Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/19/2013 1:18:53 PM EDT
State Rep Joe Carr is sponsoring this Bill: HB42

We had a chance to hear from him today at the steps of the state capital supporting gun rights. I may be moving to TN next month - so thought I would get involved.
Link Posted: 1/20/2013 9:32:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Political grandstanding, IMO. Federal laws trump state laws & everyone knows this (or should), IMO. Just as cities can't ban guns or HCP, states can't get crossways with Fed law.
Link Posted: 1/20/2013 12:25:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Link Posted: 1/20/2013 2:59:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Political grandstanding, IMO. Federal laws trump state laws & everyone knows this (or should), IMO. Just as cities can't ban guns or HCP, states can't get crossways with Fed law.


Not quite.

The first phase of the Brady Act, requiring local police to do background checks on handgun sales (until the NICS could be set up) was struck down by the US Supreme Court, on the grounds that the federal government could not order local governments to enforce federal law.  The federal government cannot order state and local police to enforce federal law - they have to do it themselves.  

Looks like the first half of this bill is aimed at prohibiting state and local employees from helping the feds enforce a new ban or registration law.  The US Spreme Court has ruled that the feds cannot order them to help, and the state is saying (if this bill passes) that they will not comply with a request to help.  That still leaves the option of the feds blackmailing the state by threatening to withhold federal funding for various programs (highway funding has been used in the past), if the state refuses to change that law, but that's not an issue of federal law trumping state and local law.  It's just a declaration that the feds are on their own in unfriendly territory.


The second part gets into one of those areas that will probably need a ruling by the Court.  It charges any federal employee attempting to enforce a new ban or registration requirement on an item produced, sold, and held in Tennessee (didn't cross state lines) with a misdemeanor.  The feds base their gun control authority on the interstate commerce clause.  The medical marijuana case, and the earlier farmer case that it cited, weaken the state's position on claiming exemption from interstate commerce, but both of those cases dealt with a consumable product, not a durable good (different market impact).  It's not an "open and shut case" for the feds.

ETA:  The feds might not be willing to push the issue, if something happens to create a 'test case', since the Heller ruling (and it's reference to the Miller ruling) puts any ban they may pass on questionable grounds with the Court.  That's part of the reason that the anti-gun crowd has been so opposed to Project Exile.  Project Exile's rules created far greater odds of encountering a case that could result in a court ruling that the gun control law in question was a violation of the defendant's rights (the feds would normally drop such a case, but Project Exile took away that option).

I'm no lawyer, so I have a question that could be a problem for the feds, depending on the answer.  Does this bill create a situation where the state would have grounds to contest a new ban, claiming a conflict between state and federal law (and leaving the option for the state to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds)?
Link Posted: 1/20/2013 7:12:50 PM EDT
[#4]
I sent emails all week about HB 42.  So far Representative Kane is the only one to reply, here is what he just sent me:



I will be contacting Representative Carr to help support his initiative to stop the president from his over reaching actions. I will be opposing any infringement of our 2nd amendment rights and have also signed on as a cosponsor of a bill making it illegal to spend any state money or use any state personnel to implement any of the President's executive orders. The Sandy Hook issue should not be a battle cry for gun control  as Washington sees it but a cry for mental illness awareness

Sent from my iPad



Answering emails from his iPad at 11pm on a Sunday.  Much better than a canned response.

(FYI, my email to him did not mention Sandy Hook, simply "great challenges" and strengthening our citizens' individual and collective freedoms).  
Link Posted: 1/22/2013 6:25:49 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I sent emails all week about HB 42.  So far Representative Kane is the only one to reply, here is what he just sent me:



I will be contacting Representative Carr to help support his initiative to stop the president from his over reaching actions. I will be opposing any infringement of our 2nd amendment rights and have also signed on as a cosponsor of a bill making it illegal to spend any state money or use any state personnel to implement any of the President's executive orders. The Sandy Hook issue should not be a battle cry for gun control  as Washington sees it but a cry for mental illness awareness

Sent from my iPad



Answering emails from his iPad at 11pm on a Sunday.  Much better than a canned response.

(FYI, my email to him did not mention Sandy Hook, simply "great challenges" and strengthening our citizens' individual and collective freedoms).  


Got a non-canned response from Stacey Campfield, "You don't have to worry about me (I knew I didn't), I'm with you 100%, so long as you allow me to serve in office".
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top