ELIZABETHTON — Mayor Leon Humphrey said Thursday that he will present a resolution to the Carter County Commission on Tuesday to defend the rights of Carter Countians to keep and bear arms and calls on the state to nullify any federal regulation that would restrict those rights.
“I have been approached by more people over this issue,” Humphrey said of the public’s worries over the expansion of gun control under the administration of President Barack Obama.
Humphrey said the Second Amendment has stood the test of time for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the amendment and the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
“I don’t own an assault rifle or a .50-caliber gun,” Humphrey said, “but I recognize there are legitimate collectors out there.”
He said not only would the proposed federal laws infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, Humphrey said the laws would not even accomplish their intended purpose.
“It’s absurd to think that the law will stop a deranged madman from getting guns,” the mayor said.
“It is time to stand up and defend our inalienable rights,” Humphrey said.
The resolution that will be considered by the County Commission on Tuesday says “the president of the United States, vice president of the United States and certain members of the United States Congress are reportedly considering taking certain actions, including the proposal and adoption of certain laws or regulations, which would infringe upon the rights of citizens ... to keep and bear arms as guaranteed to said citizens by virtue of the Second Amendment.”
The resolution calls upon the governor and the General Assembly of Tennessee “to immediately pass acts to protect, preserve and defend the citizens of Carter County and the state of Tennessee guaranteed by the Second Amendment ... and specifically to immediately pass any acts as may be appropriate to nullify the implementation within the state of Tennessee of any federal law, regulation or executive order enacted to restrict the rights of citizens of Tennessee to keep and bear arms.”
truthful writes:
February 15, 2013
7:18 AM
Wake up Washington County look what Carter County is doing for their people in Carter County We want the same treatment about gun laws in this Washington county also protect us legal gun owners.
watauga1 writes:
February 15, 2013
7:31 AM
It is about time that our local Goverment stands up for the rights of Honest American Citizens.
plodder writes:
February 15, 2013
8:07 AM
You are dreaming if you think Johnson City will take such action. If it does not put money in the till, it won't happen
99Bristolman writes:
February 15, 2013
8:52 AM
Someone needs to tell Mayor Nitwit that the government is not going to take your guns, but they are going to require background checks and they are going to restrict the sale of deadly assault weapons and large calibur magazines. They are not taking anything that you already have away. The other part of the second amendment talks about for a well regulated militia. If you own a gun, then you should have to be a member of the Tennessee National Guard. If not, shut up.
horsetrader99 writes:
February 15, 2013
9:27 AM
guns do not kill any one the person behind it dose we need our guns for hunting and self defence
knifehandle67 writes:
February 15, 2013
10:04 AM
You just have to love how the Obama followers always bring up something like gernades when talking about gun control. Gernades are explosive weapons not arms, the second amendments refers to arms which are guns, all guns. To compare something like a gernade to a gun shows us all what level of mental status you have in relation to this issue.
Those of us who work for a living and have guns to protect the things we work for including our familes, will always fight for our rights to own guns/arms.
Its not legal to own a hand gun in Chicago, how has that worked out for you? Now that the law abiding people have turned their guns in, only the thugs have them and use them everyday against a now un-armed group of citizens.
Its not that Obama is black or his political party, its the fact he wants to take away our rights that have been in place since 1776. He will not stop with just certain guns, he will not be happy until the country is a gun free zone like his home town of Chicago.
99Bristolman writes:
February 15, 2013
10:35 AM
You have to have to pass a background check to have a job so what are gun rights advocates complaining about having to pass a background check to own a gun. Maybe we should not have background checks for anything. 2nd amendment lovers complain about anything abridging the amendment, but they do not complain about the 1st Amendement. Yes, you have the right to freedom of speech, but that does not give you the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The proposed legislation is not going to take guns away, but not make assault weapons available for public sale. What person needs an AK-47 in their home anyway?
cityguy writes:
February 15, 2013
10:49 AM
knifehandle67 , As a lifelong hunter and gun owner, I support the 2nd amendment. And as you said "Gernades are explosive weapons not arms, the second amendments refers to arms which are guns". So lets honestly look at what the second amendment really guarantee's. It guarantees the right of Americans, to bear the arms that were standard during the Revolutionary period. Not the automatic bullet spitting machines we have today. So here is what your "real" guaranteed weapons are, take your pick: Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
kfleenor writes:
February 15, 2013
11:31 AM
Why ? The fourth amendment was abridged by the patriot act, no nullification resolution on that. Historicaly nullification hasn't worked out for the states. Nullification of the Emancipation Proclimation. How did that work out for the southern states? Eishenhower send troops all over the south to enforce Brown V. Board of education in 1954. How did that work out for the southern states? Elected officials acting in this manner helps one to quit wondering why they put warning labels in Superman costumes.
knifehandle67 writes:
February 15, 2013
12:28 PM
cityguy: With that line of thought It would then also be true that the freedom of the press/free speech would only we insured if you use an old type set type of printer. The use of braodcast via intrenet, satellite, or any other manner beyond the technology of 1791 would not be covered under the first?
