PDA

View Full Version : The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution -


rp55
07-18-2009, 11:29 AM
From the Tennessee Firearms Assoc. (http://www.tfaonline.org/index.php/news) comes this tidbit.

"ATF rejects Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act and the 10th Amendment."

The ATF - as expected - has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power ( as seems to be the trend since the late 1930) and has notified Tennessee’s federal firearms dealers that the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is meaningless. Essentially, ATF is saying to the state of Tennessee that the 10th Amendment no longer exists.

We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority.

Link to BATFE letter (http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfirearmsfreedomact.pdf)

So much for Montana, Texas, Alaska and all those other states asserting their 10th Amendment rights. Did any of them seriously expect to change a single thing? There hasn't been any state rights in the US since Woodrow Wilson rammed through direct election of senators.

outersquare
07-18-2009, 11:31 AM
there is a pet theory on some bear blogs that the federal budget will lock up at some point, due to no buyers of US Treasury debt.

that event cannot come fast enough.

THT
07-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Didn't Montana's act include something about arresting and prosecuting federal agents if they attempted to enforce laws contrary to their firearms freedom act?

nick
07-18-2009, 11:42 AM
So much for Montana, Texas, Alaska and all those other states asserting their 10th Amendment rights. Did any of them seriously expect to change a single thing? There hasn't been any state rights in the US since Woodrow Wilson rammed through direct election of senators.

Did you seriously expect anything to happen with a single state bill? It takes more than that, and this was just the first step, I hope.

Roadrunner
07-18-2009, 11:50 AM
Seems like a pretty simple resolution. All of the sellers with an FFL should turn in their licenses and sell only firearms made in their states. Companies that make firearms could set up shop in those states and build their products there, at least the frame, and have the additional parts shipped to those those manufacturing outlets. Lastly this could be backed up with state force. If ATF attempts to molest a firearms dealer, state, county, and local police should have the authority to use whatever force is necessary to arrest the feds.

M198
07-18-2009, 12:01 PM
Are there any gun manufactures in the state of TN other that small mom and pop assemblers?

bohoki
07-18-2009, 12:01 PM
too bad nobody asked sotomayor if there is any object that doesnt fall under the interstate commerce clause

884runner
07-18-2009, 12:04 PM
Kinda funny, they won't step in when Ca is obviously making thier own firearms laws, but Tn can't do the same just cause they are different laws.

Maestro Pistolero
07-18-2009, 12:08 PM
Tennessee better make sure they are willing to back this up with force, or they are going to look ridiculous.

DRM6000
07-18-2009, 12:17 PM
Are there any gun manufactures in the state of TN other that small mom and pop assemblers?

isn't barret firearms located there?

GrinderCB
07-18-2009, 12:32 PM
Something like a third of all the states, mostly rural states in the west, are in 10th amendment fights these days. This is just the early stage of that fight - states passing laws or not cooperating with federal authorities in areas they regard as internal state issues. It'll really hit the fan when a test case arises and it goes to the US Supreme Court for a 10th amendment ruling. No one is currently taking that stand because of uncertainty with the legal verbiage, etc, and they're afraid of losing big.

Window_Seat
07-18-2009, 12:34 PM
Didn't Montana's act include something about arresting and prosecuting federal agents if they attempted to enforce laws contrary to their firearms freedom act?

This is a very good question, and maybe someone can fill us in on that.

Erik.

Legasat
07-18-2009, 1:18 PM
We'll see how far each side is willing to take this.

I'll be rooting for TN.

bohoki
07-18-2009, 1:53 PM
Kinda funny, they won't step in when Ca is obviously making thier own firearms laws, but Tn can't do the same just cause they are different laws.

yea they seem to have no problem with states making laws that are more strict than atf regulations

but isn't that in itself interfering with interstate commerce

the feds need to shut down all local regulations under the interstate commerce clause that seems to affect everything

nick
07-18-2009, 2:04 PM
We'll see how far each side is willing to take this.

I'll be rooting for TN.

I'll be rooting for BATFE. Maybe, if they take this far enough, they might get disbanded, or more states might join the fight against it.

