Worriedman

A letter I started sending out to legislators today. Since at least June 2022, the United States Supreme Court has mandated that government restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights impose on the government the burden to demonstrate that the restriction mirrors or is consistent with the “national historical tradition” that existed when the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791. Accordingly, I have been seeking the historical evidence of analogues from the era of the ratification with respect to long gun carry in Tennessee. I can find no statute in Tennessee that existed prior to 1989 that criminalizes the carry of any long gun. There are various, albeit only a few, statutes that regulated in some fashion civilian possession of handguns, as well as knives, clubs, sling shots and brass knuckles. However, even those statutes appeared to be regulations based on collateral factors such as the individual’s conduct and were not broad bans. Indeed, even as of 1989, citizen possession and carry of certain “military” style handguns was exempted from the statutory regulation. Thus, it is apparent that the General Assembly was precise in its desire to list each of those items and the circumstances attendant to the restrictions but yet no such list included long arms. It is likewise clear that Tennessee’s approach, which has been referenced by the Supreme Court, is not one that was in line with the “national” historical tradition. It is now clear that the General Assembly, or the majority of the members thereof, appear to have an animus against the inalienable and indefeasible right of the citizen to keep, bear and wear arms. Indeed, in 2023, the State’s attorney general entered into a voluntary settlement of a federal lawsuit, a settlement which remains subject to federal court enforcement, whereby the State agreed in writing that state laws which restricted the rights of 18-20 year olds to carry handguns violated the 2nd Amendment, the 14th Amendment and constituted a federal civil rights violation. Yet, despite that federal settlement and consent decree, the General Assembly has repeatedly refused to repeal or amend the statutes in question to eliminate the unconstitutional provisions. Rifles and shotguns are items that are in common use today in the United States. The case Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), proscribed that if there were 200,000 stun guns in the possession of Americans, that this quantity satisfied the rule found by the United States Supreme Court in Miller (1939) and reiterated by it in Heller (2008) that only those weapons that are dangerous AND unusual could be denied the citizen and, more specifically, that firearms that are useful for military purposes and/or that are in common use are protected by the 2nd Amendment. In McDonald (2010), the Supreme Court said it was a conjunctive test, bolstering the previous rulings from the Supreme Court protecting those categories of arms. Today, there are at least 24.4 million AR 15s in the possession of Americans and likely at least 200,000 within a sixty mile radius of Nashville. If 200,000 stun guns was deemed to be a sufficient quantity nationally to achieve constitutional protections as “common use” then certainly 24.4 million is as well. In Tennessee, our Supreme Court stated in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 179–80 (1871) - “[W]e would hold, that the rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket, and repeater, are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep such arms, cannot be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.” It appears that by 1989, the General Assembly elected to ignore the state Supreme Court’s constitutional ruling. The Tennessee Supreme Court holding in Andrews further held: "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…Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier." The Tennessee General Assembly and the members thereof have an affirmative duty, pursuant to their respective oaths of office, to follow the constitution and to protect the rights of the citizens, with a priority on those rights which themselves are expressly protected by the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 20-843. (2022) stated “In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” This is the Court’s holding and not merely dicta. It is an affirmative holding that must be recognized as such by those who profess to uphold the Constitutions of the State and Union. We, as Tennesseans, expect the General Assembly to likewise protect and defend clearly established constitutional rights. It, and its members, have failed to do so. I am asking for your written assurances, assurances that we can share with the members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, that the General Assembly will no longer abdicate its constitutional obligations but that it and its members will move forthwith in 2024 to repeal any and all statutes, regulations, ordinances or orders for which there is no existing clear and convincing national historical tradition as a precedent. It would be good ir it came from more than just one person...

Really, you don't think West Memphis, AK runs in Memphis, TN?

It is lawful in Arkansas and Mississippi, see anything on the news about gangsters doing it there? And in 40 other states.

My understanding is he got fired from his job today, have not verified that for sure but KWAM put it up this afternoon. I get not wanting to be a target for exercising your God given rights, but us giving them up will just play into the hands of those who want us disarmed, of everything, and if you don't see that is the aim, we are looking at different things.

