Worriedman

The Sheriff's Association is a 501 (c) 3 charity, (per its tax fillings, most recent 990s a(ttached) Section IV Question 4 is instructive, where they tell the IRS that they do not lobby. Their Mission Statement is: The purpose of the organization is to promote better and more effective law enforcement, maintain a high level of ethical conduct on the part of all Sheriffs and their deputies, provide a forum of constant exchange of knowledge and experience among all Sheriffs.” This is the factual listing by the Sheriff’s Association on their IRS forms and locked in. Nowhere does it list lobby the TN General Assembly in that filing. Yet, they file with the State of Tennessee, documents listing their paid lobbyist. (attached) Duties of the Sheriff per our TCA: 38-3-102. Duties of sheriff. (a) The sheriff is the principal conservator of the peace in the sheriff's county. It is the sheriff's duty to suppress all affrays, riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, insurrections, or other breaches of the peace, to do which the sheriff may summon to such sheriff's aid as many of the inhabitants of the county as such sheriff thinks proper. (b) It shall be the duty of the sheriffs, in their respective counties, by themselves or deputies, to patrol the roads of the county, to ferret out crimes, to secure evidence of crimes, and to apprehend and arrest criminals. I see nothing there that would indicate the legislature has given them power by law to make law, or to advocate under color of their official employment to deny any Constitutional Right, e.g. HB 0786 or HB 0018 which both deal with "Constitutional" or permitless carry by non criminal Tennessee Citizens before the General Assembly. Rather, I would assume that their letter (attached) to the House criminal justice sub-committee is exactly that (it has been offered on another thread, but i will include it here for reference as their attempt "under color of official employment" is just that by sending that letter and is pertinent to another TCA code: TCA 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.] The letter sent to the sub-committee is acting under color of official employment. In the light of an old Blue Grass song, "Muleskinner Blues" a line says, "if you don't like your job, set the water bucket down." If any Sheriff wants to do other than their job of upholding the law and instead wish to foster legislation, perhaps they should set the water bucket of Sheriff down and resign and run for the General Assembly, whose job IS to make law. Further, the testimony by the Association and the letter indicate that all 95 Sheriffs are in agreement with the ask for implied consent (Papers Please) which violates the Federal 4th Amendment and State 7th. I have personally spoken with 4 who were not polled, do not agree with the context of the letter and who support Constitutional Carry either open or concealed as well as of this writing 5 others who have sent notification via Citizens of their Counties that they were not consulted nor do they agree with the Association. The Sheriff's Oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will perform with fidelity the duties of the office to which I have been elected, and which I am about to assume. I do solemnly swear to support the constitutions of Tennessee and the United States and to faithfully perform the duties of the office of sheriff for County, Tennessee. I further swear that I have not promised or given, nor will I give any fee, gift, gratuity, or reward for this office or for aid in procuring this office; that I will not take any fee, gift, or bribe, or gratuity for returning any person as a juror or for making any false return of any process and that I will faithfully execute the office of sheriff to the best of my knowledge and ability, agreeably to law." indicates no duty to force their personal feelings or beliefs on the populace and simply charges them with supporting the Constitutions of the Union and State. Their charge by the legislature is simply stated in 38-3-102. Sheriff's Association Letter.pdf TN Sheriffs - lobbyists.pdf 2017 990.pdf

Do any of those resolutions have any force of law? What are the punishments for violations? Who will prosecute if there are any?

Neither of the tow bill filed which open that Chapter have any teeth, It is what our State legislature does, campaign. If we simply had a statement that you can not drive over the posted speed limit, with no punishment such as fines or imprisonment for reckless endangerment with a vehicle, do you think that it would be safe to get on the road? (like it is now with those punishments in place) There is a possibility that the caption bill by one will be amended, the sponsor of the other will not accept a friendly amendment. That one is pandering at best, and campaigning for sure.

Politicians do not want the rabble to have guns, because they intend to do things that would make the rabble want to shoot them. Remember Lexington and Concord were over confiscation of arms and munitions that could be used in violent revolution, e.g. shooting the politicians and their minions. These actions were undertaken by the duly constituted government of the time. No difference except the Minutemen had balls and there are none now.

Had a fair crowd, 120+, Speaker of the House came and talked to the group, members met with their representatives. Good day overall, would have loved to had a lot more, but there was not the impetus that Virginia had.

Attendee Pre Visit Info.pdf

I think it will be basically car carry, letting you take it with you. Not enough police out there to increase contact, except for traffic stops I have not had an officer contact in 20 years. If you are not acting like a thug I don't expect LE to be manhandling common folk going about their business armed.

"Without permits, officers won’t be able to differentiate between someone who can legally carry a gun and someone who can’t, Weirich said" I had a conversation last time (2016) this was up, at the same restaurant, about 10 Sheriff's were eating lunch after some mandatory training at the TBI downtown Jackson. I knew most of them and stopped by to speak to them and ask their opinions My Madison County guy (Former TBI) was virulently opposed, said he wanted to know when his guys rolled up in Lincoln Courts and saw a guy holding a gun he needed to know if he had a permit, if he was legal... I asked how he would know without contact and asking to see the permit if they were legal to have the weapon? He said they knew most of the gang member and bad guys there, and I opined if he already knew he most likely did not need to ask about a permit, but just in case it was new guy they did not know, wouldn't his guys have to ask to see the permit? He was not happy with my question.

Where I eat lunch most every day I am in town, (Jackson, Bar-b-Que+meat and three) there are State Police officers, Sheriff's Department, JPD and a lot of times the whole dang Marshal's group in there. Several open carriers on any given day, I always carry concealed but will take my jacket off and hang it on the chair. None of them have ever looked up from their plates.

