TN Gun Bill To Watch
The first is SB 1908, the “Second Amendment Protection Act” which prohibits the sale of micro-stamped ammunition or firearms within this state. The intent here is to prevent passage of the “Ammunition Accountability Act,” which requires said micro-stamping. The second, and more important of the two, is SB 1644 the “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act” which essentially says that, under the Ninth and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate commerce within the state of Tennessee. As such it does not have the authority to regulate the production of firearms within this state as long as those weapons are manufactured, sold, and retained within this state.
Could Tennessee be getting all Montana on us?
There’s also a bill that bans selling serialized ammo. Cool.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The conflict they will run into is the previous decision by the US Supreme Court regarding the FedGov’s ability to regulate items for which there is an interstate market. I can’t recall the name of the case, but it came to the USSC because a farmer grew some wheat on his own farm when the FedGov wanted to control prices of all wheat. They sued and won on the above premise and the “Commerce Clause”.
Basically, the “Commerce Clause” in the Constitution says that “Congress … shall have the power to regulate commerce amongst the States.”
That decision set a precedent for the FedGov to be able to use to justify their involvement in every facet of every conceivable product or process that is produced or performed in the country. It began the Nationalism of this Nation.
If I had the ability (money, power, influence), I would add two words to the Commerce Clause. I would add “manner of” to it so that it reads (basically) “Congress … shall have the power to regulate the _manner of_ trade amongst the States.”
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to prevent trade wars between the states. It was to prevent Virginia from banning or imposing a tax on items from Delaware, for example. It was never intended to allow the FedGov to stick their dicks into every facet of American industry and life.
So, that is a long way of saying that TN and Montana will get smacked down because I seriously don’t think there are enough people in D.C. who know that there are a 9th and 10th Amendments, let alone what they say, let alone what they mean – including the USSC. So any attempt to re-establish Federalism by individual states will be met with unfavorable decisions. And even if that does win, Congress will write “rules” such that States lose Federal Funding until they comply. Kinda like the Federal Highway Funding that gets lost if a bunch of Federal laws are not enforced at the State level.
…
I’m not optimistic an I’m not happy.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I do find this somewhat interesting…wouldn’t you guys normally be up in arms if a Democrat tried to pass legislation to make it a crime to sell a certain type of firearm?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
i think a better bill would be one that banned it as a requirement.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I think sean is mad because the law doesn’t impose a tax that spreads the wealth.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The problem with Tennessee gun law is that it is required to submit your fingerprint when purchasing a firearm. This unconstitutional requirement should be eliminated first!