Tennessee Passes Bill Rejecting Gun Control Imposed By International Law or Treaty

gun_constitutionBy Joseph Jankowski

On Thursday, the Tennessee senate gave final approval to a bill that sets the foundation to stop enforcement of gun control imposed by international law or treaty.

House Bill 2389 would prohibit law enforcement officers from enforcing provisions of international law and treaties that limit gun rights as specified in the state’s constitution.

The bill reads:

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 Tennessee Rep. John Windle, who introduced the bill in January.

HB2389 now moves on to Governor Bill Haslam’s desk. He must sign or veto the bill within 10 days of transmittal, or it becomes law without his signature.

If this bill passes, Tennessee will be shielded from the pesky, anti-second amendment UN Arms Trade Treaty which has been described by Gun Owners of America as part of a plan “to bring back the framework for a global gun control regime.”

The ATT was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013 but was never ratified by the US Senate.

The NRA blasted the Obama Administration for signing the treaty, saying “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme [and is full of regulations and requirements that are] blatant attacks on the constitutional rights of every law-abiding American.”

Recently, Oxfam International renewed its push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry (Ad)

Joseph Jankowski is a contributor for Planet Free Will.com. His works have been published by recognizable alternative news sites like GlobalResearch.ca, ActivistPost.com, and Intellihub.com.  Follow Planet Free Will on Twitter @ twitter.com/PlanetFreeWill


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

37 Comments on "Tennessee Passes Bill Rejecting Gun Control Imposed By International Law or Treaty"

  1. Kerry Jackson | April 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm | Reply

    Down here in Georgia I’m kinda warming up to those good folks in Tennessee.

    • James Staten | April 9, 2016 at 9:40 am | Reply

      Well we recently passed a Law that the Bible is the State Book of Tennessee. I can see it now: God, Gold as the currency and Guns!!!

  2. The bill basically states the state government won’t get involved. Sounds like something which would make the people happy and drop their guard. The Tennessee government may just ‘step aside’ and let the U.N. do it for them.

    You see, they said no state resources would be used. What they also didn’t say was state resources would NOT be used to STOP such a thing from happening by other organizations.

    • Maybe they need to amend that legislation to fix that little potential problem. You can’t know what a future state government will or will not do in that regard.

      The rest of the states need to pass this law as well.

  3. Thomas Paine in the butt | April 9, 2016 at 8:27 am | Reply

    As much as I agree with the TN bill it doesn’t pass constitutional muster, treaties once ratified by the Senate become the law. Politicians since Woodrow Wilson have took to treaties to get agenda items they couldn’t do with legislation.

    The only way to keep this treaty from becoming law is keep it from being ratified in the Senate.

    • You are incorrect.

      Here in America all Treaties made MUST be in Pursuance thereof (follow) the US Constitution or they are “null and void”, invalid from the moment they are written; as must be all laws, codes, regulations, etc. I would say from your comment that you have not read the document that IS our US Constitution. The document that defines our government, assigns and separates the duties that those who serve within our government must perform in order to be legit; the supreme law of our land, and the contract that all who serve within our government are lawfully bound to. It is a short document, may I recommend that all Americans read it, and at least quotes from the framers and others of that time?

      Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    • Thomas Paine in the butt | April 9, 2016 at 10:26 am | Reply

      You are correct from the standpoint of commentary on the Constitution.

      Article 6 Section 2 says “..all treaties made, or shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and all the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

      That’s what I based my comment on. The written law not interpreted law.

      • Ouch…..but….F-em anyway. The UN doesn’t live here.

      • Yes within the Federal jurisdictions, District of Columbia and it’s territories.
        Not the States, the 10th protects the States and the People from Federal abuses.
        I cannot remember where, but treaties are required to abide by Constitutional limitations imposed on the Govt. That’s the key, Govt limitations.

