BATF vs. States Rights

[Contumacious]

BATF vs. States Rights

Montana and Tennessee: The Battle Begins

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

[Selene]

Welcome.

Now I need to think about how to put together some folks to set up a munitions factory just for each state.

I like the idea. Has it been challenged yet?

Adam

[Contumacious]

Those cases will eventually end up in federal court before "judges" who have never heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments.

[Selene]

Contumacious:

Oh, they have heard of it, they just avoid it like the plague. There is a whole line of cases that have dealt with the both of these amendments.

What drew you to this forum? Are you in Puerto Rico? My IT guy and friend has lots of family there.

Adam

[Contumacious]

Contumacious:

Oh, they have heard of it, they just avoid it like the plague. There is a whole line of cases that have dealt with the both of these amendments.

Actually not that many. And the cases which mentioned them , their importance is minimized and they avoid mentioning the fact that the judges have no authority to conclude that a particular right is not included therein.

What drew you to this forum?

I've been a Libertarian since '78

Are you in Puerto Rico?

My soul is; my body is in Houston.

[Selene]

Contumacious:

Oh, they have heard of it, they just avoid it like the plague. There is a whole line of cases that have dealt with the both of these amendments.

Actually not that many. And the cases which mentioned them , their importance is minimized and they avoid mentioning the fact that the judges have no authority to conclude that a particular right is not included therein.

What drew you to this forum?

I've been a Libertarian since '78

Are you in Puerto Rico?

My soul is; my body is in Houston.

LOL - well put. My friends long for the Island as well. It is amazing to me, how ignorant Americans are to the "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico". Marin, the Jayuya Massacre, Campos, et al.

What do you do in Houston?

Adam

Edited July 25, 2009 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Neither the Federal Government nor the States have Rights. They have powers granted by the U.S. Constituion. People who walk, talk and bleed have rights.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Neither the Federal Government nor the States have Rights. They have powers granted by the U.S. Constituion. People who walk, talk and bleed have rights.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, my bad, you are absolutely correct - it should be phrased as the State's Powers as in:

"The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:

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 was a necessary part of the bargain which brought the United States into existence. The Constitution had to be ratified by at least nine of thethen thirteen states. The nine had to include at least some Southern states, and therefore there could be no federal condemnation of slavery in the constitution. So on one interpretation, states' rights became, as it has always remained, an issue between the South and the rest of the country (see Calhoun; Lincoln). Since the end of the Civil War, the federal government has become more and more involved in states' spheres of influence. This arose in part from the attempt to enforce civil rights in the Thirteenth to Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution (ratified between 1865 and 1870). However, federal intervention in states' affairs did not increase significantly until the economic pressures of the New Deal. The Thirteenth to Fifteenth Amendments were not enforced until the 1950s.

Adam

Edited July 25, 2009 by Selene

[Contumacious]

Contumacious:

Oh, they have heard of it, they just avoid it like the plague. There is a whole line of cases that have dealt with the both of these amendments.

Actually not that many. And the cases which mentioned them , their importance is minimized and they avoid mentioning the fact that the judges have no authority to conclude that a particular right is not included therein.

What drew you to this forum?

I've been a Libertarian since '78

Are you in Puerto Rico?

My soul is; my body is in Houston.

LOL - well put. My friends long for the Island as well. It is amazing to me, how ignorant Americans are to the "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico". Marin, the Jayuya Massacre, Campos, et al.

What do you do in Houston?

Adam

MD - JD.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Contumacious

[Contumacious]

Neither the Federal Government nor the States have Rights. They have powers granted by the U.S. Constituion. People who walk, talk and bleed have rights.

Ba'al Chatzaf

True.

Specifically enumerated powers is more like it.

[Selene]

Contumacious:

MD - JD.

Is it required that you be a manic depressive to be an attorney in Texas?

Adam

[Contumacious]

Contumacious:

MD - JD.

Is it required that you be a manic depressive to be an attorney in Texas?

Adam

Yep.