Rampart Media
Stay Connected
  • Top Stories
  • Blog
  • About/Contact

Discussing TN State Rep. Joe Carr's Anti-Gun Control BillĀ 

1/19/2013

0 Comments

 
Joe Carr has introduced HB0042 in the Tennessee General Assembly. This bill would make it a Class A Misdemeanor for any federal agent to enforce any new regulation, executive order, etc. that seeks to:

(1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi automatic firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition; or
(2) Require any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to be registered in any manner.

It also requires the Attorney General to represent any Tennessean who is prosecuted by the federal government for violating 1 or 2.

Naturally, Tennessee Democrats (who support the President's gun plans) were apoplectic. The party's chairman, Dip Forrester, called Carr an "extreme politician" and said it was "disgraceful."

I for one, would love to see this bill become law in Tennessee not only for the individual liberty it would protect but as an added bonus, we would get to see Dip Forrester's bow tie pop off in a fit of rage.....

Anyway......if it did pass, it would no doubt face a court challenge. The challengers would no doubt base their arguments on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Section 2) which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Maybe I'm a purist, but the first sentence of this is the most important; This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.

So, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the law itself is constitutional. If it isn't then the Supremacy Clause does not apply. I'm not the only one who has this interpretation. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 33, has this to say:

"But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing........... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such......... It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution"

How then, does this apply to Joe Carr's legislation and the Supremacy Clause argument against it if it is taken to court?

First, the easy one. If Carr's legislation is applied to protecting Tennesseans from an Executive Order, then there is no way the Supremacy Clause can be used as a shield. The reason is that the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws. Does the President have lawmaking authority? Obama might think he does, but he does not.

Second, what about new laws passed by Congress? This will be a little trickier and I'm not really sure how it would play out. Would the new law have to be declared constitutional before Carr's legislation would be declared unconstitutional? What if the new law never made it up to the Supreme Court? What would happen in the meantime? Could Carr's legislation be declared unconstitutional even if there are no new federal laws?

It will be an interesting fight and it's one that I think will be a good one to have.






0 Comments

Obama's Debt Ceiling Lie. Again

1/14/2013

0 Comments

 
I'll keep this short.

Whenever Barack Obama says that we must raise the debt ceiling to "pay our bills," it is an out and out lie. Here's the numbers.

The US government is projected to take in $2,901,956,000,000.

Here are the outlays in millions on some of the programs that Obama said we couldn't fund if the debt ceiling is not raised:

Medicare- $530,246
Social Security- $825,872
Veteran Benefits and Services- $140,117
Interest on the Debt- $247,715

What does that leave us with? $1,158,006,000,000. Soo what exactly can't we pay?

And just for good measure, we can also pay "Income Security" which includes:
  • General retirement and disability insurance (excluding social security)
  • Federal employee retirement and disability
  • Unemployment compensation
  • Housing assistance
  • Food and nutrition assistance
  • Other income security
And still have $598,593,000,000 left.

Debunking Obama's lies is just too easy.











0 Comments

Stand with Rep. Steve Stockman

1/14/2013

0 Comments

 
It has come to this....

The threat of an Executive Order attacking run rights is real. If this occurs it would be an  obvious and brazen violation of the Constitution which cannot be tolerated. Luckily for us, Rep. Steve Stockman has made it known that if this happens, he could introduce articles of impeachment against the President.

"Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement."


I know that impeachment would never happen in the Harry Reid controlled Senate. But you know what? I just don't care. The impeachment articles should still be drawn up and voted on in the House. Kick it over to the Senate and see who all would be an accessory to Constiutional murder by not supporting it.

Folks, a blatant unconstitutional act  by the President should not be tolerated. Period. We have got to demand that if it does, impeachment will happen. Rep. Stockman has came out for this and for that we should come out and support him.

Email Rep. Stockman and let him know you stand with him.

0 Comments

An Open Letter To My State Senator And Representative

1/12/2013

1 Comment

 
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is under assault by Washington politicians.

They are plotting as we speak to come up with new regulations that will have no effect on gun violence but will only place onerous restrictions on Americans seeking to exercise their God-given right to possess firearms. They make phony gun control arguments and are playing on fear and emotion and not facts, reason or experience.

