Is Article 1 Section 26 unconsitutional?

[Worriedman]

Is Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution in fact unconstitutional?

From the case, Moorfield v. The State, 73 Tenn. 348 Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1880:

The case arose from a situation where a neighbor came before his fellows saying he had been fighting with a bear.  The neighbors gathered the firearms that were available and went to hunt to the animal.
Moorfield borrowed a pistol and joined the group in pursuit of the bear.

Returning from the venture, he was spied carrying the handgun, reported as such and arrested for violating the “intent to go armed” statute (this is still on out books today).  Going through the lower courts he was convicted of breaking the law.  Appealing to the highest Court of the State, he was finally exonerated and his conviction reversed. 

It is instructive to the People to understand what the Court used to render its verdict.  Quoting from the actual transcript “…the intent to carry the pistol for evil purposes, or for the purpose of being armed, in the sense of the statute, is clearly negatived, and the motive an innocent one. 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…”.

That being the specific definition of the “intent to go armed” in 1880 by our highest court, we find in 2008, in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller a definition of what the 2nd Amendment protects:
“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008)

Quoting Justice Ginsburg in Heller from Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’

Scalia said of that quote in Heller “We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.” 

Regarding the Tennessee restrictions placed on the People by the General Assembly in 1801, 1821 and 1870, making it a crime for a citizen to carry a firearm with the “intent to go armed” (as is currently still on our books today), it is my belief that the action of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case in 2010 where the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, invokes Article 6 Section 2 of our Federal Constitution and renders the current Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution moot.  Itr must be changed to satisfy the requirement set forth recently:
“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an "individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," Heller, 554 U.S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 30 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

Our state legislators have the power to set punishment for criminal acts.  It is their job to listen to the People (who are to instruct them) and construct laws which provide protection for the People within the confines of the Constitution.  Their Oath however requires them each to “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.”  These same legislators do not have the power to deny Constitutional rights, regardless of their intent, however “good” their “feelings” might be.