Worriedman

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Club v. Bruen brought to light for the general public that government can not arbitrarily deny a 2nd Amendment right to a non-criminal citizen "just because". From that case: "the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” In a subsequent case in Tennessee (Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden, M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV) the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that that right can not be taken or given away by mere agreement, hence the reckoning of the terms unalienable (can't be taken from a person) and indefeasible (can't give away willfully, stuck like glue) and why they are important in our constitutions. Even though the plaintiff signed an agreement saying he would not keep arms in that housing unit, the Court found that government can not take that right away and he could not give it up. If the general public knows this now, why does the General Assembly of Tennessee not? In the Buren arguments before the Supreme Court, The Solicitor General of Washington DC told the Court that Tennessee passed a law in1821 that was still on our books making it a crime to carry a loaded firearm. The SCOTUS has ruled that unconstitutional. Contact your State Senators and tell them YOU know the facts and intend to hold them to their oath which says they solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, they will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that they will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to them injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State. Make your voice heard, call your candidates for office in Tennessee today and alert them that you know the truth and expect them to act accordingly.

Found the powder, thanks for looking.

Can drive to Memphis or Nashville and in between. Need some IMR 4350 and would love some Ramshot TAC. I have other primers as well SP. SR.

Recent rulings by The Supreme Court of the United States and important to Tennesseans, our own Appellate system are proving that statues passed by the General Assembly, while holding the force of law, can and oft times do deny the enjoyment of rights enumerated in our Constitutions. New York State Rifle and Pistol Club v. Bruen points out a very important fact, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights MUST be viewed in light of the meaning of the words used at the time of the writing. As in Heller, the Court has stated that later statues do not create a “new” understanding of Rights. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court said electronic communications are privileged under the 4th Amendment, just as written documents were at the Founding, a warrant necessary for the government to access them. We see memes all time of plume pens and computers being the same. Free speech on TV and internet are all covered under the 1st. Why then would our 2nd Amendment rights be any different? In Bruen the Court said they were not, and even our own State Appellate decision last week confirms this fact. (Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden) Why then is there a law, 39-17-1307 (a) (1) which says it is a crime to carry a loaded firearm off of one’s personal property, first passed by the General Assembly of Tennessee in 1801, a scant 5 years after the admission of our State into the Union and the issuance of our Constitution. In that document, (commented on by Thomas Jefferson as the “least imperfect and most republican” of the State Constitutions) then Article 11th §26 said “That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Also the oath of the Legislators in Article 9th § 2nd “That each member of the senate and house of representatives shall, before they proceed to business, take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of this State, and also the following oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm that, as a member of this general assembly, I will in all appointments vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice, and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the constitution of this State.” Further, in Article 10th Section 4th “The declaration of rights hereto annexed is declared to be a part of the constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, and every other right not hereby delegated, is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.” Hopefully, these recent happening in courts will alert the legislators that the failure of previous General Assemblies to their oath and obligations require repeal of statutes which violate the Right of the People to keep, bear and wear arms. That will only happen if the People instruct them so!

As the season gets going to prepare for session once more, I will be visiting more often to inform on bills TFA is advocating for. We actually had a good primary season, and look forward to adding a number of solid House members. Our year should be much better with the Bruen ruling. As usual though, the House will be far more accommodating to restoring rights taken by previous iterations of the General Assembly, the Senate not so much. Senate Judiciary will be chaired by either Gardenhire or Lundberg and either will be a death knell for 2A bills. Bell killed the good stuff to gain his new seat at the TWRA table in return, and we are left with no help at all in the Senate Judiciary.

Trying to get a grandson set up for deer season, need brass for a 6.5 Grendel. Could also use a pound of Ramshot TAC powder. I have other powders to trade and bullets as well. If you have brass I will buy or trade...

