Worriedman

Judge rules on constitutionality of New York's ban on guns in churches, finds it fails muster under Bruen. From the article: "A federal judge ruled Thursday that New York’s ban on concealed carry weapons in churches is unconstitutional, according to court documents." Appears the lower courts are using the chain saw and not the scalpel.

We tried to run this bill last year, the Rep. from Crockett County (Chris Hurt) had the bill, but the Chairman of the House Civil Justice sub refused to let him run the bill for vote, they told the sponsor he could present it only if he agreed to take it off notice as soon as he did, I asked him to run it and ask for a recorded vote, he refused. Got to play b all with Leadership you understand.

A suit is being prepared for the 28th Judicial District with respect to the unconstitutional mandate of denying carry of firearms inparks, greenways and other recreational areas by the State of Tennessee. These type plaintiffs are needed, as we have filled one aspect already: - concealed permit holder - individual who carries under the permitless carry law - individual 18-21 who can and does own firearms, including a handgun, but who is not eligible under the first 2 categories. Plaintiffs would need to be willing to state they would like to be able to carry firearms in these areas with seeking permission from the State as they know it to be their Constitutional Right to do so under the 2nd and 14th Amendments. This appears to be the easiest State issue to adjudicate and will be the predecessor for many actions to come. Please if anyone who qualifies, or know anyone who does, contact me as soon as possible.

With the new General Assembly about to begin, it is imperative that we get our legislators on record with regard to their opinions regarding the recent Bruen decision's effect on gun laws in Tennessee. We have begun to see how it has worked in some State and Federal court cases, e.g. Peres-Gallan in the Federal Western District of Texas where US 922 (g) (8) was declared unconstitutional and the more recent New York Supreme Court ruling in G.W. v C.N. case there the New York Red Flag Laws were deemed unconstitutional. Please, every person whos desires to see the "intent to go armed" clause of the TCA done away with, write and actual letter to your State Representatives and more especially to your Senators asking how they see the Bruen decision will affect their support for repealing TCA 39-17-1307 (a) (1). Actual written letters will normally generate a written response. If I can get an on paper answer to this very important question it will be very beneficial in the coming year. I will catalogue those responses to the benefit of the 2nd Amendment (and 14th Amendment) friendly constituents in Tennessee. I would also be appropriate to write the Speakers of both chambers, as well as the governor, as each of us is their constituent, along with all members of the House civil and criminal justice sub and full committees and the Senate Judiciary committee once they are named for the year. It will take a little bit of time, effort and a few dollars but it will be vastly beneficial to the effort.

With the Bruen decision, a lot of later day unconstitutional state laws will be set aside.

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/12/can-tennessee-governor-to-use-taxpayer-funds-to-lobby-against-your-rights-video/

As Session looms in the offing, the makeup of the committees in the House are being decided at this time. The chosen to sit in judgment on your right to arms makes a huge difference in whether restoring the intent of the Founders gets a chance to be heard. The individual who makes those appointments is Cameron Sexton. The Speaker has eyes on the Governor's mansion in 2026, and as the savvy politician he is, he is looking to build coalitions to ride on for that coming race. Now is the time to reach out respectfully and alert him to the fact that the populace has been watching the courts, and expect the State to agree with SCOTUS and return to the laws and principals in the era of ratification of the Constitutions which Bruen mandates as the only metric that can be used to infringe, (which is what government does, God gave us rights, government restricts them.) The recent case U.S. v Perez-Gallan states it perfectly, actions of government must align with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. As our analog of that time said the free men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense (1796) the current statutes regarding "intent to go armed" being an "offense/crime" are unconstitutional. Letters, e-mails and calls to his office politely requesting the make up of Civil and Criminal Justice committees to be constructed with a view to positioning members who are Constitutionally minded instead of driven by the Chamber of Commerce are needed.

