In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Where do you FFL dealers stand?
sovereignman
Member Posts: 544 ✭✭✭
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Comments
Where do I stand? I think intrastate commerce should not come under Federal scrutiny or regulation, but what I think really doesn't matter much in the world as it is.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Why is it you disparage the FFL holders instead of your proper target? That would be the "federal gun regulators" you refer to. Our war is not with each other, it is with an oppressive government. Why does everyone seem to forget that?
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Why is it you disparage the FFL holders instead of your proper target? That would be the "federal gun regulators" you refer to. Our war is not with each other, it is with an oppressive government. Why does everyone seem to forget that?
I get the point you are making, fox...
That said, let us switch and make an analogy related to your favorite, 'law enforcement'.
If a firearm confiscation law were passed and most 'LEOs rucked-up and were going 'door to door' taking firearms by consent or by whatever force necessary, would you hold the same view and advocate ignoring those 'just following government orders' and instead focus solely on the law makers who had passed the law?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Ditto, C'mon Fox an answer please.
I post for people to think, there is a thin line between licenses and
privilege. JMO.
Why is it you disparage the FFL holders instead of your proper target? That would be the "federal gun regulators" you refer to. Our war is not with each other, it is with an oppressive government. Why does everyone seem to forget that?
I get the point you are making, fox...
That said, let us switch and make an analogy related to your favorite, 'law enforcement'.
If a firearm confiscation law were passed and most 'LEOs rucked-up and were going 'door to door' taking firearms by consent or by whatever force necessary, would you hold the same view and advocate ignoring those 'just following government orders' and instead focus solely on the law makers who had passed the law?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Why is it you disparage the FFL holders instead of your proper target? That would be the "federal gun regulators" you refer to. Our war is not with each other, it is with an oppressive government. Why does everyone seem to forget that?
I get the point you are making, fox...
That said, let us switch and make an analogy related to your favorite, 'law enforcement'.
If a firearm confiscation law were passed and most 'LEOs rucked-up and were going 'door to door' taking firearms by consent or by whatever force necessary, would you hold the same view and advocate ignoring those 'just following government orders' and instead focus solely on the law makers who had passed the law?
Ditto, C'mon Fox an answer please.
I post for people to think outside the box, there is a thin line between licenses and privilege. JMO.
I am not in Tennessee, but I have heard of this legislation. As much as I might applaud such, given our current regulatory situation, I can't see the feds letting this happen. I know what Amendment 10 states, but the BATFE is what it is.
Where do I stand? I think intrastate commerce should not come under Federal scrutiny or regulation, but what I think really doesn't matter much in the world as it is.
I believe, in most cases, what happens in a state is not the federal governments issue. The 10th still stands.
I also agree with you on your interstate commerce stance.
The federal government has gotten to big for it's own good, they border on a dictatorship.
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104674
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.
Especialy you FFL dealers in Tenn. Where do you stand? With the State or the federal dictators?
Other states have also passed such laws:
Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
Bottom line: If you do NOT follow current FFL regulations on transferring a firearm, you best have very deep pockets because the Feds will challenge you in Federal court - and the Feds have very deep pockets 'cause they are spending YOUR money. [:(]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_28670.php
Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders -but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules.
According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.
On a blog, one commentator noted, "This is a healthy sign. Legislators in several states working to take back sovereignty and restore constitutional government. The next step that has to be taken is to replace representatives and senators who don't support states rights. Then, the House needs to introduce impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court justices who exhibit bad behavior. Contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court justices do not serve lifetime appointments. They serve for periods of GOOD BEHAVIOR. I contend that erroneous decisions constitute bad behavior."
Learn what you can do about your nation. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
"According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
That the effectiveness of such a law when opposed by the Federal Government will only be decided in a court of law. Until then, the issue will not have a legal precedent.
It is law it is passed and signed. It becomes law when published.The courts can try and stop it. The legislature can overrde the courts if necessary. 3 branches not 1.
Yes, it is the law, however the point being made is the enforcement of such a law until tried in court and a precedent is set as to it being vaild and enforcable has yet to occur.
The courts are not the end to legislation it is people that make the determination. The JURY will decide, the people are sovereign.
