Shelby County Tn. Mayor wants tougher gun laws

[Guest mikedwood]

My perusal of the U.S. Constitution suggests that unlicensed/non-permitted carrying of a weapon should receive the same penalty as unlicensed speech, being religious without a permit, and peaceably assembling on private property without paying the mandatory peaceable assembly fee.

I have to agree with that.

I don't like the fact that the "Right to bear arms" is a privilage now. To an extent speech and the press are getting there fast.

[Jack]

I dont have a permit, nor am I 21 just yet.

I dont have a problem at all going to get my permit and waiting for that peice of plastic. I know about 5 guys that would be carrying a handgun that have NO business what so ever having one on their persons.

Although a permit doesnt keep everyone from illegally carrying a gun it does cut down on it.

[Guest 270win]

There was a time in many states that it was impossible or very difficult to get a license/permit to carry a handgun. Many people risked a misdemeanor fine in order to protect themselves or their families. I'd be willing to bet most of the people who have licenses/permits now over age 40 carried 'illegally' from time to time for protection. If someone had to work in a bad area of town, they'd get a gun they wouldn't mind getting taken by the police, carry and keep their mouth shut.

I still see no need in raising the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. If I had a son or daughter that was under 18-20 (under the age to get a permit), and that child had to go to a rough part of town for something, then i'd give them an old used revolver to carry. Yes it is 'illegal', but I have always believed it is better to risk a misdemeanor fine and be alive than leave the gun at home/car and get killed or hurt.

[Punisher84]

There was a time in many states that it was impossible or very difficult to get a license/permit to carry a handgun. Many people risked a misdemeanor fine in order to protect themselves or their families. I'd be willing to bet most of the people who have licenses/permits now over age 40 carried 'illegally' from time to time for protection. If someone had to work in a bad area of town, they'd get a gun they wouldn't mind getting taken by the police, carry and keep their mouth shut.

I still see no need in raising the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. If I had a son or daughter that was under 18-20 (under the age to get a permit), and that child had to go to a rough part of town for something, then i'd give them an old used revolver to carry. Yes it is 'illegal', but I have always believed it is better to risk a misdemeanor fine and be alive than leave the gun at home/car and get killed or hurt.

I think that is REALLY bad advice for a number of reasons.

[Guest 270win]

I never said it was advice, but each person must make a choice on how to defend himself. Would you go into the ghetto of Memphis unarmed, if your permit hasn't been mailed to you yet? I carried in my home state of Arkansas a handgun w/o a license when I was 18 and on a journey. I was completely legal doing so. I also kept a loaded handgun in my vehicle, w/o a license, and had a hunting license and boots, so that I was on my way to and from hunting. Both cases extremely legal.

Now when I traveled to other states and it was legal to have my loaded handgun without a license, great. When not, I just drove the speed limit, and didn't make a fool of myself. I wasn't about to walk into a gas station on the side of the road at night without a handgun, license or no license. It is not ideal, but I have always wanted to be among the living. I did not travel to states where i was risking a felony charge, by the way, if i had a loaded handgun without a license.

Many honest otherwise clean cut people cannot get a license due to cost or cannot get one fast enough (immediate death threats/stalkers). Should those people be charged with a felony because they chose to carry a handgun to protect themselves, but TN takes 90 days to process the silly paperwork? Absolutely not! If they wait up to 90 days they could be hurt or killed! I think an emergency/temp permit would be a great idea for TN for people with clean records to immediately be issued a permit while they wait for their permanent permit.

[Punisher84]

Many honest otherwise clean cut people cannot get a license due to cost or cannot get one fast enough (immediate death threats/stalkers). Should those people be charged with a felony because they chose to carry a handgun to protect themselves, but TN takes 90 days to process the silly paperwork? Absolutely not! If they wait up to 90 days they could be hurt or killed! I think an emergency/temp permit would be a great idea for TN for people with clean records to immediately be issued a permit while they wait for their permanent permit.

I agree with that statement. While we can sit here until Doomsday debating the issue of permit vs. no permit and etc. I abide by the law. I see your point, but I just don't advocate breaking the law.

[Guest nraforlife]

I agree with that statement. While we can sit here until Doomsday debating the issue of permit vs. no permit and etc. I abide by the law. I see your point, but I just don't advocate breaking the law.

I don't advocate breaking the law either BUT at the same time I do not advocate setting oneself up to be a victim

[Punisher84]

I don't advocate breaking the law either BUT at the same time I do not advocate setting oneself up to be a victim

I agree and I don't want to be a victim either. My point is more towards the mindset of "I'll just risk the arrest, having my gun confiscated, and paying a fine."

