Obama Takes Aim At Gun-Rights Revolt

Obama Administration Takes Aim At Gun-Rights Revolt
CBS
The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states’ rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.
In the last few months, a grass-roots, federalist revolt against Washington, D.C. has begun to spread through states that are home to politically active gun owners. Montana and Tennessee have enacted state laws saying that federal rules do not apply to firearms manufactured entirely within the state, and similar bills are pending in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, and South Carolina.

Yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives now claims that that not only is such a state law invalid, but “because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes the act.”

Tennessee’s law already has taken effect. The BATF’s letter on July 16 to firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state says “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.”

A similar letter was sent to manufacturers and dealers in Montana, where the made-in-the-state law takes effect on October 1, 2009. Neither law permits certain large caliber weapons or machine guns, and both would bypass federal regulations including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.

While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government’s powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.”

(In an impassioned dissent at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”)

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said in an interview with CBSNews.com on Monday that he expects to be facing off against the Obama administration in court soon. “We will find the right test cases to get us in court,” he said.

Marbut believes that the letters were’t that meaningful because they were addressed to gun manufacturers and dealers who already are licensed by the federal government. “Those people already are under the thumb of the Feds,” he said. “We’ve assumed they wouldn’t want to put their circumstances at risk in dabbling in the state-made guns business. The people who the letters are addressed to are pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion.”

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan
wnd
Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.
The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.
In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, “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.”
The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

“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 with the same state,” the letter said. “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.

“These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines,” the letter said.

The law was adopted by the state Legislature this year. It provides that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee.” It also carries exemptions for certain types of weapons and ammunition and the requirement that all firearms made or sold in the state have “Made in Tennessee” on them.
Tennessee is not the first state to move in this direction. WND reported earlier that Utah was considering such a plan, and the state of Montana earlier adopted its own gun exemption procedure.
Montana’s bill provides that guns, ammo, accessories, silencers and other products made, sold and used in the state would not require any federal documentation, registration, serial numbers, records check or waiting period.
The pushback from the states comes at a time when the federal administration is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general, Eric Holder, who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Obama administration has even pushed for a treaty that would require sportsmen who reload their ammunition to obtain a federal license.

The Montana plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that “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,” the Montana plan states.

“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 pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,” it says.

Further, state lawmakers cite the Second Amendment right of the people to “keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889.”
The Tennessee plan includes many of the same arguments.
The Tennessee Gun Owners website includes this comment: “And the battle begins. I don’t believe this was unexpected. According to the 10th Amendment, the state has authority. Tennessee is applying its constitutional rights. The feds are saying, no, the Constitution doesn’t count. Calling all lawyers!”
In Montana, a Democrat governor signed the gun exemption law; in Tennessee, a Democrat governor allowed the gun exemptions to become law without his signature.
At Resistnet.com, there was a discussion among hundreds of members who have stated their willingness to bring a lawsuit against the federal government over the issue.

“The sovereign state of Tennessee should stand her ground. If people would stand up to the bully (Big Brother) we might take back some of the rights that have been stolen from us. It will not be comfortable. It will not be easy. But, it can be done, if we want it bad enough,” said one participant.

One other was a little less eloquent, but his message came through.

“This is a crock! This is a free state and it’s time to tell the thieves in Washington to butt out.”

The weapons definitions are part of a general move on the part of states – Alaska being the most recent – to simply declare their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
About three dozen states have begun working on such plans.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution just days ago. It “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
The joint resolution does not carry the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.
While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Palin signed Alaska’s Tenth Amendment declaration and Tennessee’s governor signed that state’s Tenth Amendment declaration of sovereignty.

.

Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack interview after Oath Keepers muster on Lexington Green, April 19,2009.
Sheriff Mark’s website
http://sheriffmack.com/
Oath Keepers website

.

Wild Thing’s comment………..
Everything Obama does is to fit his Marxist/Commie agenda. He’s already the biggest failure in the nation’s history, and the only openly socialist pig ever elected to the seat.
Someone needs to tell Obama that he is not the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there for a reason.
They could also take the opportunity to tell him he’s not Congress either, and explain perhaps that all these unelected czars he’s appointing without any approval or accountability are illegal. He’s got Cabinet secretaries. Not friggin’ czars.
Obama knows his time is very limited because many are on to him about his being in presidency illegally! Someone pulling his strings wants these things done fast and the main thing they want done is confiscate guns so they can pass these bills without out caring anymore what people say if they ever did.