LAK Supply
07-18-2009, 2:39 PM
We have a bill on the way that is similar to this... spoke with one of our state legislators a couple weeks back and he said it's coming. We've been to court fighting the feds on numerous issues, and I would expect that this will be the same. The ATF- an agency designed to keep the foxes in control of the henhouse. They should be dissolved immediately.

cousinkix1953
07-18-2009, 3:21 PM
Didn't Montana's act include something about arresting and prosecuting federal agents if they attempted to enforce laws contrary to their firearms freedom act?
Here come the tanks! Time to strip down all of those paramilitary police forces. No more war toys and no more CLASS III weapons...

Saigon1965
07-18-2009, 8:27 PM
I saw this on another forum - Only if our Golden state would follow suit -


http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/18/the-battle-begins-atf-vs-the-constitution/

by Bryce Shonka

A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
The law states that “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.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.

One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.

One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations - and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.

Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.

Below is the full text of the letter sent last week by the ATF:

“U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
OPEN LETTER TO ALL TENNESSEE
FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES

The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations as a Federal firearms licensee (”FFL”). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (”ATF”) is dedicated to your success in meeting your requirements as a Federal firearms licensee. The following guidance is intended to assist you in accomplishing this goal.

The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms 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 supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

As you may know, Federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. The information required must be recorded in the licensee’s records not later than the seventh day following the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.

If you have any questions regarding the Federal firearms laws and regulations, please contact your local ATF office. ATF works closely with the firearms industry and appreciates the important role the industry plays in combating violent crime. A listing of ATF office phone numbers can be found at http://www.atf.gov/contact/field.htm. Carson W. Carroll, Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and Services)”

radioman
07-18-2009, 10:23 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, . how ever I think the civil war put an end to the former...

professorhard
07-18-2009, 10:27 PM
Tn ftw

timdps
07-18-2009, 10:31 PM
Here come the tanks! Time to strip down all of those paramilitary police forces. No more war toys and no more CLASS III weapons...


Montana/Tennesse National Guard vs BATFE? :lurk5:

Kind of like the James Garner movie "Tank" in reverse...

tim

FS00008
07-18-2009, 11:07 PM
:popcorn: So who's with me in saying that BATFE will cease to exist in five years and soon thereafter GCA 68 and the NFA...?

Maestro Pistolero
07-18-2009, 11:37 PM
Why doesn't the state itself begin manufacturing and/or selling it's own firearms to it's citizens? All a state would have to assert is that they were arming their militia in any way the state sees fit. Let the Feds try to interfere with that without running afoul of the 2nd, 14th and 10th amendments. If push comes to shove, I think this could be the next play by states with new sovereignty acts. Then we'll have individual rights and militia rights working together.

Scratch705
07-18-2009, 11:45 PM
i wonder who the tenn. national guard will listen to? outside federal generals or state governor? and does tenn have the balls to lock down their state border to stop batfe agents from coming in to enforce their rulings?

N6ATF
07-18-2009, 11:55 PM
Didn't Montana's act include something about arresting and prosecuting federal agents if they attempted to enforce laws contrary to their firearms freedom act?

Unfortunately federal agents can and do act alone, so short of staking out state troopers at every facility involved with gun manufacturing and sales to pop out and arrest ATF once they catch them on tape...

Scratch705
07-19-2009, 12:05 AM
sure federal agents act alone, but i would think they would bring in more than 2 agents to take down any stores/manufacturing plants.

so by the fact that these agents would either need to come in by plane, car, or train, just post state troopers at these locations to stop federal agents.

ChrisSig
07-19-2009, 12:20 AM
Why doesn't the state itself begin manufacturing and/or selling it's own firearms to it's citizens? All a state would have to assert is that they were arming their militia in any way the state sees fit. Let the Feds try to interfere with that without running afoul of the 2nd, 14th and 10th amendments. If push comes to shove, I think this could be the next play by states with new sovereignty acts. Then we'll have individual rights and militia rights working together.

:clap:

Very good idea. Makes sense to me.

sharpie613
07-19-2009, 12:25 AM
Yay! Hi-Points for everyone!

