TN Firearms Freedoms Act

[whitewolf001]

Can someone please explain to me the true meaning behind this law. While I understand the wording it IS slightly confusing, in my understanding it seems for instance; does this trump NFA or Federal laws pertaining class 3 or NFA items so long as they're made here? I apologize for my incompetence but sometimes getting a third party perspective is the best way to comprehend a law.

[Caster]

Even if it passes here it will be worth less than the paper it was written on. The Feds, namely the ATF will NOT relinquish control. Bet on it.

[whitewolf001]

4-54-107. 

 (a) The general assembly declares that any federal action prohibited by 

this chapter relating to firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, whether 

made in Tennessee or not, is not authorized by the United States constitution 

and violates the restrictions contained therein and is hereby declared to be 

invalid in this state; that said federal action shall not be recognized by this state; 

and that said federal action is rejected by this state and shall be null and void and 

of no effect in this state. 

 (b) Any federal action shall be deemed an intentional violation of state 

sovereignty and shall be unenforceable within the borders of Tennessee if the 

federal action does or attempts to: 

 (1) Infringe on, ban, regulate, or restrict state government, local 

government or civilian ownership, transfer, possession or manufacture of 

a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition in this state; 

 (2) Require any state government, local government or civilian 

owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition in this state to be 

registered or tracked in any manner; or 

 (3) Impose federal taxes, fees or any other charges on any state 

government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm 

accessory, or ammunition that are payable to any government entity. 

 (c) No public official, employee, or agent of this state or any of its political 

subdivisions shall: (1) Act to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any penalty in 

this state that violates the public policy set forth in this section; or 

 (2) Cooperate with or assist with the enforcement of federal 

action prohibited by this chapter. 

 SECTION 6. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 54, is amended by adding 

the following language as a new section: 

 4-54-108. 

 (a) It is an offense for any person to knowingly enforce or attempt to 

enforce any federal action prohibited by this chapter relating to a state 

government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory or 

ammunition. 

[Reservoir Dog]

...does this trump NFA or Federal laws pertaining class 3 or NFA items so long as they're made here?

 

No, it does not.  TCA 39-17-1302 still requires all NFA items to be properly registered on the NFRTR.

 

The TN FFA is nothing more than "feel-good" law passed by the legislature, just to thumb our noses at the Feds.  It really does nothing, and means nothing, to existing laws.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Reservoir Dog

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's true, but sentiment starts things, even if it takes decades for people to start pushing back. One of these days, if everyone

hasn't put the shackles on themselves, we will see strange things happen that don't seem likely right now.

[Reservoir Dog]

That's true, but sentiment starts things, even if it takes decades for people to start pushing back. One of these days, if everyone

hasn't put the shackles on themselves, we will see strange things happen that don't seem likely right now.

 

Agreed.  There are some things in the law that I like......specifically like prohibiting state/local govts from assisting the Feds with their schemes.

 

However, the other stuff about prohibiting federal taxes, federal registration/tracking or criminalizing people (Fed agents) from enforcing these federal laws, is just laughable.  The state has no control over that, and it just gives people the impression that this law has teeth, when actually is does not.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Reservoir Dog

[MacGyver]

With the Supreme Court declining to hear Gary Marbut's case last week, the current state of the TN Firearms Freedom bill is unfortunately little more than a nice sentiment.

[RobertNashville]

I believe, based on the recent SCOTUS decision not to hear a case on a similar law in Montana (leaving intact the lower court's decisions that the law is invalid) any such law in any other state is now worthless as well.

 

I may be wrong on that but that's my initial understanding.

 

http://www.kxlh.com/news/u-s-supreme-court-won-t-hear-montana-firearms-freedom-case/

[Oh Shoot]

Even if it passes here it will be worth less than the paper it was written on. The Feds, namely the ATF will NOT relinquish control. Bet on it.

 

It passed 2 or 3 years ago.

