Tennessee house bill to push back against gun legislation

[dcloudy777]

I doubt that it was intentional, but this bill as written would also protect short-barreled rifles and shotguns, as long as they're semiauto...

[Blitzen]

Working on it.

[Volzfan]

Rep. Carr is getting a lot of corrospondence urging him to change the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. His response has been that he could do that but it may not have as much of a chance of passing. I hope he changes it to put some real teeth into the bill.

Come out and meet Rep. Carr Saturday. For more info  http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/58837-anyone-care-to-meet-rep-joe-carr-saturday-morning/

[Guest sreksuhn]

Will do first thing in AM. Tennessee don't wanna be first, but she don't wanna be last. Sometimes though, I think to myself, "Let's just freakin have it out already!"

[Guest sreksuhn]

I will NOT comply.

Nuff said

[.357SIG]

I doubt that it was intentional, but this bill as written would also protect short-barreled rifles and shotguns, as long as they're semiauto...

 

If this is the case it will also cover suppressors since they are an accessory.

 

I could be wrong but I don't think this would cover them since the laws regulating these items were in place prior to this bill becoming law?

[K191145]

I will NOT comply.

 

Thinking about a cool t-shirt, [b]just in case.[/b] It will say, "FELON and DAMN PROUD OF IT" 

[klamb5]

Done but I think it should be a felony like some of the other states put some teeth it.

[DaveTN]

Someone help me out here.  I fully support this but my understanding is federal law trumps state law.  If this bill is passed I don't know how it can be enforced. 

It can’t be enforced. But it is taking action. It lets the President know that the state legislature does not support this action, but more importantly it will let the SCOTUS know where the states stand when they are looking at all these cases.

 

I support this bill. However, I do not support arresting Federal agents and would do anything I could to help get them released. This is about unlawful legislation and executive orders, if you can’t arrest Obama or impeach him; you can’t arrest them. Obama is not a fugitive or protected from the legislative branch of government. I refuse to let him turn Americans against Americans. If he committed a crime get a warrant or impeach him, but leave that non-sense out about arresting Federal agents.

Edited January 18, 2013 by DaveTN

[mav]

It can’t be enforced. But it is taking action. It lets the President know that the state legislature does not support this action, but more importantly it will let the SCOTUS know where the states stand when they are looking at all these cases.

 

I support this bill. However, I do not support arresting Federal agents and would do anything I could to help get them released. This is about unlawful legislation and executive orders, if you can’t arrest Obama or impeach him; you can’t arrest them. Obama is not a fugitive or protected from the legislative branch of government. I refuse to let him turn Americans against Americans. If he committed a crime get a warrant or impeach him, but leave that non-sense out about arresting Federal agents.

 

It lets the SCOTUS know where the states stand on an issue?  That is meaningless.  It certainly had no effect on declaring Obamacare constitutional even though the majority of the states were against it.

 

If you do not support the arresting of federal agents when they have violated TN law, then you do not support this bill.  Without the use of any punitive action, this bill would be meaningless.

 

If the President enacted an AWB via executive order, that is an impeachable offense.  He has no authority under the Constitution to do so.  Fast and Furious was an impeachable offense.  Misusing Tarp and bailout funds by sending them to your political buddies is an impeachable offense.  I could go on and on listing the transgressions of Obama, and all of them are impeachable offenses.  Why then hasn't he been impeached?  He is protected by his cronies in the legislative branch and a sympathetic media.

 

This political action's intent is not to turn Americans against other Americans.  This is simply the people and the states exercising their Tenth Ammendment rights.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

This is about states declaring that they will not accept unconstitutional dictates from a tyrannical federal government, and they will protect their citizen's rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution.  If anyone is the aggressor in this battle, it is clearly the federal government.

 

Just to note, if Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President signs it, and it is upheld by the SCOTUS because the President has packed it with activists from his side of the aisle doesn't mean the law is now constitutional.  The SCOTUS are not the final arbiters of what is or what is not constitutional.  That is the state's responsibility, otherwise you would have no checks and balances and the federal government could dictate how it pleases.

[ttocswob]

If you do not support the arresting of federal agents when they have violated TN law, then you do not support this bill.  Without the use of any punitive action, this bill would be meaningless.

 

QFT

[Randall53]

Just finished sending a letter to all of my reps.