I see the need to work as necessary, I advocate for a lot of other things besides firearms issues, one especially important is Asset Forfeiture, or legalized police theft. This is a firearms forum though, and one would think the main topic would be legislation related to that subject. If I make statements that when that legislation is before the committees and the full House or Senate and there are rows upon rows of Moms Demand Action red shirts in the halls and committee rooms, that is just reporting. I am trying to claim no high ground, simply trying to get help for issues that are important to us all. I try to lead by example, forging relationships with legislators who hold sway over our lives. I never ask anyone to do anything I am not doing, of my own volition, on my own time and my own dime. There are members here who ask me to keep the board updated, and if I get frustrated to be the only person on watch at the General Assembly, I make no apology for that. I write legislation and try to get cosponsors to help. The hours it takes to study the law and reach our to legislators takes away from family. I have a 49 year old invalid daughter that is bed bound, and I am her primary care giver, a wife who had a kidney transplant 17 years ago who was on dialysis for 10 years before that who is not in good health. What I do at the legislature is not a job, it is an avocation, it has nearly cost me my real job and the reason I use my vacation is that my employer gives me no choice, I am not allowed to participate in politics on his time, and so I am forced to spend that time I could be with family or hunting or something pleasurable. I don't know who you are, and have never had a single thing to say about you, but I resent your implication that I hold some "holier than thou" opinion of myself, You certainly do not know me. I try to live by the Sam Adams "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" gambit, and if you are insulted that I try to stir up others to join me in the quest, so be it, I could give a rats rear end. If it is the will of this forum that I cease and desist of my efforts here, that can be arranged too.

His name was Tony Dabs, and if you were involved at the Legislature on motorcycle issues you will know him. I fear he is either sick or has passed away, because I did not see him this year or last, but, I helped carry his petitions and can provide proof of that, as Jay Reedy carried his bills and he will vouch that I helped advocate for the shoulder and helmet bills he was pushing.

Actually I did, had a friend that worked that bill, a biker that walked with a cane and he also was there every year on the helmet bill. You meet a lot of good people advocating for issues and you help those who are passionate and doing it on their own dime. I got legislators to sign on to his bills. I think his name was Tony, have not seen him the last couple of years. The GA treated him the same way they do me. I do not ask for your money for me, I don't take dime for my efforts, TFA is not the NRA, no salaries for Directors or Board members. You have a permit because of volunteers that worked to get it done. You have Civil Immunity because someone kept hammering till we got it done. I don't care if you hate me, I am not laboring for profit or accolades. Most Liberals hate me too...

I am old, and do not have that many years left to stay at this, and I am failing at getting my grandchildren well situated, The RINOs are winning.

Anyone that intones that Tennessee has a Conservative Legislature willing to address 2nd Amendment issues is seriously demented, willfully ignorant or bough and paid for. The three real issues of the session were removing the criminal aspect of carrying a firearm, HB 2524, adding long guns into the enhanced Permit , HB 1898 and moving the permit age to 18, HB 1735. The Senate Judiciary committee killed two (HB 2524 and HB 1735) and House Civil Justice did in HB 1898. A Republican Supermajority, Right...with friends like these, God forbid we get any enemies. There was a deal struck with Representative Todd to not run his 1735 on the floor Monday night, where he had the votes to pass it. The Caucus asked him to move it to Thursday (after the candidate filing deadline so that some members would not be on the record voting for a 2nd Amendment bill and risk have papers pulled in more Liberal districts.) He agreed on the stipulation that HB 2524 get to the floor in both chambers, the Senate reneged after he kept up his end of the bargain. Watching the Senate Judiciary proves that Gardenhire, Lundburg, Steven and Bell are simply hacks for the Governor. (Remember Bell is the one who took knives our of the list of deadly weapons in 2014, you can carry them now under his Senate Bill 1771).

TCA Code 39-16-403 says: 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. I portend that the Department of Safety knows that the intent to go armed clause was an unconstitutional denial of the Right to carry arms codified in 1821 and strengthened in 1871, against the enumeration of those Rights specified in Article 11 Section 26 of our Original Constitution. To add, since 2010 in McDonald V. City of Chicago when SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment of the Union Bill of Rights against EVERY State via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, it simply renders the Current prescriptions against carry or possession by non-felons moot as it is now a Civil Right per SCOTUS. The Department of Safety is jumping on taking $3million of the public's money to start a program to "train" anyone who wishes in gun safety, a program they will proctor and control, it will be a new curriculum, and new program for them to administer for their friends... There is no statutory obligation, and the People have not delegated any power, for them to insert themselves into lobbying against a return to the Rights enumerated originally. Per my view, they know they are working against a Right we already have, and they do not want us to have, and are criminals by doing so. They take on no responsibility to provide any safety or security to the individual, and in fact are covered from doing so by Qualified Immunity.

