ATF to TN: The 10th Amendment? What 10th Amendment?

[Azzy]

Please Mr. ATF agent, may I have my rights back?

This federal governement is in debt, and needs to tighten it's belt. Why cant it be run like a household (that isnt filled with rapist crack addicts?)

[archangel689]

Enter the ATF

Let them.
When 25+ states have passed similar legislation, their voices will sound more like a kid crying for a cookie.

[zackattack784]

Sadly, the court has ruled multiple times throughout our history that even things made and kept within a state could fall under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and are thus subject to federal regulation.

See:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
and
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
just to name two.

I'm not saying I agree with it but the governmet will argue that guns affect interstate commerce and are thus subject to Congress' regulation. Based on prior case law I would not be surprised if the government won this argument.

[King 5.45]

Sadly, the court has ruled multiple times throughout our history that even things made and kept within a state could fall under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and are thus subject to federal regulation.

See:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
and
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
just to name two.

I'm not saying I agree with it but the governmet will argue that guns affect interstate commerce and are thus subject to Congress' regulation. Based on prior case law I would not be surprised if the government won this argument.

Long live the Federal Empire. The Republic is gone.

[zackattack784]

Long live the Federal Empire. The Republic is gone.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

[General Geoff]

Based on prior case law I would not be surprised if the government won this argument.

The feds cannot just "win" in this case, because they're not bullying around a private citizen anymore like in wickard or gonzales. They're now trying to bully around a sovereign state. And the sovereign state of Tennessee can pull the voluntary pact card, in that when Tennessee agreed to join the United States, certain interpretations of the wording of the US Constitution were presumed. Since the feds have expanded upon those interpretations since the time that Tennessee joined the United States, it could be argued that the voluntary pact between the Union and Tennessee can be dissolved for cause.

[zackattack784]

The feds cannot just "win" in this case, because they're not bullying around a private citizen anymore like in wickard or gonzales. They're now trying to bully around a sovereign state. And the sovereign state of Tennessee can pull the voluntary pact card, in that when Tennessee agreed to join the United States, certain interpretations of the wording of the US Constitution were presumed. Since the feds have expanded upon those interpretations since the time that Tennessee joined the United States, it could be argued that the voluntary pact between the Union and Tennessee can be dissolved for cause.

The government would argue that TN is trying to control interstate commerce, a power which is reserved to Congress. I don't think the fact that it is a whole state as opposed to one person or a company makes that much of a difference.

If the government can win a case by arguing that a farmer who grows excess grain beyond a certain quota for his own personal consumption is interstate commerce, then I'll be damned, pretty much anything would be interstate commerce now wouldn't it?

Like I said, I don't agree with the SCOTUS' rulings that have greatly expanded what is called "interstate commerce," but I'm just trying to convey that things like this have come up before and it's not looking good for TN...

I do however wish TN the best if they choose to pursue the path you have described, though I do find it unlikely.

[General Geoff]

The government would argue that TN is trying to control interstate commerce, a power which is reserved to Congress.

And TN would argue that the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of interstate commerce to an unacceptable level, and thus reserves the right to leave the Union. If they leave the Union, they are no longer bound by federal law.

[zackattack784]

And TN would argue that the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of interstate commerce to an unacceptable level, and thus reserves the right to leave the Union. If they leave the Union, they are no longer bound by federal law.

They can try. I don't know if it would work, but I doubt it will ever get that far anyway.

[General Geoff]

They don't have to try. The federal government recognizes the 50 states' individual sovereignty. By definition, then, they can leave the union whenever they want, just like the southern states did at the beginning of the Civil War.