New Tennessee Law Sets Stage to Reject International Gun ControlBy Mike Maharrey House Bill 2389 (HB2389) was introduced by Rep. John Windle (D-Livingston) in January. It prohibits 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. Itreads, 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 billprohibits any interference of [the right to keep and bear arms]by international treaty, said Windle on the House floor last month. In February, aHouse subcommitteevoted to kill the bill, but after heavy grassroots pressure, the subcommittee reconvened on the measure, passing it by a 3-2 voteon Mar. 16. The full House passed the bill by an 88-2 vote. And the Senate passed it unanimously, 26-0. 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. Theanti-commandeering doctrineis based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. Now that the law is in effect, heres how thingscould play out in practice. If the federal government were to participate in an international treaty or agreement that restricts any firearms allowed under Tennessee law or the state Constitution, and then a local cop pulled someone over for a traffic violation and saw that firearm in the car, the cop could simply give the guy a ticket for the traffic violation and send him on his way. 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. Recently, 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 law willlikely require further action to be put into practical effect. A lawsuit could be necessary to determine a violation of the state Constitution, or the legislature mightneed to create some mechanism to determine whether a treaty or other internationalaction was contrary to Tennessee law or the state constitution. The latter could be included in abill next year as well. More importantly, effortsto remove restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms from state law will be strategically essential. If there are laws on the books that more actively protect the right to keep and bear arms in Tennessee, then any international treaty runningcounter to the state law would trigger a refusal to participate under the act, said Scott Landreth of ShallNot.org. Examples include Constitutional Carry or gun show bills that the Tennessee Firearms Association have long-supported. Its time to get those bills passed. Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of 98 Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a RIGHT for its ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS. please stop them. Heres how this works. What they are basically stating is that no stage government personnel, funds or assets will be used to carry out international gun laws. That doesnt eliminate the U.N. from coming in and doing the job itself. Again, this simply says the State wont get involved. The corrupt and confused blue-helmeted UN forces could barely handle Haiti. Why should we suppose they wouldnt get their asses kicked out of Tennessee? I live in a state which has CCW reciprocity agreements with Tennessee, as do many other states. If the UN invaded Tennessee theyd have half a million gun-toting patriots swelling citizen ranks from all corners of the lower 48 and Alaska within DAYS. (Im about due for a ridge-running Appalachian vacation anyway, come to think of it.) Not to mention the 10th amendment. Passing a law has nothing to do with enforcing that law. Tell that to the usurpers in the foreign occupying UN controlled current junta. No, not in the foreign. Anything but that. The laws of a regressive regime like Tennessee have no effect whatsoever, so this little piece of legislation is more for show than substance. Excuse me,your ignorance is showing. Really? I guess there are no Federal agents in Tennessee to enforce Federal law. Sorry, I didnt know that. The Tenth Amendments simple So why do you think this particular piece of State law has precedence over Federal law? Second amendment from the immutable Bill or Rights says that the U.S. Congress cannot infringe on the peoples right to carry arms. But isnt that what the Supreme Court is all about, to prevent governments from enforcing unconstitutional laws? Talk to them, not me. 