What other manufacturers are there in California?

robairto
07-19-2009, 12:34 AM
I go back to the "American Indian" rights and sovereign nation status. I think a tribe in Ca. Could setup and sell full auto whatever and store them on their land for the owner to come back and use.

dexter9659
07-19-2009, 12:35 AM
Im waiting for an epic battle between local cops and Feds in Tennessee.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-19-2009, 12:41 AM
why isn't Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives abbreviated as FATE instead

JDoe
07-19-2009, 7:38 AM
Montana did this too with HB 246, signed by the Governor 04/15/2009 taking effect Oct. 1, 2009.

:popcorn:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON



AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".



Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.



Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:

(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.



Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.



Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.



Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.



Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].



Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

- END -

Sunwolf
07-19-2009, 7:42 AM
Go Montana!

Legasat
07-19-2009, 8:15 AM
It will be interesting to see how far each side is willing to go.

I'm rooting for the States

Theseus
07-19-2009, 11:37 AM
Yay! Hi-Points for everyone!

What other manufacturers are there in California?

I thought Hi-point is in Ohio?

ke6guj
07-19-2009, 11:49 AM
Yay! Hi-Points for everyone!

What other manufacturers are there in California?

Lets see,
Kaiser Defense
Aircraft Armament
Surefire
EDM arms (moved to UT, but was still doing some manufacturing in CA, at his son's company)
Vigilance Rifles (son of EDM arms)

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Saigon1965
07-19-2009, 11:53 AM
Add Entreprise Arms to that list -

ojisan
07-19-2009, 11:58 AM
Lets see,
Kaiser Defense
Aircraft Armament
Surefire
EDM arms (moved to UT, but was still doing some manufacturing in CA, at his son's company)
Vigilance Rifles (son of EDM arms)

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Accu Tek
Phoenix
So we do have a couple handgun makers.

ke6guj
07-19-2009, 12:10 PM
doh, I assumed that Phoenix arms was in Phoenix, AZ. Couldn't recall if any of the "ring of fire" group was still in CA.

And there is that new startup company that is making a glock/xd-type handgun with all that tacky engraving on it as well. There are probably some smaller 07s out there that nobody knows of.

Bend
07-19-2009, 12:18 PM
Montana just got the BATFU smackdown also.

Link (http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d19-ATF-to-Montana-You-will-respect-our-authoritah)

Saigon1965
07-19-2009, 12:20 PM
Our very own - PRK -

doh, I assumed that Phoenix arms was in Phoenix, AZ. Couldn't recall if any of the "ring of fire" group was still in CA.

And there is that new startup company that is making a glock/xd-type handgun with all that tacky engraving on it as well. There are probably some smaller 07s out there that nobody knows of.

nick
07-19-2009, 12:22 PM
Accu Tek
Phoenix
So we do have a couple handgun makers.

The garages of half the Calgunners out there (the other half lives in apartments), so we got semiauto rifles covered :)

nick
07-19-2009, 12:27 PM
If the states persist, it'll be quite ugly, at least on the legal front. BATFE will be fighting for its survival, for its relevance is being attacked. There's nothing bureaucrats fight harder for than something like this.

Bend
07-19-2009, 12:33 PM
Im waiting for an epic battle between local cops and Feds in Tennessee.

Montana got their letter also.

Link (http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d19-ATF-to-Montana-You-will-respect-our-authoritah)

bohoki
07-19-2009, 12:45 PM
well federal firearm licence holders need to follow the rules

what they state needs to do is have an intrastate firearms buisness permit for people wanting to start a buisness selling montana made firearms to montana residents

andalusi
07-19-2009, 1:19 PM
Kinda funny, they won't step in when Ca is obviously making thier own firearms laws, but Tn can't do the same just cause they are different laws.

How so? California's laws are imposing additional restrictions to the already extant federal ones. Tennessee's law seeks to overturn and/or ignore the federal laws.

So how is this the same at all?

7x57
07-19-2009, 1:53 PM
If the states persist, it'll be quite ugly, at least on the legal front. BATFE will be fighting for its survival, for its relevance is being attacked. There's nothing bureaucrats fight harder for than something like this.

