BATFE To TN: Drop Dead

[The Rabbi]

As fellow Tennesseans know, the state passed a law recently that asserted that firearms made in the state, sold in the state, and remaining in the state are exempt from all federal laws (part of the 10th Amendment).
BATFE recently sent around an open letter. Basically their position (and rightly I must say) is that licensees are still bound by Federal law, which trumps state law.
They do not say whether they would attempt to prosecute non-licensees for manufacture and selling of firearms within the state. That would be an interesting test. I'd like for someone else to volunteer for it.

 

[wyo-man]

I think Montana recently said the same thing, but haven't read any more about it.

wyo-man

 

[m657]

re: "bound by Federal law, which trumps state law."

stepping a bit into a related issue....if that is the case, then what is the stuff Sotom~ is saying about the 2nd having "not been validated" or some such by the states....

I don't get it.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Basically their position (and rightly I must say) is that licensees are still bound by Federal law, which trumps state law.

Utterly ridiculous. Read the Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not utterly ridiculous, read the GCA.
Dealers exist basically at the pleasure of ATF.
Unlicensed citizens may be a different story. But court cases haven't been very reassuring on this question.

 

[Dennis The B]

The same thing is being attempted in Texas, as well.

The problem with local manufacturing is not the assembly, but of raw materials, and production parts. If those come from outside the state, the Federal government may claim that the Commerce clause in the Constitution applies. They have been very successful in the courts over the years using it.

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, in part:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

When all else fails, this usually works, and Congress has been very adept at maintaining this power.

 

[The Rabbi]

Comparable marijuana cases haven't fared well. And marijuana presents an even stronger case as being entirely within a jurisdiction.

I am afraid this movement will need to come from Congress,not the courts.

 

[bk43]

That interstate commerce stuff in the Constitution is long gone. The Supreme Court first ruled so with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. Several other cases have followed. I'm sure Sotowhatever will fix that though...not!

The fat lady has sung and Congress is still napping.

Bob