It is March 10th, if you have signed up on the Eventrbight page in the link we have a count. Gov. threw a kink in when he proffered his bill, still need to show up, meeting takes place in the Capital, no guns allowed. If you can access after the speakers you can carry concealed in Cordell Hull.

Only 3 States that have Constitutional Carry allow resident only, Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming, the others that have it allow folks from States that have Constitutional Carry allow them to carry without a permit. All states touching TN that have permitless less carry honor citizens of any state.

Amendment 15802 as adopted Senate Jud 2020-03-03.pdf Senate Version from yesterday.

I can and will post the language of the amendment that makes the bill tomorrow, but from a perusal of the amendment here is my our take on it. Most people say that they believe in the 2nd Amendment. Most believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right that every citizen in the entire county has to have and carry guns for all purposes. Most people, at least people from Tennessee, believe God gave us this right. The bill as proposed does not recognize that its my right and your right to have and carry guns, not just handguns. Here are some of those facts. First, it only applies to Tennesseans. Does it say that specifically, no. But that is the trickery of referencing the enhanced permit statute. So, citizens of our border states and other states have no rights that Tennessee would recognize under this bill. Its not being treated as a right but an exception for some citizens to a criminal charge, if it’s a right it must apply to any citizen who can legally own, purchase or possess and handgun. This one does not. Second, by referencing the enhanced permit statute the proposed bill only applies to Tennessee citizens who are lawful citizens or permanent residents who are at least 21 year old or a small set of 18-20 year olds in the military. But under state and federal law, any 18 year old can buy a handgun from another citizen. The 21 year old limit is only a limit on who federal gun dealers can sell to. Existing Tennessee laws already recognize that anyone 18 and up can purchase, possess, own and use a handgun. Third, if it’s a right it should apply based on a person’s right to own guns. This bill does not. This bill fails to recognize the right by adopting the special conditions on the enhanced permit such a person cannot have 2 or more DUIs in the last 10 years as prohibitions on the right to carry a handgun. If you want to include all those prohibitions why not just make the enhanced permit free and get rid of the training requirement because all the other conditions are being used to infringe the right of lawful gun owner? Fourth, if it’s a right it should be a right everywhere. This bill says it only applies where the person has a right to be. What does that mean? If I don’t have a right to be in a mall because I am not wearing a shirt should I also be criminally prosecuted if I have a gun in my pocket? Fifth, it it’s a right it should be a right in publicly owned parks and buildings as well as the streets and all parking lots. This law does not allow citizens who are exercising a right to even go in a park or walk on a greenway. Sixth, if it’s a right you should be able to drive to work and leave my lawfully owned handgun in my personal car. You can if you have a permit because that is already the law but if you just want to exercise your right to carry a firearm you cannot do that under this bill which means you could be fired for leaving your gun in personal car just because YOU parked at work. (Company handbook clause) Seventh, if you want to pass constitutional carry, then treat it as a right that the people have with or without the constitution. That is not what this law does. This law leaves the criminal penalties for illegally carrying a gun on the books. The bill uses these existing criminal laws as a threat to charge people who are only trying to exercise a right and then creates a defense to the criminal charge if the citizen happens to meet all of the conditions, conditions which are really nothing more than infringements. So, if you really want to pass constitutional carry all you need to do is say that a person who can legally purchase or possess a firearm has the right to carry it in Tennessee and to do so in public places (not private), on public property (not private property) and even while parking their vehicles in places where they are allowed to park. Constitutional carry needs nothing more than the removal of infringements. On the other hand if all you want to do is to create a defense to a criminal charge with a lot of conditions and qualifications this accomplishes that.

It is a "Cation Bill", they have not posed the Amendment that makes the bill yet, and I can not copy and past the link from Leader Lamberth.

HB2817

So because the general public has an attitude we scrap the Constitution? the permit system is a Jim Crow law left over from 1870, the Original Constitution did not require a permit, the Democrats wanting to deny the freed slaves weapons did. That is an incontrovertible fact.

You do not get the Constitution, I will add to your education: Article 11 Section 16. The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the General powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate. Article 1 section 26. That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Cuba may be where you want to live, Government makes all the rules there.

My point is we require mandatory training, and mandatory insurance. Neither are really required for driving. People drive without license, training, insurance, or being able to read the road signs, and yet drive they do, and you are correct, there is no Constitutional securing of a right to drive..People die due to bad drivers every day.

Me too...

If you have, and I am pretty sure you have not, read the first few passages of the Tennessee Constitution you would know that our Founders had to say: ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights. Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." "unalienable" means government can not take it away from you, "indefeasible" means you can not give it away even if you want to. Whether you believe there is a God or not, our, (I do not know if they were yours or not) intended the People to be in charge and not the dang government. You will not want to continue to argue with me if we have a right to arms here, because we do, you may wish to let LE be your protector, but they are not, it is not their job, you try to give it away, you are being slavish.

But you can "brandish a firearm". TCA 39-11-611 (b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. (2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if: (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; (B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and (C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds. Drawing your weapon to threaten can be construed to be brandishing, but if you have a permit and are in a place you have a Right to be, and. are not engaged in criminal activity, you can do so.

Within next three weeks I would imagine, election year you know, they want to holler sine die as soon as possible to start grifting funds for their campaigns. They want this done and behind them prior to the battle over the budget, and as the Gov. has expressed his approval, it will run quick, might even be two weeks.

Bill is up in Senate Judiciary at 3:00 PM tomorrow, in House Constitutional Protections at 4:30 PM. This train has left the Station.

Tennessee JUST achieved CC last year with the new Holt bill, prior to that it was Handgun Carry, open or concealed.

This is what most people don't get, an armed society is a polite society. Every State that touches Tennessee except that Liberal bastion of Georgia has had permitless open carry for decades...