As far as the ATF is concerned, the words in the Constitution don’t mean what the Founders said they mean.  They mean what the 9 unelected judges on the Supreme Court say they mean.  Well, until they change their mind, that is.

This year, Montana and Tennessee passed the “Firearms Freedom Act” – which under state law exempts firearms, parts and ammunition from federal regulation under the “interstate commerce clause” as long as they’re made in state, and sold in state.  That is, as long as they never enter interstate commerce.

The ATF sent a stern letter to all license holders in both states this year – stating their position that the state law is invalid.    Yesterday, a report in the Memphis Commercial Appeal gives us a little more insight into the ATF’s position:

But ATF Nashville Special Agent-in-Charge James M. Cavanaugh said several U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld the federal gun laws. “The Constitution says the Supreme Court interprets the law. The ATF hasn’t ruled this, the Supreme Court has, and we’re a law enforcement agency.”

But wait, there’s more.

“It’s analogous to a speed limit. If the speed limit on the interstate is set at 70, a city along the interstate can’t come along and say there is no speed limit on the interstate through our city. The highway patrol could still enforce the speed limit,” he said.

Seems to me that this ATF thug thinks that state and federal government have the same relationship as city and state government.    Or, maybe he thinks of states as just big counties – and he’s part of the nationwide law enforcement.  Either way, they certainly don’t believe that the 10th Amendment reserves powers “to the States respectively, or to the People.”

My big question is this – I wonder, does the ATF swear an oath to the Constitution, or to the Supreme Court?  And more importantly, who in this country is sovereign – we the People, or the Court?

If it’s the latter, we might as well call them the American Mullahs – an unelected dictatorship.

Michael Boldin