Last summer, federal agents raided the Gibson guitar company in Nashville, TN, and much of their product was seized because of their use of alleged “illegally harvested wood.” The case brought to light the Lacey Act, which was enacted in 1900 and revised in 2008 to protect rare and illegally harvested wood.
The controversy surrounding the raid though deals with the definition of illegally harvested wood and whether the federal government has a right to raid at gunpoint, a company who by all intents and purposes is not doing anything wrong. Because of this action by the federal government, a new bill is being proposed in Tennessee to protect the citizens from such acts, which at their heart are more political in nature.
According to an email from Mark West, President of the Chattanooga Tea Party, House Bill 2619 is in the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee this coming week and is of vital importance to the protection of the citizens of Tennessee and also speaks to the sovereignty of the state of Tennessee.
The bill:
“provides that a federal employee who is not designated as a Tennessee peace officer may not make an arrest or conduct a search and seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search and seizure will take place except under certain circumstances.”
Essentially, unless certain criteria are met, in order for a federal agency to conduct a search and seizure such as in the Gibson case, they must first obtain permission from local law enforcement.
Mr. West has asked that people contact members of the House Judiciary subcommittee in order to show them that the citizens of the state of Tennessee support this bill. But HB2619 is not just about Gibson guitars but instead is about the federal government overstepping its intended purpose.
Historically speaking, and in some ways philosophically as well, the hierarchy of government entities follows a simple pattern. What the individual cannot do for himself to protect his freedom and liberty, the local government does. What the local government cannot do, the state does. What the state cannot do, the federal government does. If this structure were to be followed, the federal government would not be needlessly spending millions, if not billions, of dollars each year overstepping its intended purpose by sticking its proverbial nose into the business of the states.
Again, state’s rights are at the center of much attention. Take a moment to contact the representatives on the House Judiciary subcommittee and inform them of the support this bill has from the people of the state of Tennessee.
Comments