HB 2524 by Sexton

[Worriedman]

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/HB2524.pdf

 

As written, removes the criminal aspect of carrying a firearm in Tennessee from 39-17-1307.  
 

Sponsored by Senator Paul Bailey.

[TN Native]

I am watching this one. The language in it would delete the vague "intent to go armed" from the current statute. 

[JN01]

Sounds like common sense.

[Worriedman]

This needs to pass, I feel good about the House, we need a push in the Senate, contact the Senate sponsor, Paul Bailey and let him know we need this now.

Phone: (615) 741-3978 sen.paul.bailey@capitol.tn.gov

[Worriedman]

 

Was up for consideration this last Wednesday, I testified on the bill. DOS came in after and "flagged" it.  Sponsor Jerry Sexton took issue with them doing that and Leader Lamberth differed.  The committee recessed and then came back and issued a request for the Commissioner to come and testify as to why they "philosophically opposed" the bill.  It will be back up #1 on the agenda for Wednesday, and should be an interesting show.  I can not attend as I must take my invalid adult daughter to a Dr.'s appointment that day, I would love to be in the committee room for that.

[Worriedman]

 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.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Worriedman

[Wdodd]

Great job!!   Appreciate your fine efforts.

[Worriedman]

Third iteration of this bill is up for consideration tomorrow.

Amendment (016578).pdf

[jimmylogan]

On 3/19/2022 at 2:34 PM, Worriedman said:

 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

Well done! And I was just hearing your voice this morning, catching up on the TFA podcast. Nice to put a face with the voice I've been hearing.

And I'm new to this forum, but not new to TFA - thank you for what you do!

[Worriedman]

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...

[300winmag]

Does this bill with the latest amendment prohibit possession of any firearm by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor DWI offense within five years?  Not just carrying a loaded handgun but someone out hunting?  That is the way I read this amendment.

[Worriedman]

24 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

Does this bill with the latest amendment prohibit possession of any firearm by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor DWI offense within five years?  Not just carrying a loaded handgun but someone out hunting?  That is the way I read this amendment.

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

[300winmag]

It looks like to me after reading this amendment that someone convicted of a recent misdemeanor DWI could be charged with firearm possession just for having a gun on his own property, even though he is not a convicted felon or other federal prohibited person.  This is some TN add on.  So someone convicted of a non violent misdemeanor loses gun possession and ownership, not just carry, rights for five years?

It also looks like minors would now be prohibited from possessing long guns unless falling under certain defenses.  There are no laws now prohibiting minors, like high schoolers, from possessing long guns at the federal or state level.

Am I reading the amendment wrong as far as how it affects gun possession for certain non violent misdemeanors and minors?

Edited March 30, 2022 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

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.
 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Worriedman

[300winmag]

Sorry, I don't see how this is a huge step forward to suddenly make it illegal to make for someone to possess, own, or purchase firearms over a non violent DWI misdemeanor.  So a guy who presently owns firearms and is convicted of a non violent misdemeanor suddenly loses the right to keep the guns he has at his own home?  This bill is not a huge step forward in my opinion.   So he now must give away, sell, or store his firearms with someone just like a felon.

Politicians will use this in the future to add other non violent misdemeanors to keep people from owning guns.

I think suddenly making long gun possession illegal for minors and forcing them to prove certain exceptions is also a step backwards.  Basically you would have a 17 year old boy with a 22 rifle would have to prove he falls under those exceptions when right now it is not against the law for him to possess a 22 rifle.

It looks like practically about the only people that gain anything are those who carry in parks and rec areas without handgun permits. 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

9 hours ago, 300winmag said:

Sorry, I don't see how this is a huge step forward to suddenly make it illegal to make for someone to possess, own, or purchase firearms over a non violent DWI misdemeanor.  So a guy who presently owns firearms and is convicted of a non violent misdemeanor suddenly loses the right to keep the guns he has at his own home?  This bill is not a huge step forward in my opinion.   So he now must give away, sell, or store his firearms with someone just like a felon.

Politicians will use this in the future to add other non violent misdemeanors to keep people from owning guns.

I think suddenly making long gun possession illegal for minors and forcing them to prove certain exceptions is also a step backwards.  Basically you would have a 17 year old boy with a 22 rifle would have to prove he falls under those exceptions when right now it is not against the law for him to possess a 22 rifle.

It looks like practically about the only people that gain anything are those who carry in parks and rec areas without handgun permits. 

 

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.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Worriedman

[docachna]

On 2/2/2022 at 6:11 PM, TN Native said:

I am watching this one. The language in it would delete the vague "intent to go armed" from the current statute. 

I moved to TN ten years ago, and I never did understand that whole "intent to go armed" jazz. Love to read an explanation of it someday.  Sure hope they eliminate it and clean up the statutes.

Although, I came from Ohio, and they JUST NOW got a bill passed to eliminate the requirement that a CCL holder "promptly notify" (whatever that means) an LEO if he is "stopped" while armed. There were some really bad outcomes when some LEO wouldn't let a carrier inform, and then charged them for not informing !!! I was SO happy to get to Tennessee to get out from under that (well, that and no state income tax, school tax, etc., etc.).

[Worriedman]

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.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Worriedman

[jimmylogan]

6 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

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.

I watched the 3/23 and 3/29 videos, and I'm glad the rep's on the sub-committee brought out the fact that this is actually BAD form, for a law. I don't think "Legal" cared much for having to 'defend' it either...  

[Worriedman]

 

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!

 

[jimmylogan]

2 hours ago, Worriedman said:

 

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!

 

Will be watching closely...

And yeah - I do NOT like the way they (dept of safety, TBI) have been responding to this. <sigh> They seem to think that stopping gun BANS will mean the bad guys start using guns... 

I know - I know - same old argument, but really stings when 'they' witness...

 

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, jimmylogan said:

Will be watching closely...

And yeah - I do NOT like the way they (dept of safety, TBI) have been responding to this. <sigh> They seem to think that stopping gun BANS will mean the bad guys start using guns... 

I know - I know - same old argument, but really stings when 'they' witness...

 

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.

[jimmylogan]

41 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

TCA Code 39-16-403 says:

<snip>

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.

Thank you for this info! I am seeking to better educate myself and those around me, and be better able to communicate with my elected representatives, both in Nashville and in Washington...

Thx for the extra info on their 'obvious intentions' and standings. I could tell just in the videos that they seemed to take this as a direct assault on their organizations. <sigh>