Printable View
BATF acts like TN's new law didn't even pass except for the nasty letter they sent out reminding all FFL's within the state to ignore TN's HB 1796 and comply with FED laws. I'm very curious how this will play out. I just got my 01 FFL yesterday and would love to keep it while being able to take advantage of TN's new gun law. We will see. For now I'm following FED guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
For me the pendulum has never swung too far on the side of individual rights, certainly it hasn't since Franklin Roosevelt became President. America's Bill of Rights are designed to be individual rights, not rights of government. Free speech, freedom of religion, Keep and bear arms, right to a fair trial with a lawyer, etc. are all individual rights. It is about time that in Heller the court finally made that clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Europe always tries to balance the needs of society with individual rights, which is why their freedom of speech and right to bear arms is virtually non-existent. What is great about America is that it is the first country in the world to say that individual rights outweigh the rights of society. That unless the individual is violating someone else's rights, the state cannot stop the individual from exercising those rights. Of course, over time these rights have eroded and America is not as great as it once was. It is good to see the Supreme Court once again recognizing these individual rights, as I hope they do when they make their decision in this case.
For thouse of you who are so inclined...
The SCOTUS WiKi for this case...
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?...ity_of_Chicago
Or - for those of you with an excessive amount of free time, I should say...
One can learn a great deal from filings of this nature:
Especially telling are these Amicus Brief filings:
You can crack these babies open and find out who DOES NOT support gun rights...Quote:
In Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Anti-Defamation League
- Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice
- Brief for 34 Professional Historians and Legal Historians
- Brief for the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
- Brief for the Villages of Winnetka and Skokie, Illinois, the City of Evanston, Illinois, the Illinois Municipal League, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association
- Brief for American Cities, Cook County, Illinois, and Police Chiefs
- Brief for Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and District Attorneys
- Brief for the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, the Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Violence Policy Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Maine Citizens Against Gun Violence, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort Educational Fund, and Gunfreekids.Org
- Brief of Law Professor and Students
- Brief for Historians and Legal Scholars
- Brief for English/Early American Historians
- Brief for Historians on Early American Legal, Constitutional and Pennsylvania History
- Brief for Organizations Committed to Protecting the Pubic's Health, Safety, and Well-Being
- Brief for the States of Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey
- Brief for the United States Conference of Mayors
- Brief for Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Mike Quigley, and 53 Other Congress Members of the United States Congress
- Brief for the Oak Park Citizens Committee for Handgun Control
And this really has more than just the 2nd Amendment as its foundation:
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state and local governments from exercising their police powers to prohibit the possession of handguns based on a judgment that these firearms are unreasonably likely to be misused by criminals.
I don't want to start another arguement on the site. Really, I don't. I've had more than a couple lately on this subject. But, let me throw a couple of hypotheticals out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eow
The 4th ammendment, in the strictest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any LE from entering a residence without a warrant, period. Very heavy on the individual rights. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, the cops are chasing an armed child rapist and murderer. Bad guy bails out of his car and runs into your house. You are not home but your wife and daughter are. The cops under this interpretation couldn't enter the residence, even though it's not the bad guy's house, because it's a residence and that requires a warrant.
The 1st ammendment, in the stricest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow any recourse civil or criminal against someone defacing your integrety. Let's pretend that's reality. Now, your brother-in-law hates your guts and just so happens to be a journalist. He embellishes a story that you like to sexually molest pre-teen aged boys, and finds a neighbor kid to say you buggered him. He prints the story.
The 5th ammendment, in the strictest interpretation of the ammendment leaning towards individual rights would disallow at least half of the currently admissable confessions scenarios legal today. So, a child molester kidnaps, rapes, and kills your kid. During his arrest, he's Mirandized and requests a lawyer. During the drive to the police station, he blurts out that he did it all and enjoyed every minute of it. The confession never even see's the inside of the court.
These are just off the top of my head. They are all examples of how social order does come into play in regards to individual rights. I wish no ill will to your family in the scenarios. I just wrote them like that to try to illustrate the scenarios. It sometimes helps people see how social order affects them if it's discussed in terms of ownership.
European's governments really have nothing to do with this discussion. They all have different governments and different systems. Most of them have never had any of the freedoms we do, and most have fluxuated from one system of government to another multiple times over their existences. Essentially, they come from a different place in their views of government than we do.
I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on tv), but as I see it, the first F in "FFL" is where you may get in trouble... if you have applied for a FFL, you've entered into an agreement with the Federal gov't.. so you have to abide by that.. if you didn't have an FFL, then you'd have to abide only by TN's law as a citizen, and would have better legal standing to ignore the Feds... according to TN's HB 1796, they would have no jurisdiction... but since you applied for the FFL, you've given them jurisdiction over your business. just something to think about..Quote:
Originally Posted by GunTroll
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunTroll
yeah I have read about the letters and it really bothers me that the FED is overstepping their boundaries with this. State laws apply when there is no interstate commerce so the FED should have no jurisdiction.
wasn't there something in effect or at least proposed that would put the agents in jail for enforcing such a rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
I have wondered about this as well and was hoping Tn and NT would be in the works for a state issued gun dealers license. then there is no FFL to revoke, no FFL enforcement and no knowledge of the FFL to the FEDs (as long as the state didn't supply that information). only limit would be that state dealer would only be allowed to sell in state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
I thought the nature of the laws in question was such that as long as it was not the jurisdiction of the Feds, then there would be NO regulation... so why would they need licensing for it?
it's already legal for you to build a firearm from scratch for your own use... the BATFE only has jurisdiction if you build it with intent to sell- then you're a "manufacturer"... or somehow if it's an NFA item (was never sure how that one worked) this law would theoretically remove that jurisdiction on any transaction between citizens within the state.. it would appear from the letter received by FFLs in TN would indicate the BATFE is asserting their authority built within the FFL agreement..
True. Thats my understanding as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Not about my FFL.......To me this case seems a double edge sword so to speak. Just as Sniper7 implied. If the states pass a law or even more locally the city/county and I believe (we) as constitutionally minded people, should hold them over fed laws. That being said.....individual rights such as the second should not be infringed on by the fed/state/city/county laws. I also am not a lawyer and don't even want to try to understand the complex issues that lawyers and judges deal with. Laws are fine and all but if one word is missing, and I mean one, it leaves it up to interpretation and that's where we are today. Sucks!