Actually has nothing to do with shipping. the gist of the case is that there was no historical case law regarding restraining orders, and all the "domestic" regulations were nonexistent at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is the takeaway from the case, a lower court has said that Bruen demands only historical review of laws un place a that time matter in deciding these cases. the same judge asks whether the Judiciary takes a scalpel or a chainsaw to excise the unconstitutional filth that has grown up around the 2nd. Moreover, the result of the ruling is that Federal Judge declaring U.S. code 922 (g) (8) unconstitutional. Under Bruen no higher Court will be able to set that aside, without making law.

From the opinion: “Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.” “The State has not shown any historical precedent for removing the right to keep and bear arms because of a restraining order for domestic violence.” “That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.” I have said for decades that the General Assembly of Tennessee has violated its own sacred oath, more especially since 2010 when the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, making it plain that the 2nd is a civil Right, not to be broken in upon by legislation that is unconstitutional. Every tax-payer paid employee who knowingly violates this right is guilty of Official Oppression under TCA3 39-16-403. Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution requires that the legislature prove that any law passed that denies that right “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution…” (Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871)) I have to date seen not one scintilla of empirical data presented by the Department of Safety, TBI, Sheriff’s Association, Chiefs of Police etc. lobbyist or Department spokespersons (all tax payer paid employees by the way, all of them) to say allowing a non-criminal citizen to keep and bear arms increased crime. Sans that required ingredient, the actions of the TN General Assembly from 1801 to present day are clearly unconstitutional when their acts make enjoying a right guaranteed by our Constitutions, both State and Union, a crime. From Andrews: "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution."

Was in need of some IMR 4064 powder and was having a hard time, he helped me out in a swap and just wanted to say thank you!

I have high hopes for Rep. Barrett, he is an attorney and hopefully will be assigned to a committee where he can use his knowledge and talents to further our cause. I have spoken with him a few times and we seem to share the same goals.

Our newly elected Republican Super Majority House Caucus is doing its Annual Retreat this weekend up at Paris Landing. The Freshman Class will be set upon and told what they can and cannot do by the Old Timers League. No controversial bills first year, sit and listen, be inconspicuous and such, pay no attention to that Constitution, it is just words on a piece of paper. I plan on talking to my Rep. as soon as he is loose, as the agenda for the coming session will be the main focus of conversation. I suggest anyone interested in their Rights as identified with respect to arms do the same as soon as possible. Call your Representative's Nashville office and ask for their cell phone number (if you do not already have it) and a call back to talk about what was discussed at the retreat. It is after all, your business they hold in the palm of their hands...

We added a number of solid 2nd Amendment supporters to the House side of our General Assembly in this last election cycle: Jody Barrett in District 69, Ed Butler in District 41, Kip Capley in District 71, Elaine Davis in District 18, Monty Fritz in District 32, Brock Martin in District 79, and Bryan Richey in District 20. These are legislators who we can count on to carry and sponsor restorative issues for us. They will be an adjunct to, Rusty Grills, Chris Todd, John Ragan, Jay Reedy and Clay Doggett who have been our Champions to date.

Pretty much every TN State Senator, with the exception of Frank Nicely, Dawn White, Janice Bowling, Joey Hensley and Kerry Roberts are 2nd Amendment Butters. I had hopes that Sen. Paul Baily was going to join the fold, but the jury is still out on that one. The main reason that we can get nothing done to return the Rights due Tennesseans is the mindset of the Lt. Governor. He thinks the laws on our books now are perfect and sees no need to even discus any changes. We will only move forward if the People light their Senators up demanding a return to the principals of the time of the Founding, as was directed by the Supreme Court in the Bruen decision, from that : "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” We then canvassed the historical record and found yet further confirmation. That history included the “analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment,” id., at 600–601, and “how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century,” id., at 605. When the principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources was illegitimate “postenactment legislative history,” id., at 662, n. 28 (opinion of Stevens, J.), we clarified that "examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification” was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation."" Our State Senators know this, and by their actions to deny you your Rights originally enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the Union Constitution and those in our Tennessee Constitution's Declaration of Rights analog they are in fact guilty of Official Oppression.

Hopeful to get done with Vanderbilt and the wife's test and procedures for the weekend, grandson is itching to get going.