I don't buy the liberal arguments of "Well just don't go to a place you might need a gun." either.

This is also coming from a person who doesn't eat out alot at restaurants, rarely drinks outside the home, and is very cautious. Like I said I see the point and I'm not really arguing the logic behind it, just the legality of it I guess? It sucks, but I think it does more harm than good when people start recommending people to break the law. It hurts our cause and portrays us exactly how the libs and the media want us to be portrayed.

If they can lump us in with the common thugs, they will. The CA already did by putting that database in the crime section.

[zeitgeist]

I may be wrong, but I am making the assumption that the majority of gun crime in Shelby county is purported using illegally-obtained weaponry.

[Punisher84]

I may be wrong, but I am making the assumption that the majority of gun crime in Shelby county is purported using illegally-obtained weaponry.

I'd say 99.9%

[DaveTN]

Is carrying guns without a permit a problem in Tennessee?

I’m going to take a WAG and say… No… using guns in the commission of a crime is the problem. I’m pretty sure that using any gun illegally is a felony.

There are people in Tennessee that are not thugs that under some conditions may illegally carry a gun. It should not be a felony.

A woman takes her kids and flees and abusive relationship and is afraid the guy may kill her. She does not have the time or the money to get an HCP. If she is stopped and the gun is found should she be charged with a felony? I say no.

Many of these community leaders in areas like Memphis and Chicago are good people that are grasping at straws. I’m sure that they understand that making illegal carry a felony will not change anything, but they think they need to do something.

What they need to do is enforce the laws they already have. If someone pulls an armed robbery with a firearm they need to go to prison for a long time; but it doesn’t happen.

The argument is made that they can’t lock them up because of prison overcrowding. If that is the case let all non-violent offenders go and keep the violent offenders.

[Guest m&pc9]

What they need to do is enforce the laws they already have.

I agree completely

FONT=Times New Roman]The argument is made that they can’t lock them up because of prison overcrowding. If that is the case let all non-violent offenders go and keep the violent offenders.[/font]

So why make it a felony when they can't lock them up anyway.

[Punisher84]

Is carrying guns without a permit a problem in Tennessee?

I’m going to take a WAG and say… No… using guns in the commission of a crime is the problem. I’m pretty sure that using any gun illegally is a felony.

There are people in Tennessee that are not thugs that under some conditions may illegally carry a gun. It should not be a felony.

A woman takes her kids and flees and abusive relationship and is afraid the guy may kill her. She does not have the time or the money to get an HCP. If she is stopped and the gun is found should she be charged with a felony? I say no.

Many of these community leaders in areas like Memphis and Chicago are good people that are grasping at straws. I’m sure that they understand that making illegal carry a felony will not change anything, but they think they need to do something.

What they need to do is enforce the laws they already have. If someone pulls an armed robbery with a firearm they need to go to prison for a long time; but it doesn’t happen.

The argument is made that they can’t lock them up because of prison overcrowding. If that is the case let all non-violent offenders go and keep the violent offenders.

I don't believe it. The world is gonna end. You and I actually agree on something.

[Guest canynracer]

I know this view will be unpopular, but I think Wharton is a decent guy. I am all for felony charges for illegal carry, it will make my job easier. And don't worry about getting charged with a felony because you left your permit at home, dispatch tells me your HCP status.

+1

[DaveTN]

I am all for felony charges for illegal carry, it will make my job easier.

Carrying without a permit is illegal. How will the level of the crime charged make your job easier?

So we have gone from….

“I have a right to keep and bear arms under the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment of the Constitution of the United States!â€

To

“Okay, Heller says I don’t have a right to bear arms; but I have a right to own them as long as they don’t leave my home.â€

To

“Since we don’t have a right to bear arms; let’s make it a felony.â€

<O:p</O:p

Nope, I’m not buying into that. If you think it will help you take gang bangers off the street; it won’t. You are already arresting them on felonies and they don’t stay in jail.

<O:p</O:p

People who have committed no crime other than having a gun in their car will become victims of this action. That may be oaky with you; but with all due respect it’s not with me.

[EMTRN]

People who have committed no crime other than having a gun in their car will become victims of this action. That may be oaky with you; but with all due respect it’s not with me.

Sadly, I must agree with you on this. When you go through an academy they teach you lots of useful information, but sadly some officers lack judgement. I cringe every time I hear of an officer jamming up another officer or citizen for carrying.

