Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is claiming constitutional supremacy to kill the 10th Amendment-driven state statutes to exempt in-state firearms from federal regulations. Their mode? Reminding gun dealers of their federal obligations.
Here's the ATF&E's letter to Tennessee federal firearms licensees. An extract:
The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations as a Federal firearms licensee ...
The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 ("Act"), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions form industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearm business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supercedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.
Montana FFLs got a similar letter.
Tennessee's law reads, in part:
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.
The argument is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution:
Article VI (in part): This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The issue will be litigated. States feel too strongly about this. Clearly, the laws conflict - so that aspect is a given. Do federal laws "fully occupy" regulation of this activity? Does the federal government maintain an interest in the application of this law since it is purely intra-state activity?
Should be an explosive time.
Comments
With Judge Sotomayor on the court the government will likely win that round and the people lose. To insure freedom prepare for revolution. With Obama is pressing this issue so it to be expected that the people will chose to bear arms once more.
Bondsman, I don't believe Sotomayor will vote any differently than Souter on the issue, so perhaps no change. But, yes, the times are changing, aren't they?
It looks to me like the Constitution says that it does apply to the state. I think it's silly that states would bother to write that their laws are above the Constitution.
Bob, read the 10th Amendment sometime.
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
This is the preamble to the Bill of Rights. This basically says that the first 10 Amendments are OFF LIMITS to the Federal Government. So now the Feds are in conflict with the COTUS and need to be corrected. What are the chances of that? Slim with the SCOTUS, as they will only support the governments position, and not the true power, which is spelled out in the 10th Amendment as the Stares or the people.
I'm amazed that Chuck "Gun Banner" Schumer is crying that the Thune Amendment will infringe on "States' Rights", but hasn't had a word to say about the ATF/Obama Administration's attempt to claim authority over the States when it comes to regulation under the interstate commerce clause. Of course, nobody in the media will ever point this out, as they side with whatever is convenient for their agenda.
"Actual intelligence may be defined, in part as---the ability of an individual to accurately predict the outcome of any given circumstance or series of circumstances.” HNO
Given information as provided--
An individual or individuals comply with all the State regulations, complete and file all necessary State forms, pay all taxes and fees required by the State, and thereby become legally authorized and licensed by the State to manufacture firearms for sale within the State.
Said legally authorized and licensed individual or individuals begin legally manufacturing firearms for sale within the State.
What occurs next?
Wow . . . it is just amazing how the human refuse in Washington appeal selectively to the Constitution when it works in their favor, and then completely ignore the document when it doesn't. Of course, Article VI also contains the "seed" of their arguments destruction: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in PURSUANCE THEREOF . . . ." None of the "federal firearms laws" are made in pursuance of the Constitution . . . and should be null and void. Of course, none of the judges in ANY state, or federal enclave, honor their oath to uphold the Constitution . . . else these "laws" would be unenforceable.
Straight, I've sat back on the comments for a bit to watch how folks respond, but your's requires me to jump in ...
Dead on. Thank you. WDC are a bunch of idiots when it comes to our civil liberties, the very hallmark of the Bill of Rights - without which the colonies refused to ratify the Constitution. They pick and choose now which ones they like.
I've never felt such a groundswell of citizens fed of with federal government. Should be a very interesting 2010 election cycle.
The commerce clause has been abused long enough. The FBI and ATF and the rest of that alphabet soup have to be TERMINATED. Thy have no authority because there are no police powers under the Constitution. When the states challenge the Feds let them bring THAT up in court. The quicker the Federal Police forces are tossed out on their ears the freer we will be as a nation. If they actually believed the oaths they took, they would resign --actually they would not have joined.
The very least we can do is limit the abuse of the commerce clause and insist that anything manufactured, sold and remaining within the state are NOT subject to the false interpretations of the commerce clause, a clause designed to regulate taxes on goods and services crossing borders--not as a justification for federal police forces.
Let u diminish their power first and then crush them--with the free weapons built in the individual states if need be! By the ballot box if we can and if it still works!
Sam, the disagreement I have with you is that "abused" is not a strong enough word.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!