[Randall53]

[quote name="mav" post="888700" timestamp="1358519966"]Just to note, if Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President signs it, and it is upheld by the SCOTUS because the President has packed it with activists from his side of the aisle doesn't mean the law is now constitutional.  The SCOTUS are not the final arbiters of what is or what is not constitutional.  That is the state's responsibility, otherwise you would have no checks and balances and the federal government could dictate how it pleases.[/quote] I was having this exact discussion the other day with someone. I asked how could a judicial body of 9 people, the ones who now vote their party line no matter what, be corrected? What is the checks and balances to such a powerful group of people? Take the last two justices that's lied through their teeth during confirmation hearings when asked about gun control. Justice Sotomayor, during her 2009 hearings claimed fidelity to the "Heller" precedent recognizing an individual right to bear arms saying it was "settled law". What happens in 2010 when the "McDonald" case regarding that individual right came before the Court? She voted with her three liberal, activist colleagues against it. Elena Kagan used the exact same words "settled law" in her hearings, though she is a supporter of Gun Control and was supported by the Brady Center during confirmation. Four of them are currently in their mid to late 70's? I just hope Obama will get no more appointments.

[Hozzie]

AND.... here is a response, IF YOU CALL IT ONE, from my state Rep, Glen Casada,

 

Thank you for your letter and your defense of our second amendment.  I, like you,

do not support limiting the rights of law abiding citizens to protect ourselves.
Sincerely
Glen Casada
 

 

 

I have been emailing Rep. Casada for quite some time.  This was his response to my email today about HB0042.  It's short, but to the point.  We just need to make sure they all stick to it.

 

 

Hi Jamie,

I will be voting for Joe Cars bill as well!

sincerely

glen casada

[Commando68]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0042.pdf
Start writing and calling folks. We need this!! Pass this far and wide!

Oh yes. Good stuff. However, the penalty for a federal Ork, gun confiscating traitorous pig should be more harsh than a misdemeanor. How abou a minimum of 10 years hard labor? That is a start. I hope this passes. Also, since all cards are on the table, we should push to eliminate NFA 34 and the gun control act of 68 on a state level. WHY NOT? He'll, lets get aggressive and live by the law of the land for a change. The constitution.

[SlapChopDonkey]

Sent. Also sent an email to my state senator, asking him to support the bill if it passes the house.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It can’t be enforced. But it is taking action. It lets the President know that the state legislature does not support this action, but more importantly it will let the SCOTUS know where the states stand when they are looking at all these cases.

 

I support this bill. However, I do not support arresting Federal agents and would do anything I could to help get them released. This is about unlawful legislation and executive orders, if you can’t arrest Obama or impeach him; you can’t arrest them. Obama is not a fugitive or protected from the legislative branch of government. I refuse to let him turn Americans against Americans. If he committed a crime get a warrant or impeach him, but leave that non-sense out about arresting Federal agents.

Well, it's obvious where you stand on this. :D

 

Agents are agents of something. Saying if someone can't be impeached for unlawful acts and using that to justify allowing

agents of government to perform unlawful acts doesn't make sense to me. If you have a tyrannical action being committed

against a sovereign state within, from federal agents who got their marching orders from someone like, let's say Hitler, and

afterwards at a certain trial those agents were found guilty of crimes/atrocities. See where I'm going, DaveTN? Now, if you just

laud the federal government and trust everything they do, you might be fine with that, but again we differ.

 

It may just get to the point of this kind of thing being necessary, if you wish to see the Constitution remain. I certainly do.

[K191145]

Well, it's obvious where you stand on this. :D

Agents are agents of something. Saying if someone can't be impeached for unlawful acts and using that to justify allowing
agents of government to perform unlawful acts doesn't make sense to me. If you have a tyrannical action being committed
against a sovereign state within, from federal agents who got their marching orders from someone like, let's say Hitler, and
afterwards at a certain trial those agents were found guilty of crimes/atrocities. See where I'm going, DaveTN? Now, if you just
laud the federal government and trust everything they do, you might be fine with that, but again we differ.

It may just get to the point of this kind of thing being necessary, if you wish to see the Constitution remain. I certainly do.