 

With the Supreme Court declining to hear Gary Marbut's case last week, the current state of the TN Firearms Freedom bill is unfortunately little more than a nice sentiment.

 

Yeah, although the decision was only about Montana's "firearm freedom" law, unless SCOTUS decides to hear a similar one that works its way up from another state, I'd posit that precedent is now set solidly enough for the feds to continue their firearm enforcement unabated. Would take physical force on part of the state to attempt to enforce any of them.

 

- OS

[MacGyver]

Unless someone decides to "test" it, or someone with deep pockets decides to fund a case like Mr. Marbut's, it's hard to see a lot of difference between Montana and Tennessee.

 

That said, with 8 states having passed the law, and 25 more states having introduced bills, it may not be a dead cause.  I sure don't expect it to play out anytime soon, though.  It's going to take them some time to find another horse.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Until a state or two decides to assert the Constitution and quit relying on SCOTUS to do the just thing.

[GlockSpock]

Unless someone decides to "test" it, or someone with deep pockets decides to fund a case like Mr. Marbut's, it's hard to see a lot of difference between Montana and Tennessee.

 

That said, with 8 states having passed the law, and 25 more states having introduced bills, it may not be a dead cause.  I sure don't expect it to play out anytime soon, though.  It's going to take them some time to find another horse.

 

Sure...I understand that your heavier populated areas have much more representation than your more sparingly populated areas, but if that many states have already passed them and there are that many more that have at least introduced bills, perhaps someday something can indeed be done at the national level. It'd take a different political climate, that's for sure. 

[Oh Shoot]

Sure...I understand that your heavier populated areas have much more representation than your more sparingly populated areas, but if that many states have already passed them and there are that many more that have at least introduced bills, perhaps someday something can indeed be done at the national level. It'd take a different political climate, that's for sure. 

 

I'm sure we can loosen firearm restrictions under Hillary's regime.

 

- OS

[sigmtnman]

So, medical marijuana laws faced the same argument.  How have those states been successful in evading the feds?  Soon after those laws were passed the citizens of those states said F you to the .gov.

 

I'm surprised that we don't have as big of balls in the firearm community.

 

Although, I reckon most of those supporters were probably breaking the law before and really didn't care?

Edited March 4, 2014 by sigmtnman

[Oh Shoot]

So, medical marijuana laws faced the same argument. ..

 

Medical hell, Now there simple legalization in two states and decriminalization in 12 or 13 more. While federal law is still unchanged, though it conflicts with all these, yet is unenforced by choice.

 

Good analogy showing the hypocrisy of selective federal enforcement between that and federal firearm laws, Sig.

 

- OS

[sigmtnman]

Medical hell, Now there simple legalization in two states and decriminalization in 12 or 13 more. While federal law is still unchanged, though it conflicts with all these, yet is unenforced by choice.

 

Good analogy showing the hypocrisy of selective federal enforcement between that and federal firearm laws, Sig.

 

- OS

 

Would the selective enforcement give us some sort of option to pursue?  Is there any precedence for that sort of thing?

[Oh Shoot]

Would the selective enforcement give us some sort of option to pursue?  Is there any precedence for that sort of thing?

 

As far as making unlawful behavior lawful simply because it is selectively or rarely enforced -- I don't know of any famous precedent myself. Perhaps prohibition is sort of in that realm, where you basically had such widespread non compliance with the law, but it still took an amendment to change it back.

 

Perhaps you could punish those who don't enforce it would be about it, but that would I suppose take impeachment on federal level.

 

- OS

Edited March 4, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[whitewolf001]

Interesting points here gents, thanks for the clarification. ^_^

[Guest copperhead_1911]

Even if it passes here it will be worth less than the paper it was written on. The Feds, namely the ATF will NOT relinquish control. Bet on it.

True but if enough states follow suit they might realize they are too big for their britches.

 

Look how prohibition turned out.

[TrickyNicky]

True but if enough states follow suit they might realize they are too big for their britches.
 