    • SonsofAnarchy5768 | April 10, 2016 at 8:36 am | Reply

      No NO nO, NOT if it is unconstitutional man~

    • Thomas Paine in the butt | April 10, 2016 at 9:37 am | Reply

      If I’m wrong please cite Article and Section of the Constitution. Unfortunately the plain language of Art. 6 Sec. 2 is clear. The Federalist Papers, CFR, thousands of pages of laws, excerpts from ratification debates, etc are not the Constitution. I want to be proven wrong on this…

      If I were writing the amendment to correct this it’d read like this, as a rough draft…

      1. All agreements between the United States and foreign states or organizations shall be treaties, regardless of name or classification.

      2. All treaties between the United States and foreign States or organizations shall not be repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the several states

      3. The Senate shall ratify all treaties by a 3/4 majority of the total number of Senators.

      4. The President or any representative of the United States shall not sign, permit to be signed, agree to or impliment any treaty or portion thereof before the Senate has ratified the treaty.

  4. ““This bill prohibits any interference of [the right to keep and bear arms] by international treaty,” said Tennessee Rep. John Windle, who introduced the bill in January.”

    The US Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF OUR LAND THAT ALL LAWS/REGULATIONS/CODES/ TREATIES/ETC are REQUIRED to follow (be in Pursuance thereof) in order to be lawful and binding on the American people forbids anyone serving within our governments – state and federal – with the words “shall
    not be infringed” any delegated authority over our natural right to own, carry, weapons of any type. The American people KEPT that power for themselves along with many others.

    The Preamble to the Bill of Rights make it very clear that those items listed there are out of the delegated authority of those that serve within our governments.

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. …”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause, Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.” (NOT to those that SERVE WITHIN the general or state governments)

    Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

    Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.
    He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

    Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

    Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

    Andrews v. State explains, this “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.”

    All the “laws, regulations, codes, etc” created that tries to place limits of any sort on the American people regarding being armed, speaking, traveling, having access to water, growing things, etc are all protected from those that serve within our governments (Ninth Amendment). Every “law/code/regulation/etc” that was created by those that serve within our governments limiting any of those are “color of law” and NOT lawfully binding on the American people.

    Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Version sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate Aug 14, 1888: “A well regulated Militia, being composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;” “Free State” in the language of the times referred to a free country; not to any governmental entity, but to the people themselves.”

    George Washington, ex military general and ex US President: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    The *nation of New York advocated to the constitutional convention that her people would never be debarred the right to keep and bear arms: “We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States,- Do declare and make known,- “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence era free state.” (Ironic, isn’t it?)

    *(state meaning “nation” as we call it today. It is important to realize that America is a bunch of
    smaller nations that banded together in dealings with each other and the outside world, not a bunch of nations that gave up their sovereignty – they STILL LAWFULLY share sovereignty and delegated some of that sovereignty via the US Constitution to the general government to deal with mostly foreign affairs for the states as a whole. It IS in writing within the US Constitution)

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

    Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no
    cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

    Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

    James Wilson contended that the Constitution already allowed for the ultimate force in the people: “”In its principles, it is surely democratical; for, however wide and various the firearms of power may appear, they
    may all be traced to one source, the people.”

    Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    What those who serve within our governments are ALLOWED to do, and FORBIDDEN to do are in writing within our US Constitution and within each state’s Constitution. They are the “contracts that ALL who serve within our governments are EVERY level are bound to by Oath. ALL to have any lawful authority over the people MUST take and KEEP the Oaths required, and must do the duty as put in writing within the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution.

    President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    It is important to realize that those who serve within our governments are NOT our |”masters”, they are under a contract or contracts (US Constitution and state Constitution) and they are in writing. America is NOT a “democracy”. She is a Constitutional Republic – and what those that serve within our governments are ALLOWED to do is in writing. They are backed up by a required Oath/Oaths making them the strongest contracts available to mankind. The US Constitution requires the people to enforce the Constitutions by the form of Militia, Grand Jury Investigations, Grand Jury, and juries everywhere.

    Those that serve whiting our governments are constitutionally required to use the Militias of the people to:

    — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    It is a crime for them to use any other body for those things listed above.

