The state of Tennessee has taken steps to prevent international organizations from imposing gun laws or treaties on Tennessee residents. Thank goodness for some common sense and some recognition of sovereign rights. On April 7th, the state Senate gave final approval for a bill designed to prevent enforcement of gun control laws passed by international mandate or treaty by a vote of 26 – 0.
House Bill 2389 (HB2389) was introduced by Rep. John Windle (D-Livingston) in January. It would prohibit law enforcement officers from enforcing provisions of international law and treaties that limit gun rights as specified in Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee State Constitution. It reads, in part:
“On or after July 1, 2016 no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any international law or treaty regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the use of personnel or property would result in the violation of another Tennessee statute, Tennessee common law, or the Constitution of Tennessee.”
“This bill prohibits any interference of [the right to keep and bear arms] by international treaty,” said Windle on the House floor last month.
HB2389 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
Recently-proposed measures, such as the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), are, as noted by Gun Owners of America, part of a plan “to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.” Just this month, Oxfam International renewed its push for passage of the ATT. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has long-participated in the development and support of the ATT as well.
The new legislation became necessary as word spread about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal that President Obama has been working on for over 6 years. The TPP is less trade deal and more a program to crush sovereignty and to develop a one-world government, though the details remain secret.
In addition, there is something called the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that also has the objective of disarming America and would leave the average citizen no means of self-defense against either foreign or domestic threat.
Thank goodness for patriots like those in Tennessee who see the risk of giving away too much power, and who recognize that those who would disarm us are no friend of the common citizen.
Source: blog.tenthanendmentcenter.com
THE USELESS NATION’S ARE ANTI AMERICA.
A smart, preemptive move to keep the UN from being deployed to confiscate guns in the U.S. It is a desperate liberal ploy that they would like to see to disarm American citizens.
All states need to pass this law.
That’s right, don’t allow the goverment to take the guns out of our hands, if they want the NWO, let them fight for it.
I never signed any such agreement.i never elected kerry nor obama. I denounce any power or representation these two morons claim to have on my behalf..i can speak for myself