Look how prohibition turned out.

This X1000

Medical marijuana wasn't always so easy. People went to jail/prison for what they were doing. The difference between now and then has a bit to do with the administration not choosing to enforce federal law, it's got more to do IMO with the millions of people who "kept calm and smoked on" if you will.

We CAN put the power back in the states hands, but it might mean being ok with criminal status and all the fun prizes that go with that. A price most are (reasonably so) unwilling to pay. It also means that more states have to pass similar laws and the people of those states must also be comfortable with being criminals. You can't just pass a state law that defies federal law and expect it to just protect you. You have to work at it and exercise that law every chance you get. And if course, someone has to be first, both on an individual level and a state wide level.



Long story short, you want the Tn firearms freedom act to actually mean something in 10 years, start getting arrested today.






Of course, IANAL, this is nothing even close to legal advice, I do NOT recommend violation of any state or federal laws. Even the stupid ones.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's a pitiful way to get a law changed, but it may be the only way.

[DaveTN]

Long story short, you want the Tn firearms freedom act to actually mean something in 10 years, start getting arrested today.
Of course, IANAL, this is nothing even close to legal advice, I do NOT recommend violation of any state or federal laws. Even the stupid ones

I thought if I was arrested for having a gun in my car I would fight it on 2nd amendment grounds. That was way up there with the stupidest things I have done in my life. But it made it crystal clear to me I don’t have a right to bear arms.

There is a whole lot of difference on being arrested for a misdemeanor pot or gun charge and a Federal weapons charge. Federal prison time…. Thanks, but I’ll pass.
 
I wouldn’t read too much into the SCOTUS not hearing a case; it doesn’t mean they agree with the lower court. They will have 10K cases submitted a year; they will hear under 100 of those.

The TFFA was passed into law in 2009; I’m not sure why it hasn’t been challenged in court yet unless it requires someone being charged to challenge it? As a C&R license holder I got a letter from the BATF that said they do not recognize it.

[sigmtnman]

when the marijuana laws first passed the people who were being arrested were arrested at the federal level for selling and distributing.

put that in your pipe and smoke it. Edited March 5, 2014 by sigmtnman

[TrickyNicky]

I thought if I was arrested for having a gun in my car I would fight it on 2nd amendment grounds. That was way up there with the stupidest things I have done in my life. But it made it crystal clear to me I don’t have a right to bear arms.There is a whole lot of difference on being arrested for a misdemeanor pot or gun charge and a Federal weapons charge. Federal prison time…. Thanks, but I’ll pass.  I wouldn’t read too much into the SCOTUS not hearing a case; it doesn’t mean they agree with the lower court. They will have 10K cases submitted a year; they will hear under 100 of those.The TFFA was passed into law in 2009; I’m not sure why it hasn’t been challenged in court yet unless it requires someone being charged to challenge it? As a C&R license holder I got a letter from the BATF that said they do not recognize it.

Sigmtman is correct. Felony charges abounded there as well.

@6.8, you won't get any argument from me, its stupid, reckless and dangerous. It also happens to be working...

[whitewolf001]

I thought if I was arrested for having a gun in my car I would fight it on 2nd amendment grounds. That was way up there with the stupidest things I have done in my life. But it made it crystal clear to me I don’t have a right to bear arms.

There is a whole lot of difference on being arrested for a misdemeanor pot or gun charge and a Federal weapons charge. Federal prison time…. Thanks, but I’ll pass.
 
I wouldn’t read too much into the SCOTUS not hearing a case; it doesn’t mean they agree with the lower court. They will have 10K cases submitted a year; they will hear under 100 of those.

The TFFA was passed into law in 2009; I’m not sure why it hasn’t been challenged in court yet unless it requires someone being charged to challenge it? As a C&R license holder I got a letter from the BATF that said they do not recognize it.

 

What, the BATFE NOT recognizing a states laws, or common sense for that matter, NO WAY??? That's unheard of...