A jury can nullify any law or any judge!
JUSTICE HUGO BLACK, (Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1937-1971) a great believer in the Jury system, used to tell this story:
Years ago, in the foot-hills of Alabama, a tenant-farmer was charged criminally with stealing a cow from his landlord, and was brought to trial. As was frequently the case in rural America, the Jurors selected for the trial were acquainted with everyone, including the accused and his victim. Each juror knew that the farm's landlord was a nasty buzzard who tormented his neighbors, while frequently treating the town's orphans and widows with derision. By the same token, the tenant-farmer was the salt of the earth, beloved by everyone. But still, the evidence of his guilt was indisputable.
After the evidence was in and the jury retired to deliberate, it quickly returned to the courtroom to announce its verdict: "If the accused returns the cow, we find him not guilty."
The judge was infuriated. His anger heightening, he commanded the jury to return to the jury room to deliberate --shrilly chastising them for their flagrantly "arrogant" and "illegal" verdict.
Not a moment passed when they re-appeared in the tense courtroom to trumpet their new verdict: "We find the accused not guilty -- and he can keep the cow."
The American Jury, Justice Black reminds his listeners, is effectively omnipotent in rendering an acquittal. What hits home in Justice Black's story is the deeply-held American notion that juries often perform an independent role in a system in which the people - not prosecutors, judges or lawyers - have the last word. In the end, if the jury wishes to let the defendant keep the cow, that is what will happen.
"We all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile* than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does."
- Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux; 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283
Note: "Cross and Pile" meant "heads or tails" or a coin toss
quote:Originally posted by us55840
Yes, it is the law, however the point being made is the enforcement of such a law until tried in court and a precedent is set as to it being vaild and enforcable has yet to occur.
The courts are not the end to legislation it is people that make the determination. The JURY will decide, the people are sovereign.
A jury can nullify any law or any judge!
JUSTICE HUGO BLACK, (Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1937-1971) a great believer in the Jury system, used to tell this story:
Years ago, in the foot-hills of Alabama, a tenant-farmer was charged criminally with stealing a cow from his landlord, and was brought to trial. As was frequently the case in rural America, the Jurors selected for the trial were acquainted with everyone, including the accused and his victim. Each juror knew that the farm's landlord was a nasty buzzard who tormented his neighbors, while frequently treating the town's orphans and widows with derision. By the same token, the tenant-farmer was the salt of the earth, beloved by everyone. But still, the evidence of his guilt was indisputable.
After the evidence was in and the jury retired to deliberate, it quickly returned to the courtroom to announce its verdict: "If the accused returns the cow, we find him not guilty."
The judge was infuriated. His anger heightening, he commanded the jury to return to the jury room to deliberate --shrilly chastising them for their flagrantly "arrogant" and "illegal" verdict.
Not a moment passed when they re-appeared in the tense courtroom to trumpet their new verdict: "We find the accused not guilty -- and he can keep the cow."
The American Jury, Justice Black reminds his listeners, is effectively omnipotent in rendering an acquittal. What hits home in Justice Black's story is the deeply-held American notion that juries often perform an independent role in a system in which the people - not prosecutors, judges or lawyers - have the last word. In the end, if the jury wishes to let the defendant keep the cow, that is what will happen.
"We all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile* than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does."
- Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux; 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283
Note: "Cross and Pile" meant "heads or tails" or a coin toss
Congratulations slick, you are exactly what the corrupt clowns in Chicago depend upon.
They clearly don't worry in the least what the law might be in terms of their municipal activities, since it really is only what the Chicago machine says it is, and that's precisely what you advocate.
Your kind gave up on the rule of law eons ago, and have substituted a form of mob rule based entirely upon your own personal desires and interpretations.
I doubt the founders really intended that, but you clearly do.
We are a nation of laws for a reason, and to stop malicious personal interpretation was a primary point of the concept.
You believe that jury nullification is a valid concept, and it is to a degree, but it ignores the reality that the next door neighbors may nullify in a different manner.
If you don't like the law, change it, but get over yourself in terms of thinking you are the be all, end all of legal scholarship.
I've read your garbage, you aren't even the beginning.