There is an amendment forthcoming, hopefully, that corrects some of the unintended results currently in the legislation. I was not privy to the latest iteration and its consequences. suffice it to say the Department of Safety is not a fan of this intent. They like being in charge of our lives. They are immune from responsibility of providing safety to or for us, but they want to control our liberty!

The intent to go armed was a legislative ploy to disallow people of color to bear arms, guns, knives or clubs. It was a Jim Crow style law placed on the books to allow the Sheriff to appoint "Special Deputies", (one would assume for the proper sized donation to a re-election campaign). The official doctrine was upheld in a 1996 AG opinion which states: the carrying of a firearm is prohibited only when it is carried in a manner so as to be "readily accessible and available for use in the carrying out of purposes either offensive or defensive." This is the problem with the set up of the legislature and the judiciary in Tennessee. They can put forth the most absurd verbiage and make it law, and as the Attorney General is appointed and not elected they are completely immune for the reach of the People. Defined In the case Moorefield v State,1880 "intent to go armed" is for offense or defense: "The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen, or wantonly to go armed." In my opinion, it is legal gobbledygook, intended to confuse the issue and let certain classes of People bear arms while denying it to those who pay the bills.

You caught something I did not in the latest amendment, it DID in fact change it from "Carrying" to "possessing", the error has been noted and I have contacted the Sponsor and several members of the committee. Good eye 300winmag, i missed that change by your paid for Legal Department. In addition the misdemeanor charge of Stalking got lumped in, we propose to change to only Felony Stalking charges apply.

Amendment was offered to remove all the extraneous requirements for storage and security and moved it to a simple "no harm no foul" situation, committee would not even let it be offered.

39-17-1319 prescribes the possession of firearms by minors Defenses are: (1) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the juvenile is: (A) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course; (B) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited; (C) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group which is exempt from federal income taxation under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)), as amended, and which uses firearms as part of the performance; (D) Hunting or trapping pursuant to a valid license issued to the juvenile pursuant to title 70; (E) Accompanied by the juvenile's parent or guardian and is being instructed by the adult or guardian in the use of the handgun possessed by the juvenile; (F) On real property which is under the control of an adult and has the permission of that adult and the juvenile's parent or legal guardian to possess a handgun; (G) Traveling to or from any activity described in subdivision (d)(1) with an unloaded gun; or (H) At the juvenile's residence and with the permission of the juvenile's parent or legal guardian, possesses a handgun and is justified in using physical force or deadly force. Notice 1319 says "firearms" or "gun" not just handguns for several of the defenses. I realize that it is under the handgun scope, but words have meanings. With respect to the DUI situation, that IS a changed from previous, but was intended last year in the Governors "enhanced' penalties. I suggested that we include loosing a law license and voting rights as well, but they frowned on that. I di think that is an easy fix next year, if enough aggrieved contact their legislators, but I do consider this a HUGE step forward, and an willing to give up the DUI portion to achieve it. Name a designated driver/shooter and it is not a problem.

It does, as it does now under the Governors "Enhanced punishment's" from last year, only way to get it passed.

This is the fact, the Department of Safety lady is incorrect in her statements. Tilman Goins passed that statute in 2014, any State that has a prescription against 18 year old carry ditched us then. Check out the website for reciprocity and do the research, we will lose no one.

Passed last committee today (finance) will be on the floor next week, will post when I know, this requires each Representative to be contacted.

Bill is dead due to lack of a second. That committee is a problem for 2nd Amendment issues.

Latest Amendment passed out of the Criminal Justice subcommittee. Will be up in Full Criminal Justice Committee Next week and in Senate Judiciary next week also. Of note, the Tennessee General Assembly website it not being update with the amendments on the bills, I have made cautious enquires as to why are tax dollars seem to be buying about the same level of competence there as on our roadways...

Third iteration of this bill is up for consideration tomorrow. Amendment (016578).pdf

It should pass the House, the Senate is a different matter, they are not concerned about Constitutional issues there.

It is hard to be in front of the camera and know you have to get all the information presented in 4 minutes, did the best I could, bobbled a couple of times, but got it all read into the record.