I was just about to post the same thing. No question ATF has everything at stake.

7x57

ojisan
07-19-2009, 1:58 PM
The garages of half the Calgunners out there (the other half lives in apartments), so we got semiauto rifles covered :)

Quite true, and these same wonderful folks have been known to make a handgun or two, as well.
:)

Decoligny
07-19-2009, 2:30 PM
Yay! Hi-Points for everyone!

What other manufacturers are there in California?

Well not Hi-Point that's for sure. Hi-Point is manufactured in Dayton, Ohio.

nobody_special
07-19-2009, 4:02 PM
BATFE will win this one, unless it goes to SCOTUS and they overturn Raich and Wickard (which won't happen).

SchooBaka
07-19-2009, 5:21 PM
It will be interesting to see how far each side is willing to go.

I'm rooting for the States

I Agree!
I was gonna put the popcorn smiley up, but to just sit and watch isn't enough; we have to help and support those states making a stand any way we can.:thumbsup:

nick
07-19-2009, 5:32 PM
Quite true, and these same wonderful folks have been known to make a handgun or two, as well.
:)

I gotta learn that :)

nick
07-19-2009, 5:34 PM
BATFE will win this one, unless it goes to SCOTUS and they overturn Raich and Wickard (which won't happen).

Quite possibly. It depends on how far the states are willing to take it. Or will be willing to take it when they're further into the fight (provided that happens). As the federal government has demonstrated, going to SCOTUS isn't the only way to assert one's power.

Fjold
07-19-2009, 6:22 PM
So the BATFE told Federal Licensees that they have to abide by federal laws. What's the big deal?

Shouldn't it be a bigger deal that Federal Firearms Licensees are operating under different State laws? They are Federal Firearms Licensees.

JDoe
07-19-2009, 7:05 PM
there is a pet theory on some bear blogs that the federal budget will lock up at some point, due to no buyers of US Treasury debt.

that event cannot come fast enough.

Couldn't the Fed just print more money and "loan" it to "buyers" of US Treasury debt? :p

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 5:36 AM
why isn't Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives abbreviated as FATE instead
The better name for them is the Bureau of Unmilitarized Longguns Lagers Spirits Handguns Incendiaries and Tobacco.

tiki
07-20-2009, 7:44 AM
I'm hoping for the legalization of marijuna in Kalifornia. Not that I want to or care to smoke pot, but, because of the fight between the federal and state government. Right now it seems as if the BATFE would hold the edge with firearms sales because of the negative publicity about guns.
I think the states would have an easier time fighting something like marijuana restrictions over firearms restrictions. Once the precedent is set, then the firearms fight would be much easier.

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2009, 8:00 AM
Bureau of Unmilitarized Longguns Lagers Spirits Handguns Incendiaries and Tobacco.
__________________

I'm liking the acronym.

FastFinger
07-20-2009, 8:38 AM
Sadly suddlety is rare.

7x57
07-20-2009, 9:23 AM
I think the states would have an easier time fighting something like marijuana restrictions over firearms restrictions.

It would look that way to an urban Californian. But back in America, guns are uncontroversial but drugs are a "third rail" kind of issue. Unfortunately I don't think there is a sngle issue which would unify the heartland and the coasts.

7x57

tiki
07-20-2009, 9:58 AM
It would look that way to an urban Californian. But back in America, guns are uncontroversial but drugs are a "third rail" kind of issue. Unfortunately I don't think there is a sngle issue which would unify the heartland and the coasts.

7x57

Maybe, but "back in America" also includes New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington D.C.
And, i'm not from California, I just stuck living here right now.
As far as political third rails go, guns come to mind before drugs do.
I agree with you on unifying the heartland and the coasts, however, there isn't a Bureau of Maruijuana that we want to get rid of. Ruling that the states can do what they want within their borders has implications of dumping or minimizing a regulatory agency, which will cause its own fight. And, I can already hear the Brady's coming out with fear mongering on no more federal oversight on guns and every state will be selling machine guns, bazookas and ray guns.
Pot is about just a few stoners in California who already get stoned and raising $1.4 Billion a year for the budget.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm hoping for the legalization of marijuna in Kalifornia. Not that I want to or care to smoke pot, but, because of the fight between the federal and state government. Right now it seems as if the BATFE would hold the edge with firearms sales because of the negative publicity about guns.
I think the states would have an easier time fighting something like marijuana restrictions over firearms restrictions. Once the precedent is set, then the firearms fight would be much easier.