Forms submitted 9/22/22, have not heard a word. SBR and suppressor, my builder said allow a year on the can these days. I wanted in before the "Amnesty".

Thank you, had not seen that one. That is almost gunbroker prices, but in a storm...

Need some IMR 4064, West TN location, can drive as far as Middle TN.

As today will give us the General Assembly we will have for the next two years, it is important that we reach out to our newly elected General Assembly and honor our Article 1 Section 23 obligation to "instruct" our elected employees, and that they in turn hold the bureaucracies that are tax payer funded to the same rules that all government is held to recognize, that all power is inherent in the People, and that they work for us! We need at least one (1) (and 50 would be better) constituent of ever Representative and Senator in the TN General Assembly to write their members and let them know that the Bruen decision has settled the matter that non-criminal Citizens of this State (by virtue of the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling by SCOTUS incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has made the 2nd a Civil Right) have a non second class Right to carry arms, and not just handguns, for their use in case of confrontation. It is imperative that we can show proof of this transfer of knowledge, even though it has been read into the Journal of the General Assembly (ask me how I know that) this year we MUST convince the members that we understand that their having knowledge of the facts puts them in jeopardy of being convicted of Official Oppression if they fail to remedy the unconstitutional infringements placed by the General Assembly on our right to keep, bear and wear arms. Thomas said in Bruen this is no second class right, where we must prove need to enjoy, but rather is ours by birth as Citizens, given us by God and simply obstructed by a government that swears to uphold the Constitutions of our State and Union. From our TCA Code Annotated: Part 4 - Misconduct Involving Public Officials and Employees 39-16-403 - Official oppression. 39-16-403. Official oppression. (a) A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who: (1) Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, stop, frisk, halt, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful; or (2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful. (b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of office or employment if the public servant acts, or purports to act, in an official capacity or takes advantage of the actual or purported capacity. (c) An offense under this section is a Class E felony. (d) Charges for official oppression may be brought only by indictment, presentment or criminal information; provided, that nothing in this section shall deny a person from pursuing other criminal charges by affidavit of complaint. [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 980, § 11.] Every member of the General Assembly, The Governor, the Department of Safety, the Sheriffs and their deputies, the Chiefs of Police and their officers, the TBI and every other agency are held to support and defend the Constitutions of the State and Union by that oath. When they take tax payer money to do a job, they are bound thereby, regardless of personal opinion or belief. The various departments and LE agencies are not given power to make law, or to lobby for or against them. Having knowledge of the flow chart of governance with the People at the top and them being relegated to a servants position for pay, I am tired of seeing their paid shills speak against my rights, using my tax money to do so. Only the legislature can make law, and that at the People's will, if we will but engage. Having the Department of Safety, TBI and Sheriff's Association testify under oath that they are "philosophically opposed" to relinquishing their strangle hold on our right to bear arms is criminal, but will only be stopped by US, and that only if we alert our elected employees that we know the facts and intend to see them obeyed.

You have any 6.5 brass?

To further understand the path we are on via Bruen, this from Justice Thomas: "A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. When the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment into existence, they readopted the original Bill of Rights,…the public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in both 1791 and 1868 was, for all relevant purposes, the same with respect to public carry.” If we are truly to read the Amendments in the context of the meaning they were to be understood by at the time of their writing, then a number of later day restrictions are in fact unconstitutional as well. For instance, there was no prescription for denying the Right to arms to a infamous criminal if he had served his time and been released. (I remember reading that Jackson emptied the prisons in LA if the criminals agreed to bear arms against England). I am not sure there was even such a thing as a dishonorable discharge, most likely if they needed to drum a soldier out they hung or shot them??? One must consider that if the 2nd protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.", does not that right extend to confrontation by government, which at the time of the writing and adoption of the Amendments, was the whole point of their construction. Our State Constitution plainly says the People are in charge and have the absolute power to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. Your General Assembly and every LE Department are mere servants of the People, tax payer paid employees and are to act in accordance with the Constitution, it is in their Oath, they swear or affirm to do so.