Worriedman

Need to make sure Haslam, Jim Coley and Jon Lundberg read this.

As usual leroy, you cut to the quick of the issue.  All the more reason to remove State legislators like Jim Coley and Jon Lundberg.  It does lie with the GAs purview to "regulate" the wearing of arms and such issues as storage.  We need to spend more time face to face with our legislators to move Tennessee back to enjoyment of the Rights intended by our Constitution. A big step would be repeal of 39-17-1307, Sen. Bell did it for knives, time to do it for firearms.

Well, just look at what the <3% of LGBT has been able to achieve in the US.  Shows what a dedicated minority willing to set brush fires can achieve...

.

Saw this same question (approximate) in the discussion in the Hometown forums on AR15.com,  

They (legislators) have to prove any law they pass is preventing crime if it "regulates" the wearing of arms.  If there is no empirical data to support that, the Supreme Court says it is "unconstitutional".  Now, if we could simply find legislators who would honor their oath: 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 of the United States and also the following oath: I .......... 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.

Lets see, last year they threw out the knife portion of 39-17-1307, was it suddenly failing to reduce crime, or had it been simply a piece of a Jim Crow law since 1870 prior to being nuked by the GA?  Worked for 144 years, but I guess Gore's Global Warming or increased ozone changed its effectiveness.   The prevailing opinion in Andrews v. State in 1871 said:   “The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “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.” That does not say anything about close to, might, or could be, says it MUST and BEAR SOME WELL DEFINED REALATION, no ambiguity in the prescription. All we need to do is remove some statist and insert some Constitutionalists into the GA and we can get this done. From 1796 to 1870 the Tennessee Constitution recognized the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.  We simply need to go back to that original intent.

There is that sticky State legislature thingy again, our GA has determined that wearing arms in church did NOT increase crime, ergo it was unconstitutional, and so now we can wear our arms IN church.  

We will just have to keep chipping away, handgun carry permits, guns in bars, guns in trunks, guns in cars without permits...guns in our own tax supported buildings next. The next suit may ask the GA to prove 39-17-1307 reduces crime, and per the Supreme Court of Tennessee, any "law" regulating the wearing of arms “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.” we have that ruling, now we just need to make the GA admit that keeping law abiding citizens from carrying firearms for their own protection does not reduce crime. We shall see...  

If they, (local governments) have the authority to "put up gunbuster signs" on publicly owned buildings, do they have the same authority to put those signs up on public roads "they" constructed and maintain?  They (local governments) control what you can operate on these roads, which direction and how fast or slow you can go, when you can and can not go, they (local governments) can stop you or let you move forward at their discretion, wish want or desire. They (local governments) have "right of ways" and "easements" on each piece of so called "private property" for their "public utilities", should they (local governments) then have the juice to demand that any individual can be denied the ability to wear arms on "their" controlled property even if it is within the fenced area you call your "own" back yard?  (As a side note, you pay "property tax" on the area that is an easement so marked on your deed of land, but they (local governments) can dig it up and destroy whatever you might have planted on it at any time, the individual has no control of that even though you paid for the area of land so described and are in fact charged taxes for "owning" it each year).

I find nothing in the annals of Tennessee from 1796 to 1870 decrying the lack of "permits" to regulate carry of arms.  A Constitutional Right from inception of Statehood to 1870 when the Democrats wanted to deny the freed slaves the ability to bear arms for their protection, (the intent to go armed clause) the first Statist law denying the non criminal freeman that right, and selling it for political gain instead of allowing its enjoyment.

You are correct, 1314 was amended last year.  HB 0995 signed into law this year cured, or attempted to cure, the last of those areas where local governments could trump State laws, regarding parks and such.  Correct me if I am wrong, but last year's amendments to 1314 did not include municipality's ability to opt out of the parks issue, or do I err there? The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly it seems, is that the GA is in fact the only entity which has the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms,  adding in the recent, not necessarily this year's amendment puts words to the effect that municipalities shall not occupy the field of regulation of the wearing of firearms, and that only this year did that become fact regarding parks. I should have been more clear.