In the 60's when southern juries failed to convict KKK members for murder of blacks and jewish and white protesters, the federal government stepped in and charged and convicted them with violating the murder victims constitutional and civil rights, IMO, in that case I agree with the feds and at least some justice was served.

Federal agents are no more immune to justice and arrest than any other individual citizen for violating a persons civil rights. It doesn't matter if they were following orders to commit an illegal act, they are just as guilty fo carrying it out. If anyone can excuse or thinks the feds have immunity for violating an innocent persons constitutional rights then they personally have already been defeated. Edited January 22, 2013 by K191145

[Chucktshoes]

If anyone can excuse or thinks the feds have immunity for violating an innocent persons constitutional rights then they personally have already been defeated.

In this particular case, that hasn't been in question for quite a while.


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams Edited January 22, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[K191145]

Now some legislators in Missouri are proposing a bill to arrest and charge any feds who violate a citizens 2nd amendment rights with a class D felony.


I believe that's 12 or 13 states proposing these bills now. 13 states and we have a new Confederacy don't we? :) Edited January 22, 2013 by K191145

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's getting there. Good number. I hope it triples, also. :D

[K191145]

That's getting there. Good number. I hope it triples, also. :D

Of course the bills are just proposed right now but it is sending a message. I fired off another e-mail to Mary Littleton yesterday urging her to support HB0042.

BTW, this really is turning out to be a confederacy of states in a way, confederacy just means an alliance or league. You can have a confederacy without succeding from the country. The good ol Stars and Stripes will always fly higher than any other flag I may fly someday.

[DaveTN]

I wise cop taught me that you don’t make a threat you can’t back-up.

Obama wants to destroy this country. What better way than to turn Americans against each other. Don’t let it happen, no cops are going to jail for enforcing the law. If you can’t put Obama in jail or impeach him; those laws have no teeth.

This stuff is as stupid as when the Tennessee legislature threatened to ticket New York drivers; what a sham, they should be ashamed.(Not of the refusal to enforce, but the threat of arresting Federal Agents; thats ridiculous.)

[K191145]

I wise cop taught me that you don’t make a threat you can’t back-up.

Obama wants to destroy this country. What better way than to turn Americans against each other. Don’t let it happen, no cops are going to jail for enforcing the law. If you can’t put Obama in jail or impeach him; those laws have no teeth.

This stuff is as stupid as when the Tennessee legislature threatened to ticket New York drivers; what a sham, they should be ashamed.(Not of the refusal to enforce, but the threat of arresting Federal Agents; thats ridiculous.)

If anyone can excuse or thinks the feds have immunity for violating an innocent persons constitutional rights then they personally have already been defeated.

[Hozzie]

I wise cop taught me that you don’t make a threat you can’t back-up.

Obama wants to destroy this country. What better way than to turn Americans against each other. Don’t let it happen, no cops are going to jail for enforcing the law. If you can’t put Obama in jail or impeach him; those laws have no teeth.

This stuff is as stupid as when the Tennessee legislature threatened to ticket New York drivers; what a sham, they should be ashamed.(Not of the refusal to enforce, but the threat of arresting Federal Agents; thats ridiculous.)

Who says it's a threat and we can't back it up?  That's your interpretation.  It may even be based on some previous decisions you think are valid, but until the Supreme Court says we can't, we can in my opinion and we should do so.  This isn't a personal matter where I like the guy trying to take my guns so I give him a pass.  I am in agreement  that most of the Federal agents are good men doing their job, but that doesn't mean that we should just let them do something we think is wrong and against the constitution.   

 

I suspect none of us are constitutional scholars and even if you are, your opinion doesn't matter anymore than mine.  Until the Supreme Court eventually decides the matter, all we have is opinions.  Until then, I say Tennessee and every other state with like minded people should make it as hard as possible to enforce something we consider to be illegal and unconstitutional should it even happen.  We need to stand on principle of right vs. wrong, not he/she is just doing their job. Many  fine Germans were just doing their job, but that didn't and shouldn't have made them any less of a target.  They represented what was wrong, even if they didn't agree with it.  They were contributing to and enforcing an illegal act.  There is a process for this to be decided and it needs to run its course.  That starts with States saying we believe this is unconstitutional, we will not comply, and anyone trying to enforce these unconstitutional laws will be arrested.   

 

We shouldn't NOT do it because we think it will get rejected.  

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hozzie