Judge Napolitano: Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Passes

[SKUSMC]

The act doesn't apply to NFA weapons such as machine guns etc. so I have to ask, what practical good is it?

[AK107DX]

@SKUSMC In case they try to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban I guess. I live in one of those shitty states that kept the ban.

[SKUSMC]

@AK107DX Yeah good point. I read the language since it's now in my state's legislature. Apparently it applies to NFA weapons that are not machineguns. So silencers, SBR's etc. would be deregulated.

[SmokeyCough]

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

[Origin305]

man, seems to me that the FEDs already had thought about this happening. they're ahead of the states. Only if the states take back their powers will we see a dramatic change in America. All those people who voted for change... This is your real change and its not going to happen unless you get involved. If all states could unite in this cause then maybe we could get something going towards change.

[A0n79fRtW]

As conservatives we need to know how the government actually legally works instead of someones opinion. The notion that a sheriff is more powerful than the feds because he is a elected official is legally incorrect. Governors and mayors are elected officials but they also cannot stop the feds from enforcing federal law. I would like for someone to show me actual law and not opinion where a sheriff has the authority to stop a federal agent in their county from enforcing federal law.

[CravingGod]

@A0n79fRtW Show me the law that states a federal agent has authority over a sheriff.

[A0n79fRtW]

@CravingGod

A federal agent has power over the sheriff when it pertains to matters of federal law and federal matters. As a general rule of thumb federal agents do not get involved in county law enforcement (sherff) although some states do give some federal agents authority to enforce state statutes. Federal agents have and do investigate sheriffs when sheriffs abuse their office and violate federal color of law statutes and federal agents investigate sheriffs over civil rights violations.

[A0n79fRtW]

@CravingGod

United States Code 18242 gives federal agents the authority to investigate or arrest a sheriff for color of law violation which is basically a sheriff abusing his authority and/or depriving an US citizen their civil rights. Basically this federal statute gives the feds the authority to keep local law enforcement officials in check from abusing their office to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights.

[A0n79fRtW]

@CravingGod

Lastly, federal agents have Congressional authority to arrest a sheriff if a sheriff runs his department in a corrupt manner to include matters such as theft or bribery by the sheriff pertaining to official matters of the office of the sheriff. Various violations of this nature whereby a sheriff or any public official can be arrested are found in federal law - United States Title Code 18.

[A0n79fRtW]

State police or local law enforcement do not have the legal authority to prevent Federal officials such as the ATF from performing their federal duties. Any type of interference from state authority would be in violation of United States Title Code. I am very conservative but the Reality of this matter is that the federal agents have legal authority to enforce federal law and if TN is in disagreement that is what the federal courts is for.

[countryboy1949]

Federal law does not trump state law. Constitutionally speaking, it's vice versa.

[Fraserized]

Obviously you've never read the constitution.... It's called the Supremacy doctrine and it is clearly there, Article VI clause 2.

[tewj57]

No, Fraserized -- you're the one who doesn't understand. The supremacy clause doesn't say the states are subordinate to the federal government. It says everything is subordinate to the Constitution. Well, that's precisely the question, isn't it? Is this federal law constitutional (and thus to be defended via the supremacy clause in the first place) or not? Merely appealing, absurdly, to the supremacy clause merely begs the question.

[CRTV1982]

Okay, but the federal government is only supposed to be allowed to exercise the powers which they were delegated. They were not delagated powers to regulate intrastate commerce. They were not given powers to regulate firearms. They were told they could not by the Second Amendment. They were told that they could not do any of these things again by the Tenth Amendment. BTW you should really read Article VI Clause II again. It declares the Constitution is the Supreme Law, not Federal Code.

[CRTV1982]

Obviously you need to read that and the rest of the Constitution. The Fed Gov has the power to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, not INTRASTATE, there is a big difference there, buddy. Next the Fed Gov. does not have the authority to regulate firearms. Further told no by the 2nd AoA and is further told no to regulating firearms and intrastate commerce by the 10th AoA. Article VI Clause II says the CONSTITUTION, not FEDERAL CODE is the Supreme Law. You need to take a good look at it again.

[eifersucht2]

You are very wrong. You are wrong as soon as you mention a "Title Code." If you are "conservative" you look to the highest law of the land: the Constitution. Under the constitution, the federal government has NO (legal) power to regulate intrastate arms sales, even though we allow them to do so.

[tewj57]

So if there's a dispute between the federal government and the state government over constitutionality, a branch of the federal government should decide it? You see the problem with that, right? This was precisely Jefferson's concern, which is why he would have supported Tennessee in this case with great enthusiasm.

[killefer762]

The sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his county as duly elected by the people. No one is higher than a sheriff and that includes federal agents. The supreme court decided that in fact sheriff cant not be forced to enforce federal law in Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997). The states have police power not the federal govt.

[A0n79fRtW]

Federal agents receive their authority to enforce federal laws through Congressional authority. The federal government is a separate sovereign from the state government. The sheriff is an official granted authority from a state Constitution or state statutes. It is against federal law to impede, interfere or intimidate any federal agent who is official discharging their federal duties enforcing federal law. Federal agents have jurisdiction in every county in America to enforce federal laws.

[A0n79fRtW]

It is true that the feds cannot force a sheriff from enforcing federal law. However, the sheriff is legally powerless to stop federal agents from enforcing federal law. The FBI, ATF, Marshalls, IRS enforcement agents have jurisdiction in 100 percent of the counties in America to enforce federal law they have been designated to enforce through United States Title Code. A sheriff is only a state official and has no legal power over the law enforcement of the federal government.

[01MiBu]

Towards the end, they discuss the "teeth" of the TN bill. If the legislature required the State Police to intervene in Federal enforcement (arresting the ATF agents) that would be a significant set of teeth and force the issue. In any case, it's about time States re-discover their Constitutional rights.

[VONBLUVENS100]

Thanks, Tennessee for leading the way and sending this message.

[esgatch]

1)The federal Congress uses the 17th amendment as an excuse to usurp State Sovereignty!

2)The federal Courts have "claimed for themselves" the right to interpret the Constitution!

This is what has happened:

The federal courts and the united states congress have violated the constitution by "circumventing the requirment of a constitutional convention" to change constitutional law.

That is not empathetic...

THAT IS TYRANNY!

Wake up, America!