PDA

View Full Version : Buy bullets now, gun owners say!


Bman505
09-25-2009, 09:58 AM
Arms suppliers rushing to meet record demand
Published: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:08 PM CDT

A measure of the hysteria that has gripped our nation is the report that ammunition factories are working overtime and still can’t satisfy the public demand for bullets.

“We’ve had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7,” a Remington Arms spokesman said. “It’s a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business.”

A California manufacturer said about the same: “We’ve been in business for 32 years, and I’ve been here for 10 and we’ve never seen anything like it.”

It’s something akin to the New Year’s Day 2000 mania when a lot of people stocked up on basic supplies for fear the world’s computers would all go haywire.

The fear, apparently, is that the Obama administration will impose sweeping new gun control laws that could include a limit on ammunition purchases.

The manager of a Louisiana gun shop said as much: “It always happens when the Democrats get in office. It happened with Clinton, and Obama is even stronger for gun control. Ammunition will be the first step, so I’m stocking up while I can.”

Yet no gun or ammunition control legislation has been proposed. In fact, Obama last month signed a bill to allow loaded guns in national parks.

A corollary to the rush to buy bullets is the little-noticed action by the Tennessee legislature to exempt firearms made and sold within the state from federal gun laws and regulations, a measure that appears to defy Supreme Court rulings.

When federal law and state law conflict, the federal law prevails. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has warned Tennessee weapons dealers to ignore the state law.

The state law’s Senate sponsor, arch conservative Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet, said it’s a state’s right issue: “An effort by the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce under the guise of powers implied by the interstate commerce clause could only result in encroachment of the state’s power to regulate commerce within its borders.”

The Tennessee Firearms Association’s Web site is blunter: “The ATF — as expected — has issued a letter in which it disregards the 10th Amendment restrictions on federal power (as seems to be the trend since the late 1030s) …. We expected such from a tyranny that no longer lives within the bounds of its express authority.”

Don’t look at us, the ATF responded. Look to the Supreme Court, which repeatedly has upheld federal gun laws.

“The ATF hasn’t ruled this, the Supreme Court has, and we’re a law enforcement agency,” the Nashville agent in charge said.

“It’s analogous to a speed limit. If the speed limit on the Interstate is 70, a city can’t come along and say there is no speed limit on the Interstate through our city.”


More on this story,
http://www.parispi.net/articles/2009/09/25/opinion/editorials/doc4abba51a94222333535749.txt

sinclair
09-26-2009, 09:45 PM
When federal law and state law conflict, the federal law prevails. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has warned Tennessee weapons dealers to ignore the state law.

Not so. Only if the Federal Law is clearly under the Commerce Clause of Article I, section 8, and even then it must not be in conflict with the 10th amendment.

The current controlling Supreme Court opinion on this is the 1985 Garcia opinion (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), which did not resolve much and left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision."

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause, but the opinion did not mention nor clarify the Tenth Amendment.


As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions have been passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state. On May 12. 2009, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was signed by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and goes into effect Oct. 1, 2009. Montana was the first to pass such a law, Tennessee was the first to have the law go into effect. (June 29, 2009)