Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ATF sends letter to Tennessee gun dealers

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Yoda, Sep 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yoda

    Yoda Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    Florida, bouncing between Hurlburt Fld and MacDill
    The ATF (ok, BATFE) has sent a letter to the FFLs in Tenneessee advising them that the new Tennessee law is invalid and that anyone who relies on it could face hard time. The law in question says that guns made in Tennessee that stay in Tennessee are not subject to federal regulation. Effectively, the feds are saying that the 10th Amendment has no real effect.

    Here's the link:
    http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/sep/23/atf-tells-tennessee-federal-gun-law-trumps-states/

    - - - Yoda
     
  2. KyJim

    KyJim Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    424
    Location:
    Kentucky
    There's an established line of legal cases that basically says the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the feds to regulate anything that is in or affects interstate commerce. I think it highly unlikely that a gun can be made from start to finish without using products that are in or affect interstate commerce. How many steel mills and foundries in Tennessee? Assuming you could make such a gun and sold it, then the sales would affect interstate commerce because it would decrease the number of guns sold in interstate commerce.

    In all fairness, this is not just the ATF being nasty; it's the basis for a LOT of federal laws and regs.
     
  3. j-easy

    j-easy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    I'm really interested to see how all this is going to play out with all the states rights issues, between the DEA and the 12 or so states legalizing medical marijuana, the ATF and Montana, Tennessee, and soon to be Alaska, Texas and Florida fighting for the firearms.
     
  4. Balrog

    Balrog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,196
    I agree that as I understand it, there is already basis for this in law as noted above.

    If you build and sell a machine gun in Tennessee, then that means you did not have to buy one through interstate commerce. This therefore affects interstate commerce.

    There was a case similar to this involving a wheat farmer. He was allowed to grow a certain amount of wheat. He grew this and sold this on the market. But he also grew some extra wheat which he fed to his farm animals. The federal government determined that he broke the law even though he grew and consumed the extra wheat on his own farm. They said this affected interstate commerce. I forget the name of the case, but I think it was back in the early 1900s.
     
  5. Yoda

    Yoda Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    Florida, bouncing between Hurlburt Fld and MacDill
    That wheat case...

    That wheat case came about after FDR got a lot of new regulatory authority, and he leaned on the Supreme court to get what he wanted. It was one of the more tyrannical exercises of federal power, and despite what the Supreme court said, and despite what any future supreme court may say, that decision and all the federal power that flowed from it are utterly unconstitutional.

    You only have those rights you assert and defend. Rise up.

    - - - Yoda
     
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Actually while they cite that as leading up to thier current logic, it is not similar because that wheat farmer was receiving massive government subsidies, and in fact most of his income came from government subsidies. So the government was exercising control over people that were making a living primarily on government payments.
    Very different than current logic held by the SCOTUS.

    Current logic is Gonzales v Raich. Which says anything, even things never part of interstate commerce at all, are still regulated under interstate commerce because by not being a part of interstate commerce, including black market interstate commerce, you are effecting the demand and therefore the value of the black market item.
    So if you make your own machinegun, then you would not be purchasing an illegal one, or a legal one, affecting the value of both through lowered demand. Which then gives them federal jurisdiction, which then makes the federal laws apply.
    It is all encompassing logic.
     
  7. Yoda

    Yoda Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    Florida, bouncing between Hurlburt Fld and MacDill
    It is still wrong.

    - - - Yoda
     
  8. fattboyzz

    fattboyzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    georgia
    FED= freedom exterminating department !
     
  9. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    It already played out. Go read Gonzales v Raich.

    State legal Marijuana was being grown for personal use, never intended to be sold or enter even state level commerce, nevermind interstate commerce. It was considered still subject to the powers of the federal government by the SCOTUS because it would still effect demand. They also said there would be such a strong black market demand it could still end up in commerce.
    Both arguments could be applied to firearms the same way.
    Then Scalia, not happy with only that logic, which already covers 99% of things, added additional logic to take it even further stating that anything considered "necessary and proper" even if it has nothing directly to do with commerce is under federal jurisdiction.

    As of Gonzales v Raich there is no state's rights on federally regulated items. Including firearms.
    This was demonstrated matter of factly in United States v Stewart, which while not officially a SCOTUS decision, was in fact a SCOTUS decision.
    In Stewart the 9th Circuit found that a homemade firearm never intended to enter commerce, be sold, or cross state lines, was not part of commerce. That because federal jurisdiction is only through regulation of interstate commerce powers, the NFA did not apply to such firearms.
    Then it was appealed to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS having just previously ruled on Raich sent the case back to the 9th circuit, telling them that "in light of Raich" they had to come up with a different outcome. They did, reversing thier previous decision, and deciding it was in fact under Federal Jurisdiction. They reversed it because the SCOTUS told them to reverse it, so it should leave no doubt in your mind what the outcome would be in the SCOTUS.
    All firearms under Gonzales v Raich are subject to federal jurisdiction, and federal laws and regulations apply, as decided by the SCOTUS.
     
