Heads UP TN!!! Gun confiscation bill heads to Senate

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Gun confiscation bill heads to Senate

By Jessica Fender

Gun owners could get a guarantee that their firearms and ammunition won’t be seized during a state of emergency under a bill headed today to the state Senate floor.
The governor is allowed to commandeer and restrict the sale of guns, alcohol, explosives and combustibles during natural disasters or other major emergencies under state law.
Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, wants to take firearms out of that equation. His bill would also prohibit local officials from taking weapons.
He wants to avoid gun confiscations like those following Hurricane Katrina, Norris said in a statement last week.
“We do not want a repeat of that scenario in Tennessee,” Norris said. “The ability to defend one’s home place and family in the absence of adequate law enforcement is essential.”
Norris has said that the Gov. Phil Bredesen's office opposes the measure. So, even if it passes the Senate tonight, it may have a tough time in the Democrat-controlled House.
A phone call to Bredesen's spokeswoman was not immediately returned.


http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/NEWS02/70326014

 

[jpk1md]

This is good but has largely been trumped by The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 introduced in the United States Congress intended to prohibit the confiscation of legally-possessed firearms during a disaster. Its provisions became law in the form of the Vitter Amendment to the Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

 

[Flyboy]

The Federal law only restricts Federal agents, and people using Federal money, I think--if TN authorities were to do it on their own, without using Federal funds, I think they'd be outside the scope of that law.

 

[DWARREN123]

This should be a non-argument since the local/state government can not over rule the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.
I have already written to Bresden to show my displeasure about trying to take my protection during times of trouble, that's when I need them most!

 

[Coronach]

This should be a non-argument since the local/state government can not over rule the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.

Completely incorrect. The BOR was designed ONLY to restrict federal agents. It was not until the 14th Amendment that any of those restrictions were made binding upon the States, and since that time only some of them have been "incorporated" (basically, extended to state and local government). The Second Amendment is one of the ones that has not been so incorporated.

Now, we can debate two points of this:

1. Is it wise to extend BOR restrictions to state governments?

2. Is it wise to do it piecemeal?

The basic point remains though: the federal law is probably not going to restrain non-federal agents. There might need to be case law to determine how far it goes, and, frankly? The midst of a disaster is not any time to become a test case.

I always find it interesting that people think the Constitution, as originally ratified, is the end-all and be-all of governmental charters, and don't realize that the hallowed protections of the BOR would not, under that same document, apply to their local police.

Mike

PS FWIW, I think the protections of the BOR should be extended to state and local governments, and I think it shoudl be an all-or-nothing thing...the clause is the "equal protection" clause, after all.

 

[RandyC]

According to this morning's paper the governor is withdrawing his objections to the bill. I think he is folding his cards and is getting on board.

I would bet his office was pretty much swamped with calls and e-mails regarding the bill and the will of the people was being heard. I know one of those e-mails was mine. I'd like to thank all my fellow Tennesseans who took action.

Might be a gentlemanly thing to do, when he signs it into law, is to e-mail him with a thank you.

It was a fast read of the article before I left for work so please correct me if my impressions are wrong.