Miller v. Bonta (2023) “Between 1607 and 1815 ... the colonial and state governments of what would become the first fourteen states neglected to exercise any police power over the ownership of guns by members of the body politic . . . . These limits on colonial and early state regulation of arms ownership outlined a significant zone of immunity around the private arms of the individual citizen.” More importantly, it is a conclusion confirmed by the Supreme Court. Bruen says, “[a]part from a few late 19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.” Case 3:19-cv-01537-BEN-JLB Document 175 Filed 10/19/23 PageID.21492 Page 27 of 79

I would not carry mine displayed, but you can bet your bippy if I go through Memphis, I have mine with me. I challenge anyone to show me a law in Tennessee from 1796 till 1989 that said it was unlawful to carry a rifle or a shotgun loaded. (there are plenty about handguns, pocket pistols, pistols, knives of all sorts, brass knuckles, sling shots, clubs etc. but nowhere is a rifle or shotgun mentioned as a prohibited item. You have to understand the conjunctive test set forth in Heller and upheld in Caetano (where 200,000 stun guns in use was allowed by SCOTUS as enough to put that type of weapon "in common use" to satisfy the Heller requirement), that for a weapon to be denied the citizen for self defense, it has to be dangerous AND unusual. With 24.4 million AR 15s in the hands of the general public, that meets the criteria of "in common use". In 1871 the Supreme Court of Tennessee said this: “[W]e would hold, that the rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket, and repeater, are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep such arms, cannot be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 179–80 (1871) Did this tool act inconsiderately, yes, but I can promise, there are 42 states that would have found the action of carrying a rifle non-criminal if it was not used to threaten anyone. I think he carried a pistol version because he knew he could not be arrested for that, I am of the opinion it was a photo-op to harm the quest for a return to the intent of the founding principals in Tennessee.

You are correct.

I still think that those of us interested in the issue should fill out the questionnaire, don't let them just have the Commie Mommies as the only respondents. This was sent to be my one of the best House members asking me to get our side involved in answering.

This guy is Derek Winn, it was not Voldemort. Idiot set back gains made toward resetting the law to the original intent, was grandstanding and attention seeking in my view.

If in fact it was a pistol version (which it was) and the individual had an enhanced permit, proximity to the school is not an issue, can't go on the grounds legally but being near it does not violate the law.

Speaking with a Deputy yesterday, it was as I thought, an AR pistol. From the grainy picture you can tell it is short barreled, and there is only a buffer tube, no stock. The weapon when handled by police had an empty chamber but a fully loaded magazine. Itis a crime to carry a long gun (or any firearm or a club for that matter) there are defenses against prosecution of that crime listed in the TCA. You can only carry a rifle in public if there is no ammunition within reach (39-17-1308) unless while licensed hunting, sport shooting (he was not at a range) or one of several government officials such as police or a judge. 39-17-1308 (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; (2) By a person authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315, § 39-17-1351, or § 39-17-1366; (3) At the person's: (A) Place of residence; (B) Place of business; or (C) Premises; (4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity; (5) By a person possessing a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; (6) By a Tennessee valley authority officer who holds a valid commission from the commissioner of safety pursuant to this part while the officer is in the performance of the officer's official duties; (7) By a state, county or municipal judge or any federal judge or any federal or county magistrate; (10) By any out-of-state, full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer who holds a valid commission card from the appropriate out-of-state law enforcement agency and a photo identification; provided, that if no valid commission card and photo identification are retained, then it shall be unlawful for that officer to carry firearms in this state and this section shall not apply. The defense provided by this subdivision (a)(10) shall only be applicable if the state where the out-of-state officer is employed has entered into a reciprocity agreement with this state that allows a full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer in Tennessee to lawfully carry or possess a weapon in the other state;

Just got this, I filled it out. I think everyone should, but be careful of the questions they are loaded. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2023/10/27/starts-with-us-to-get-feedback-in-tennessee-for-gun-safety-input/71330296007/?utm_source=tennessean-newsalert-strada&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_term=hero&utm_content=pnas-nashville-nletter04

The law is unconstitutional, I am working on it. I have a number in the House appraised, need help in the Senate.

