Thursday, January 18, 2018

Tennessee: Bill to Prohibit use of State Funds for Federal Gun Control Enforcement



Legislators in Tennessee have re-introduced bills in the House and Senate to prohibit state or local governments from using funds or personnel to implement or enforce any federal or international regulation of guns, ammunition, or accessories.  The bill is the same as one introduced in 2017.  The legislators even forgot to change the year for the bill's implementation. The Senate bill is SB0146, the House bill is HB1407. From the text of HB1407:
(1) On or after July 1, 2017, no public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

(2) On or after July 1, 2017, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.
The ATF no longer requires a chief law enforcement officer sign-off for National Firearms Act tax stamps. The bill would not affect those. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government may not require state and local governments to expend resources to enforce federal law, in Printz v. United States (1997), under the Tenth Amendment. From justia.com, Justice Scalia writing:
(e) Contrary to the contention of JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent, the Brady Act's direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, § 8, as a law "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales. Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated powers within the Necessary and Proper Clause's meaning. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 166. The Supremacy Clause does not help the dissent, since it makes "Law of the Land" only "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]." Art. VI, cl. 2. pp. 923-925.
What would the downside, if any, be if this bill were to pass?

Would State officials be prohibited from running background checks, for issuing Tennessee handgun carry permits?  It is not clear the bill would affect background checks done to enforce Tennessee law.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch









3 comments:

Paul Weber said...

So much money, time and effort spent on trying to control a right the Constitution says "shall not be infringed." Can anyone name anything more wasteful?

Anonymous said...

Federal law under the tenth amendment is superior to state law when the issue is specifically addressed in the federal constitution. This is the point I have been making for a very long time. The second amendment is very clearly in the federal constitution and is a mandated guaranteed right the states must also guarantee. Shall Not be Infringed means exactly the same today as the day the ink was drying on the bill of rights.. Even back ground checks are unconstitutional. The USSC has ruled a right can not be required to have a license, permit or be taxed to exercise that right. Back ground checks, license to carry / permit or even the sales tax on fire arms related Items and the arms are unconstitutional. As I have stated Many times the word infringe is an all encompassing term. The words Shall or Shall not are legal terms for the strongest wording possible to be used to mandate or prohibit doing something. If it in not forbidden it is permitted to the citizens only applies to citizens not the government. the constitution belongs to the people it was written to protect the people from government and is the rules that government is mandated to comply with. The 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA and the 1986 GCA are not constitutional amendments and are therefore unconstitutional. Back ground checks violate the fourth amendment to privacy. Even the laws preventing felons from possessing fire arms is unconstitutional. Like it or not these are constitution structural facts. The framers of the constitution intentionally limited the power of government for reasons they had lived through. they had experienced 157 years of the kings rule and the kings courts. You serve your time and then rejoin society you have the right of self defense when you are not incarcerated. While incarcerated you have guards to protect you ,LOL, what a joke that is. You lose your rights when convicted you regain those rights when you have paid your debt to society. Sentencing guidelines may need to be changed. as long as you remain a citizen you have all of the guaranteed rights if you are not in custody. If you are convicted of sedition you loose your citizenship.

Anonymous said...

AMEN. Finally someone taking a stand. Many everyone will wake up!