Trickle down effect from Bruen case.

[Worriedman]

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Club v. Bruen brought to light for the general public that government can not arbitrarily deny a 2nd Amendment right to a non-criminal citizen "just because". 

From that case:

"the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

In a subsequent case in Tennessee (Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden, M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV) the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that that right can not be taken or given away by mere agreement, hence the reckoning of the terms unalienable (can't be taken from a person) and indefeasible (can't give away willfully, stuck like glue) and why they are important in our constitutions.  Even though the plaintiff signed an agreement saying he would not keep arms in that housing unit, the Court found that government can not take that right away and he could not give it up.

If the general public knows this now, why does the General Assembly of Tennessee not?

In the Buren arguments before the Supreme Court, The Solicitor General of Washington DC told the Court that Tennessee passed a law in1821 that was still on our books making it a crime to carry a loaded firearm.  The SCOTUS has ruled that unconstitutional.

Contact your State Senators and tell them YOU know the facts and intend to hold them to their oath which says they solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, they will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that they will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to them 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.

Make your voice heard, call your candidates for office in Tennessee today and alert them that you know the truth and expect them to act accordingly.

[RED333]

Wish I could like this 1000 times!
I have sent e-mail about this to my reps.

[Worriedman]

To further understand the path we are on via Bruen, this from Justice Thomas:
"A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. 

When the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment into existence, they readopted the original Bill of Rights,…the public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in both 1791 and 1868 was, for all relevant purposes, the same with respect to public carry.”

If we are truly to read the Amendments in the context of the meaning they were to be understood by at the time of their writing, then a number of later day restrictions are in fact unconstitutional as well.  For instance, there was no prescription for denying the Right to arms to a infamous criminal if he had served his time and been released. (I remember reading that Jackson emptied the prisons in LA if the criminals agreed to bear arms against England).  I am not sure there was even such a thing as a dishonorable discharge, most likely if they needed to drum a soldier out they hung or shot them???

One must consider that if the 2nd protects  "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.", does not that right extend to confrontation by government, which at the time of the writing and adoption of the Amendments, was the whole point of their construction.  Our State Constitution plainly says the People are in charge and have the absolute power to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Your General Assembly and every LE Department are mere servants of the People, tax payer paid employees and are to act in accordance with the Constitution, it is in their Oath, they swear or affirm to do so.

 

[Worriedman]