have that law, it has no criminal penalties for violation...  So if a police officer illegally confiscates your firearm the police officer will not face any charges.

 

The best thing we can do is add stiff criminal penalties to these laws, to include a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence for any government official that violates the law.

Then there shouldn't be any penalties for anyone who resists illegal confiscations.

[JayC]

Then there shouldn't be any penalties for anyone who resists illegal confiscations.

 

 

I agree with that, and it would seem we do have that in state law today...

 

But, if a police officer or any other public servant violates state law we should be throwing them under the jail....  Why doesn't the law at least include a mandatory prison sentence for violating it?  If you or I violate the law we're put in jail, if the police violate the law nothing happens?

[.357SIG]

Good, but not enough imo.  I personally think TN needs to move toward preemptive nullification of additional gun control.  Colorado has already proven with it's marijuana law that the feds will back down when pushed.

The federal government backed down on when pushed against by the states that made marijuana legal for recreational use. However the government has also pushed back when the firearms freedom act was passed in multiple states. It is hard to speculate how the government will react to legislation that is going against what they want. It is impossible to try to use reason to understand their decisions, because they refuse to use reason in their decision making.

 

I am proud to live in a state that is not afraid to stand up for the constitution!

[GKar]

The bill is HB0010, and is now available on the TN GA website ( http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0010.pdf ). Here's the text:

"SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended by
adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
38-3-124.
( a ) On or after the effective date of this act, no public funds of this state or any
political subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation or
enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that becomes
effective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United States citizen's
ability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state.
( b ) On or after the effective date of this act, no personnel or property of this state
or any political subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation,
regulation or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that
becomes effective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United States
citizen's ability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state unless federal funding
for such implementation, regulation or enforcement is provided to the state or political
subdivision.
( c ) For purposes of this section, "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in §
39-11-106.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring
it." Edited January 10, 2013 by GKar

[Commando68]

I agree with that, and it would seem we do have that in state law today...
 
But, if a police officer or any other public servant violates state law we should be throwing them under the jail....  Why doesn't the law at least include a mandatory prison sentence for violating it?  If you or I violate the law we're put in jail, if the police violate the law nothing happens?

Nifty tools can help. Bolting a bio vault to your floorboard, having a briefcase to quickly secure the pistol helps. Boston's gun bible has some EXCELLENT pointers on this for Obamacommiland travel.

[Commando68]

The bill is HB0010, and is now available on the TN GA website ( http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0010.pdf ). Here's the text:"SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended byadding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:38-3-124.( a ) On or after the effective date of this act, no public funds of this state or anypolitical subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation orenforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that becomeseffective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United States citizen'sability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state.( b ) On or after the effective date of this act, no personnel or property of this stateor any political subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation,regulation or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation thatbecomes effective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United Statescitizen's ability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state unless federal fundingfor such implementation, regulation or enforcement is provided to the state or politicalsubdivision.( c ) For purposes of this section, "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in §39-11-106.SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiringit."

I liked this all the way up until I reached the word "unless". Any thoughts?

[Oh Shoot]

I liked this all the way up until I reached the word "unless". Any thoughts?

 

Just means the fed has to pay for it. Which just means you and I pay for it.

 

Oh course, the fed just has to deny any funding to the state they choose, too. That's its first hammer for compliance to federal statutes.

 

The fact that they haven't done it regarding the various pot legal states is just their choice for selective enforcement, just like on illegal immigration.

 

- OS

[jdogvol]

I liked this all the way up until I reached the word "unless". Any thoughts?

Agree. I read this to mean that the feds can commandeer every law enforcement official in Tennessee to assist with their confiscation efforts as long as they foot the bill.  Would be much stronger in there were a period (.) after "state" and everything from "unless" forward was stricken from the bill.

[JohnC]

Reads like this law only says the feds can't do anything unless the funding for it comes from the feds.

Am I correctly interpreting this?

[Chief07]

Saw this from TN state rep Jeremy Faison today: "I am proud to have introduced legislation today, along with Sen. Frank Niceley, that no state funds or resources will be expended to confiscate firearms should the federal government order such confiscation or limitation. I agree that it is past time for the state governments to reaffirm their parental responsibilities envisioned by our founding fathers over an out of control federal government."

 

I cant link to a bill yet - GA website doesn't have any house bills posted yet, and the Senate version isn't up either.

Amen Brother!

Tennessee will not tolerate tyranny by the federal government.