Eh I am against pot being legal but then I have a totally selfish reason. I am deadly allergic to the stuff and if its made legal I spend more time in the hospital than out.

7x57
07-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Maybe, but "back in America" also includes New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington D.C.


Maybe to you. :) Surveying opinions in a diner in Wyoming or a bar in Kentucky might be interesting, however.

Do you recall the old TV ad for some picante sauce or another whose major point was that a competitor was "made in New York City"? What cultural attitude do you think that was plugging into? The point wasn't about defining "America," it was about attitudes.

That's the low-brow version. I could make it high-brow by talking about which places have retained the largest amount of the culture and attitudes that they inherited from the generation that actually wrote the 2A, but just for a change I won't.

7x57

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 11:19 AM
Eh I am against pot being legal but then I have a totally selfish reason. I am deadly allergic to the stuff and if its made legal I spend more time in the hospital than out.

Same here.

tiki
07-20-2009, 11:36 AM
Maybe to you. :)

7x57

Ha ha ha. :)

Edit: If this was to get settled by the voters, then maybe pubic opinon in the heartland and bible belt would be a factor, but this will be settled by the courts. And, I think it would be easier to argue before a court that a state should be allowed to legalize marijuana and tax it without federal intervention than it would to argue that a state should be allowed to let thier citizens own and manufacture any type of firearm or weapon they want to. But, i'm not a lawyer so what the hell do I know.

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 12:02 PM
Do you recall the old TV ad for some picante sauce or another whose major point was that a competitor was "made in New York City"? What cultural attitude do you think that was plugging into? The point wasn't about defining "America," it was about attitudes. Pace, made in San Antonio. Living in Alabama at the time I can tell you everyone else there felt exactly the same way. NYC sure as heck isn't America. Tell someone you're from there and they'd look at you like you've got your ears stuck on the wrong part of your head, and they'd be right more often than not. I'm 4 hours from it and I can tell you for certain it still isn't America. The quote from Mel Gibson in The Patriot about 3000 tyrants 1 mile away immediately comes to mind.

7x57
07-20-2009, 12:24 PM
Pace, made in San Antonio. Living in Alabama at the time I can tell you everyone else there felt exactly the same way. NYC sure as heck isn't America.

Well, since my mother was originally from upstate perhaps I'm honor-bound to say that I think upstate NY *is* America, with possible exceptions such as Ithaca. And I can say from personal experience that once you get away from Chicago, Illinois certainly is America.

Of course, those places are ground beneath the wheel of the big cities that dominate their state politics. The same effect on the national scale is why so many places can't quite decide if giving New Amsterdam back to the Dutch is a higher or lower priority than giving Alta California back to the Spanish. :chris:

ETA: please, no immigration jokes, they're too easy after saying that.

7x57

7x57
07-20-2009, 12:27 PM
Edit: If this was to get settled by the voters, then maybe pubic opinon in the heartland and bible belt would be a factor, but this will be settled by the courts.

Fair enough, but notice how many states have made symbolic noises about the feds not regulating intrastate (i.e. non-interstate) commerce in arms. That's the equivalent of CA legalizing MJ at the state level. So it really shows how divergent their views are.

I think both are correct as far as state sovereignty, but rather suspect neither will succeed in court. Judges are quite aware that a bunch of New Deal and Progressive policy they like depends on FDR's smashing of the Constitution, and I doubt they'll tolerate it being touched in the slightest.

7x57

kalguns
07-20-2009, 12:54 PM
Wouldn't Montana be the 3rd in line as have the most nuclear weapons if it was to succeed? Russia, U.S., Montana, France, China and U.K.