  10. mustang_steve

    mustang_steve Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area, Florida
    That ruling is based on the concept of the person wanting to buy out of state to begin with...thus, at least to my legally uneducated self is sort of a "pre-crime" ruling.

    I wonder how long it will be before a judge with some cajones knocks it down.
     
  11. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    Tennessee's position is right under the case law existing prior to the Great Depression (#1) and FDR's continual abuse and manipulation of the federal judiciary. BATFE's position holds up under the cases from the Depression (part 1) and since then.

    I (and I'm a lawyer btw) think that the pre-Depression case law made a lot more sense, but undoing 80 years of case law and practice that turned the federal government into the mutant offspring of Cerberus (not the private equity firm) and Godzilla is not exactly going to come easily.

    Long and short: I hope someone with deep pockets does a test case, but I would not want to be the test case.
     
  12. benminer

    benminer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Adams County, PA
    The ATF guy said:

    ""It's analogous to a speed limit. If the speed limit on the interstate is set at 70, a city along the interstate can't come along and say there is no speed limit on the interstate through our city. The highway patrol could still enforce the speed limit,""


    Not really, because AFAIK there is no equivalent to the 10th amendment in most if not all state constitutions. (i.e. they do NOT say that powers are reserved to local governments unless delegated to the state capital or otherwise prohibited)
     
  13. Trebor

    Trebor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,817
    The 10th Amendment is effectively dead. The "modern" interperation of the commerce clause killed it. We can complain all we want but I doubt anyone here has the resources to mount a succesful legal challenge to pull back the abuses of the commerce clause.
     
  14. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,079
    Location:
    Washington
    Could the governor send the State Police to intercept the BATF and prevent them from acting? If I heard that on my scanner I'd be driving out to video tape it and peeing my pants with excitement at the same time.
     
  15. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,061
    Location:
    S.E. Minnesota
    I've been wondering exactly the same thing. (except not the peeing your pants part :rolleyes: ) That would create a perfect 10th Amendment constitutional crisis.
     
  16. nalioth

    nalioth Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,841
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    The county sheriff holds the highest authority.
     
  17. bensdad

    bensdad Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Location:
    Minnesota
    If it came to that, I believe that in some states the state police would have "back-up." Would the ATF? How far will the fed. go to be "in charge"?
    [/silly]
    It seems like most of the cases that we're talking about involve individuals, sans any state-sponsored law. These gun cases will be another animal. Am I wrong?
     
  18. Birdmang

    Birdmang Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,189
    Gonzales v. Raich...extent of the commerce clause....

    /end thread.
     
  19. John E.

    John E. Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    East Texas
    <i>Effectively, the feds are saying that the 10th Amendment has no real effect.</i>

    Effectively, the 10th Amendment doesn't have any real effect...
     
  20. Jon Coppenbarger

    Jon Coppenbarger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,281
    Location:
    co
    how about if one of the states opens a gun store and sells the in state firearms only. it could be run by a branch of the state national gaurd. would the atf have the balls to burst into a national guard armory. I think the guard has their own gun ships.
    they could do this untill a something is forced to happen.
     
  21. floridaboy

    floridaboy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    I'm not a lawyer, and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But it does seem clear that the Supremes will always rule against the 10th amendment. Or nearly always. I for one am seriously hoping for a challenge that we can win. And I wonder how long we, the people ,will continue to tolerate what goes on in D.C.
     
  22. Birdmang

    Birdmang Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,189
    Selling guns in Tennessee that were made in TN effects interstate commerce because other guns made in different states are selling less.

    Commerce clause and Supremacy Clause.

    Case closed.
     
  23. ManBearPig

    ManBearPig member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    151
    I hope Tennessee goes head and starts making it's own guns, while putting it's State Police and National Guard on high alert. Would the ATF have the balls to go into the state and try to arrest anyone if it meant a showdown like that?
     
  24. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    If your reasoning was true, do you realize that the federal government would have the authority to regulate everything?

    I know we can agree that was not the intent of the constitution. If it was, then all of the power would have been given to the federal government in a clear, easy to understand sentense, which isn't the case. Instead they went to the trouble to create the 10th amendment.

    Oh well, we still have the 9th amendment. Nobody knows what it means yet, but we still have it!!!
     
  25. hirundo82

    hirundo82 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    The Deep South
    Exactly. The 10th Amendment has been gutted in pursuit of the War on Drugs.
    Have you read Gonzales v. Raich? It basically does allow the feds to regulate anything. For example, it is now illegal to sell children's books printed before 1985 because they may contain minute amounts of lead.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page