These lawmakers have no respect for the rule of law, the natural rights of man, or the Constitution. Case in point: The Vice President of this country stated that the President is “exploring” using an executive order to “combat” gun violence; Constitution be damned. This out and out power grab should be condemned by every single American citizen and legislator regardless of political party. This type of action has no place in a limited, constitutional republic. Because of this, state governments will now have to step up and defend the right to bear arms. Tennessee has a history of doing just this.

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Freeman wrote in the majority opinion for Andrews v State (1871) that:

“It is said by the Attorney General, that the Legislature may prohibit the use of arms common in warfare, but not the use of them in warfare; but the idea of the Constitution is, the keeping and use of such arms as are useful either in warfare, or in preparing the citizen for their use in warfare, by training him as a citizen, to their use in times of peace.”

He then quotes Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

“The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will in general, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

  Justice Freeman then states:

“We cite this passage as throwing light upon what was intended to be guaranteed to the people of the States, against the power of the Federal Legislature, and at the same time, as showing clearly what is the meaning of our own Constitution on this subject, as it is evident the State Constitution was intended to guard the same right, and with the same ends in view. So that, the meaning of the one, will give us an understanding of the purpose of the other.

The passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights”

 These words still ring true today. The question is, will they fall on deaf ears?

They have not fallen on deaf ears of legislators in Wyoming. In that state they have proposed a bill that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.” 

I believe that this a necessary step that all state legislatures should take and it is for this reason that I am writing today.

Would you support/sponsor legislation in the state of Tennessee that would mimic the bill proposed in Wyoming?


1 Comment

From My Cold Dead Hands

1/5/2013

0 Comments

 
The enemies of liberty are on the move.

Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein will introduce major gun control legislation on January 22nd. Here are some of the lowlights:

Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

  •     Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    
  •     Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    
  •     Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
    
Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
 
Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.
Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
If this crap becomes law, I will not abide by it. I will not register any grandfathered weapon with the ATF. This is insane. These damn gun-grabbing anti-constitutionalists will stop at nothing to disarm the American people. They are an absolute threat to our freedom.

Contact your member of Congress today and demand that they reject Feinstein's legislation.


0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Author

    Constitutional conservative and free-market defender blogging about national and Tennessee politics

    Blogroll
    White House Dossier

    Archives

    January 2017
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    2012
    2014 Election
    2014 Election
    9/11
    9-9-9
    Affirmative Action
    Afghanistan
    Alexander
    Alf Landon
    Barack Obama
    Barack Obama
    Bats
    Beer Summit
    Benghazi
    Ben Sasse
    Big Journalism
    Bill Haslam
    Bush
    Candy Bar
    Cbs
    Christmas
    Constitution
    Corker
    Corporations
    Dana Loesch
    Dave Ramsey
    Debt
    Democrats
    Economics
    Election 2012
    Elections
    Epic Fail
    Fair Share
    Fallen Soldier Sunday
    Fdr
    Food Stamps
    Gingrich
    Government Mandate
    Guns
    Harkin
    Harrison Schultz
    Henry Louis Gates
    Herman Cain
    Hypocrisy
    Immigration
    Independence Day
    Irs
    Joe Carr
    Keynes
    Leftists
    Lmao
    Mark Levin
    Media
    Medicaid
    Michelle Obama
    Milton Friedman
    Minimum Wage
    Minimum Wage
    Newsbusters
    Obama
    Obamacare
    Occupy Wall Street
    Ostrich Doctor
    Protest
    Ralph Bristol
    Recall
    Rick Perry
    Robert Capa
    Second Amendment
    Snap
    Social Security
    Stimulus
    Students
    Supreme Court
    Syria
    Taxes
    Ted Cruz
    Tenncare
    Tennessean
    Tennessee
    United Methodist Church
    Wall Street
    War On Terror
    Waverly
    Wi
    World War Ii
    Xerox
    Zero

Thank you for visiting Rampart Media! Please be sure and visit our about us/contact page!
A special thanks to FeedWind for keeping the links up an running.