The Supreme Court in Bruen has laid out rules for deciding the 2nd Amendment rights of the People. Text, then history! If non-violent felon citizens seek to purchase and bear arms (defined in Heller as “Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or amour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 618 (2008), the 2nd Amendment ensures that right under its ”unqualified command”. Rifles and shotguns with legal length barrels are protected by that command. All power being inherent in the People, General Assemblies do not have the lawful ability to deny a constitutional right, as certain policy choices have been taken off the table. “No longer should lower courts evaluating firearm restrictions “defer to the determinations of legislatures,” because while “that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable-and, elsewhere, appropriate-it is not the deference that the Constitution demands.” And while “end-justifies-the-means” rationalizations should generally be understood as antithetical to the rule of law, Bruen now leaves no doubt that such rationalizations have no place in our Second Amendment jurisprudence.” United States v. Harrison, No. CR-22-00328-PRW, 5-6 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023) From the recent case decided 11/21/2023 in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, No. 21-2017; “And Plaintiffs here say that they seek to own firearms for “lawful purposes,” J.A. 22–24, a point that Maryland does not contest. Indeed, though the Amendment’s plain text “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 411 (2016) …There might well be a tradition of prohibiting dangerous people from owning firearms. But, under the Second Amendment, mechanism matters. And Maryland has not pointed to any historical laws that operated by preemptively depriving all citizens of firearms to keep them out of dangerous hands. Plaintiffs’ challenge thus must succeed, and the district court’s contrary decision must be REVERSED” MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INC., v. WES MOORE, in his capacity as Governor of Maryland; WOODROW W. JONES, III, Colonel. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2017 Doc: 58 Filed: 11/21/2023 Pgs. 8,9,20,21 of 41 Tennessee’s statute, TCA 39-17-1308 which makes it a crime for a non-violent felon citizen to bear a rifle or shotgun for lawful purposes outside of valid hunting or sport shooting is unconstitutional on its face. Government is not responsible for providing safety or security to any individual, and, it should not be allowed to deny non-violent felon citizens to enjoy the ability to provide their own security and safety with the best tools available, especially when those rights are protected by the Constitution. It was never a crime in Tennessee to carry a loaded long gun until 1989 when under a Democrat governor, a Democrat controlled House and Senate that constitutional right was stripped away by statute. “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) The non-violent felon citizen of Tennessee is the intended beneficiary of the 2nd Amendment, and there is no historical tradition of denying the lawful use of long guns.

Greg, I found him to be intelligent and interested. Unlike a lot of other Tennesseans who expect others to carry their water, he is seeking to find a way to get involved (trusting leftist to give them a fair shake is something they have to learn is non-productive) but endeavor is a good thing. I offered that when I go back to the legislature, I would be glad to lead him around the corners. Like many who move here, I think possibly the perception of Tennessee is far different from the reality, and when they reach the Promised Land and find it is not quite that, they seek to get involved to keep it from becoming what they left.

You are correct, and can only be put on the ballot in years of a governor's election. The GA will try hard to keep this one off the ballot, even though it is needed, it can only be put up this year and next and then be on the ballot in 2026, or it waits till 2030 and that is too dang late.

I extended my offer for a call with Norseman308, he took advantage of that and did call. We discussed a number of issues. He seemed genuinely interested in the topics we hold dear. It is just that he does not have the experience here yet to understand the General Assembly and the judiciary appointed by our transpublican rulers have resulted in supporting the Jim Crow laws on our books to keep us in thrall to government (there are others on this board who are similarly so affected, regardless of time in the saddle in the state). I had a Senator admit this week that the "Intent to go armed" clause on our books is unconstitutional, but he also stated there is no appetite in the Senate to see it changed. That is because the Average Joe is too lazy to ride them all like it needs to be done. If we could get 50 people in each Senatorial District to light their elected Employees up, and talk about it in bars, churches and social gatherings we could change this mess, but till that happens we are dead in the water. Bitching at new guys here is of no benefit, climb up on your horse and get after the Senate of Tennessee.

Who is your Rep.?

They are retrying your case, it is what our TBI does now. I was contacted by a POST Certified 23 year veteran of the force officer that had a nothing burger charge from when he was 19 in Colorado, a letter in hand from the court with jurisdiction from the time of his application to the POST Commission saying the charge was not a domestic issue denied this fall on a hunting rifle transfer from an FFL. Our TBI is being weaponized against our 2nd Amendment rights. The Director David B. Rausch thinks the 2nd Amendment only covers muskets, said so this year in testimony in the House Civil Justice Full committee on HB 1005.

That is it. The original 1796 Constitution said " That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." as our 2nd Amendment analogue. The new wording is what we need and I don't care what others may think, it is historically correct and what we as Tennesseans deserve.

Fast forward to 11:20 time stamp. These two gentlemen get it!

HJR0038.pdf

.

Rep Jay Reedy has a Constitutional Amendment up for consideration in the next two sessions: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 38 By Reedy HJR0038 001154 - 1 - A RESOLUTION to propose an amendment to Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of Tennessee, relative to the right to keep and bear arms. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that a majority of all the members of each house concurring, as shown by the yeas and nays entered on their journals, that it is proposed that Article I, Section 26, of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the following language: 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. and substituting instead the following: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their defense. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the foregoing be referred to the One Hundred Fourteenth General Assembly and that this resolution proposing such amendment be published in accordance with Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution of Tennessee by posting such amendment on the official website of the Secretary of State and on the official website of the General Assembly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is directed to deliver copies of this resolution to the Secretary of State, with this final resolving clause being deleted from such copies. Make sure your Hose Members and Senators sign on and push for this, it will cure a lot of ills in Tennessee.