A gentle remonstrance: Article 1 § 26 does not give the GA the Power to "restrict" [deprive (someone or something) of freedom of movement or action] the wearing of arms, only the Power to "regulate" [control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly] that act, a subtle nuance perhaps, but a difference nonetheless. One that should be taught to our legislators methinks.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1314(a) prohibits a local government from occupying “any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof.” This prohibition did not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986 until HB 0995 was signed into law this year, with regard to "Public Areas". I will restate my point, only the State legislature can occupy that field.  Supreme Court of Tennessee held so as well in Andrews v. State in 1871, we just have those who would hold on to Jim Crow laws that deny the intent of our Constitution to protect the Rights taken by Democrats in 1870, and which have failed to be returned to the People by the GA ever since.  Per the above referenced SCOTST case:   “The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “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.”  No mention of City or County, only GA. Not the same as Private Property, simply public.

Article 1 Section 26 already says only the State Legislature can occupy that field, we do not need new laws, we need new legislators.

And here is the violation of their oaths, (legislators), sans empirical data showing restricting the law abiding citizen's Right ( and yes Dave, it is a right, the legislators have just subverted, or more correctly Oppressed it) to wear arms reduces crime, then their (legislators) prescriptions are unconstitutional per Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871) where the TN Supreme Court said:   “The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “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.” (Article 1 Section 26)  

I remember back when I was testifying at the Senate Judiciary hearing on Employee Safe Commute Republican caused abortion in 2010, then Democrat Memphis Senator Ophillia Ford quipped, "I never leave my house without my gun."  She actually voted with us on that one, as opposed to several Republicans...

Now that he (Haynes) has been caught double dipping his campaign fund for excursions that he also charged the State for, he has decided to NOT resign his seat as promised when he ran for State Party Chairman, and will in fact hold both positions so that Haslam can pick a replacement that will not be required to go through a vote to have the seat.

I am sure that is true.

The original bill by Weaver stated that the feds could not nationalize our State employees, nor use our funds to violate Constitutional laws, (the feds do this all the time in my opinion) this bill would have codified any new EO's from taking what few gun rights we have left away, but that's cool, if everybody else is on board with Lundburg and Kelsey on kissing the feds rear end, I will not bring it up again. The "car carry bill" allows a 14 year old to scoot around with a fully loaded AK on board, but hey, its all good.

Weaver's HB 1341 read (one upon a time)     HOUSE BILL 1341 By Weaver   AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, relative to the use of public funds, property, and law enforcement personnel for certain reasons. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3,is amended by adding the following as a new section: a.  On or after July 1, 2015, no public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall    be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order,rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. b.  On or after July 1, 2015, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. c.  For purposes of this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as defined in § 39-11-106.   Morphed into: Civil Justice Committee 1 Amendment No. 1 to HB1341                                                     Lundberg                                           Signature of Sponsor AMEND Senate Bill No. 1110*                                       House Bill No. 1341 by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:   SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, is amended by adding the following as a new section:   On or after July 1, 2015, no public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the expenditure of public funds would result in the violation of Tennessee statutory or common law or the Constitution of Tennessee. On or after July 1, 2015, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or    enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the use of personnel or property would result in the violation of Tennessee statutory or common law or the Constitution of Tennessee. For purposes of this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as Defined in § 39-11-106.   SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. Brian (the Supremacy clause trumps the 10th Amendment) Kelsey decided that dodge was not weak enough, so he killed that amendment in the Senate and added this:   Senate Judiciary Committee 1                                          Amendment No. 1 to SB1110                                                        Kelsey                                             Signature of Sponsor   AMEND Senate Bill No. 1110*                                       House Bill No. 1341   by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:   SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, is amended by adding the following as a new section:   a. On or after July 1, 2015, no public funds of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the expenditure of public funds would result in the violation of another Tennessee statute, Tennessee common law, or the Constitution of Tennessee.   b. On or after July 1, 2015, no personnel or property of this state, or any political subdivision of this state, shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories, if the use of personnel or property would result in the violation of another Tennessee statute, Tennessee common law, or the Constitution of Tennessee.   c. For purposes of this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as defined in § 39-11-106.   SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. A good bill got eviscerated, we got screwed, and we did not get kissed, again!  There are no statutes in our law to be violated...or as far at these folks are concerned.  

I still think you are going to see the Judge in Davidson County call this one "Constitutionally Vague" shortly.

TCA 39-17-1307 would be a great start...

I wonder if there is enough wiggle room to let a judge set this aside as "Unconstitutionally vague"?

I bought this about three months before the Giraud came out...but actually like it pretty well, I may trade up someday though. The Giraud is simple yet effective.