The founding fathers were aware technology would advance firearms and the press, perhaps you under estimate their foresight.
truthful writes:
February 15, 2013
2:16 PM
when i buy a weapon they do a background check on me and when i sell a weapon i do it a legal way of having the buyer to go to Gun dealer and have a back ground check on him getting it out of my name to his . Is a druggie going to get a weapon like that legal I guess Obama supporters think their that stupid to do that when they get one off the streets.
99Bristolman writes:
February 15, 2013
2:46 PM
Not every place, every where does a background check. They should be mandatory anytime a gun is sold. What are people afraid of in this area? Do they think drug dealers roam the street with their guns out just looking to shoot people? That is just in video games, bad movies, and imaginations like that crackpot Wayne LaPierre of NRA.
cityguy writes:
February 15, 2013
3:55 PM
gilfavre, I was born and raised in East Tn. And I am proud to be called a southerner, but the type "old crazy tennessee boys" you describe. Are thankfully dying off, and the south will be better off when they do. From what you posted, it is clear to see that you have no future in the civilized state of TN. Maybe you need to move further south, maybe to Mexico.
Remove Money from Politics writes:
February 15, 2013
4:41 PM
“It’s absurd to think that the law will stop a deranged madman from getting guns,”
You're right, our laws against murder don't stop them either. Time to legalize murder!
zblf10 writes:
February 15, 2013
11:13 PM
I find it funny that the mayor actually thinks this will stand, considering it is unconstitutional to pass a law at the state and local level that will nullify federal law. This will never pass people, and if it does, it won't take long for it to be overturned by the courts because of its unconstitutionality. Get a grip and realize the truth that no one is suggesting taking guns away, they are simply advocating for smart, common sense regulations. Quit believing the rhetoric being fed to you by the NRA and actually try to have a sensible conversation on this topic.
TnRebel44 writes:
February 16, 2013
12:02 PM
@ cityguy; The so called assault weapons that the left and Oboma's media keep spewing are NOT assault weapons , an assault weapon has the ability to go full auto ( hold the trigger down and it keeps firing ) these are sporting rifles one trigger pull one shot .and as far as the 2nd Amendment goes it states a well regulated Militia has the right to bare arms as to the reg. army and as many and kind as he can afford , I suggest you read the Dick Act of 1902 and 1908 .
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
TnRebel44 writes:
February 16, 2013
12:01 PM
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders
TnRebel44 writes:
February 16, 2013
12:07 PM
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
truthful writes:
February 16, 2013
3:44 PM
TnRebel. Very well put ....... I work hard for my money and if i want a weapon of any kind i`m going to buy it because it my money to do so . I keep up enough of the people that`s to lazy to work and expects people to hand to them (Obama) people for the biggest part . Obama needs to go by the Constitution because under oath that`s what he said he would do. He needs to be impeached out of office because he a liar.
cityguy writes:
February 16, 2013
4:23 PM
TnRebel, very nice job of cut and paste, but you should really do your research to make sure what you cut and paste is factual and up to date . I found a newer version of what you call "The Dick Act" which was really called "The Militia Act" :
The Dick Act, which is also called the Militia Act of 1903 (the name you cite is not correct), dealt with the structure of the National Guard. It did not invalidate gun-control laws.
The Act is just legislation and not a constitutional amendment. In the federal government, legislation cannot forbid other legislation in the future. If a law is passed today that contradicts a law passed years ago, then the new law prevails. Only a constitutional amendment -- or a Supreme Court opinion interpreting the existing text of the Constitution -- could bar particular types of future legislation.
Federal legislation does trump contrary state laws, so if Congress and the President ever forbid gun-control laws at the state level then those laws will have to yield. (It's possible that such a federal law would be unconstitutional, but that would depend upon precisely what it says.)
Edward A. Hoffman
Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90025
lawguru.com/legal-questio...ll-758149497/a
So if infact the "Dick Act" were in force today, then none of the present day National Guard, could have been sent anywhere overseas to fight. But maybe you should try to tell that to the National Guardsmen who have served more than one tour overseas.
arby2003 writes:
February 16, 2013
5:37 PM
zbif10 knows what he is talking about folks so pay attention. People can bluster and boast all they want but the state cannot pass a law that nullifies a federal law. Big brother has the ultimate power like it or not. To clarify my stand I most assuredly do not agree with what is going on in Washington, D.C. Just stating a fact.
MountainBoomer writes:
February 18, 2013
8:40 AM
any mayor can be the biggest crook in the world and still get the gun-crazies on his side around these parts, and Mr. Humphrey knows it. He's just fiddlin' the tune everyone wants to dance to. with so much thats wrong in Carter county, its sad that folks cant think of anything more important to care about then there dang guns!
provided.