    If you bothered to read this far, Good for you, there is then hope for our nation… one might also consider this by Michael LeMieux: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”

    Concerning the delegated authority those that serve within our government has, it is best described by Dr. Edwin Vieira:

    “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s
    constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not
    have legal authority to do.

    Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera.

    “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

    (End Dr. Vieira quote. Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

    For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark
    decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to
    which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.)

    • “It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
      been passed.” And that applies to any (and all) governmental action
      outside of the Constitution…”
      I like it, thank you for taking the time to compose this. Please spread this far and wide.

  5. as long as the Senate did not ratify it we won’t follow it and obummer can’t force us to

    • Obummer is illegal and should have been thrown out of office years ago.

    • Even if the entire Senate was bullied, blackmailed and bribed into passing that piece of treasonous garbage it would not be legal and would not be legally enforceable.

  6. God bless the Great state of , Tennessee it’s Governor and it’s people.
    We stand with you from the people in the Great State of Arizona.
    Yes my wife and I still cling to our Bible our family and our guns!

  7. A shame states even have to do this. The 2nd Amendment states “shall not be infringed”.

    • SonsofAnarchy5768 | April 10, 2016 at 8:31 am | Reply

      It is a shame but at least some of the states are waking up, most are as corrupted as the fed gov or else this crap going on couldn’t~

  8. Puck the UN….

  9. Alleged Comment | April 9, 2016 at 1:44 pm | Reply

    He didn’t even have to pass the bill. All he had to say we already have it enshrined in the Constitution and we are ruled by the Constitution.

    This is a waste of taxpayers money and indulges in self-importance.

  10. NOW, the good governor and our representatives MUST act, to have these muslim jihadist terrorist training camps shut down. There are dozens of these muslim terrorist training camps throughout the US, and many in Tennessee. The devils in DC and federal agencies like doj, fbi and dhSTASI will NOT allow state, county or local LE to touch these terror camps. Someone needs to take action immediately. Why will our Governor and state reps not do anything about this. If I rounded up a bunch of fellow Christian patriots to take the matter into our own hands – we would be immediately arrested and prosecuted/persecuted. Something is very wrong here…

  11. Tennessee is the patron state of shootin’ stuff – Bob Lee Swagger

  12. Zaphod Braden | April 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm | Reply

    Have you ever heard of a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS?
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    The claim that the Government wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?!
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Government.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!

  13. If Haslam vetoes, we know who owns him. How about the un and the nwo. We know that if we agree to live in Lucifer’s world?, we also agree to live under the boot of the1% worldwide. No. Not for me. They have a big job ahead of them to take out 6 billion people. Georgia Guidestones. Obviously, “they” already have been working on it for some time. So sorry for those who are deceived and believe in lying tongues and coming lying wonders.

    Grateful to have grown up in Tennessee and once again be a resident.

    • If he vetoes it, somebody needs to start a recall election.

      • Yes. Doubt that will happen though. Money and the idea of power rules until it doesn’t. “There are no ethics in business” is what someone said to me once. I ignored it at the time. Still believed otherwise. Now I see. It’s true.

  14. Didn’t Tennessee pass a law that marriage would be required to be between a man and woman? I wonder how that is working out for them.

  15. MostInterestingManInTheCosmos | April 12, 2016 at 4:38 am | Reply

    I admire the spirit of this bill, but two things:

    1. States and state governments will be subsumed into FEMA regions – Federally administered right down to the dogcatcher. Can’t imagine it? Can you imagine a hundred 9/11’s happening the same day? Most of you will be begging for “safety” by whatever means FedGov proposes. The plans and paperwork are completed and on the shelf, waiting for implementation. The wet work list is ready to be prosecuted. Problem, reaction, solution.

    2. Robots aren’t afraid of bullets. You may have enough ammo for anything with protoplasm, but you probably don’t have enough ammo (or especially BIG enough ammo and the cannons to fire it) for robots by the millions. If they can build one combat robot, they can build a million just like it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*