You are right about them not staying in jail. Some people would be shocked at just the amount of domestics and DUIs that get plead down to simple assault or reckless driving.

[Guest OttoMaddox]

Gun CRIME is the issue. Not illegal carry.

There should not be such a thing as illegal carry as long as you have no criminal record or intent. It is a peculiar thing that we need permits at all when we have clean records and a constitutional right to bear arms.

A good friend of mine was shot in Memphis week before last in his own doorway by a convicted felon out on parole. Enforce the laws we have, keep the criminals in jail for their actual sentence. Memphis in particular seems to have a revolving door for felons.

Examples:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/18/memphis-police-charge-man-dismemberment-case/

http://www.scdag.com/Information/NewsReleases/tabid/75/newsid383/160/mid/383/Convicted-Felon-Guilty-as-Indicted-for-First-Degree-Murder/Default.aspx

http://www.police.nashville.org/news/media/2008/04/21.htm

These were just the first few to pop up.

So mayor Wharton, how about keeping some of the criminals away from the law abiding folks a bit longer rather than saddling us with more of your injustice?

[DaveTN]

It is a peculiar thing that we need permits at all when we have clean records and a constitutional right to bear arms.

If you had a Constitutional right to bear arms you would not need a permit. The state of Tennessee (as most other states) does not recognize any right to bear arms. That has been debated for the last 50 years; that debate ended with the Heller decision.

This is not the way I believe, but making an argument based on a right you do not have makes you very easy to dismiss.

[Guest OttoMaddox]

Perhaps you won't dismiss the Supreme court quite so readily.

Decision

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference">[31]</sup> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<sup id="cite_ref-31" class="reference">[32]</sup>

The Court based its reasoning on the following grounds:

• that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
  
• that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
  
• that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
  
• that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939);
  
• that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and the decision does not cast doubt on the longstanding legislative prohibitions against possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying weapons in sensitive places and regulations regarding the sales of firearms;<sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference">[33]</sup> and
  
• that handguns are the most popular weapons chosen by Americans for self-defense.<sup id="cite_ref-33" class="reference">[34]</sup>
  

Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".

The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Guest 270win]

I will not support changing intent to go armed from a misdemeanor to a felony until several changes are made:

1. Allowing anyone 18 and up to carry a loaded handgun in the car. It is legal in most of the surrounding states, why not here?

2. Not including long guns under intent to go armed...again most of the surrounding states anyone can carry a loaded long gun in cars or even slung over their back.

3. Creating a provision for people that have restraining orders on people to carry a handgun without a license...California has this even on the books.

4. On the spot temporary permits if you pass a TICS background check.

I think it would be wasteful and silly to charge the abused mother trying to get her kids out of a bad home, Jim Bob with the loaded rifle in the gun rack, or Grandpa Jones with his 357 in the glovebox with a FELONY! Felonies are forever and seriously mess people up. It is bad enough that someone can be charged with a misdemeanor for having a pistol in the glovebox. I found it stupid that i could drive from Little Rock to West Memphis with a loaded handgun in my car or carried without a license for protection on the open road...but risked getting it taken when i crossed the 40 or 55 bridge. I view my car like my house....what's in my car is my business. There should be no crime whatsoever for legal objects in cars.

Another important thing to remember is that in many states it is illegal to CONCEAL a handgun without a license/permit, not so in TN. TN pretty much makes carrying one period illegal. You can walk around Kentucky with one strapped on in plain view.

Edited February 24, 2009 by 270win

[midtennchip]

Dave, the State of Tennessee does provide for a right to bear arms in Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. However, like all rights (U.S. Constitution or state constitution), that right is subject to "reasonable" limitations. Our state simply stated that limitation (i.e., "to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime") directly in the constitution.

Otto, you may want to search the Heller threads. The Heller decision does NOT prevent state limitations on arms. The District of Columbia is a federal enclave and is subject to all of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, there has been a long-running debate in constitutional law circles (and SCOTUS decisions) regarding whether all of the Amendments have been "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment (which means whether all of the Amendments apply against the States). Since the Heller decision did not address the incorporation issue, it is still an open issue whether Heller would prevents states from enforcing laws similar to the DC law. It probably does, but it hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet. If you're interested, the law review article below addresses the incorporation issues of Heller.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1245402&rec=1&srcabs=1235537

[Guest OttoMaddox]

Thanks for the info!

[midtennchip]

If anyone is interested, the following article covers the "incorporation" issue pretty well. It's easier to read and summarizes the issue well:

http://reason.com/news/show/131808.html