The crime of "Intent to go armed" and why it is unconstitutional

[Worriedman]

Contact your House Rep, the members of Civil Justice and Criminal Justice in the House, your Senators and all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and pose these facts and ask these questions:

Please find below Court findings that are important and have major bearing on what I consider to be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms via statute in Tennessee, (the intent to go armed) and questions related:

“…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…”. Moorfield v. The State, 73 Tenn. 348 Supreme Court of Tennessee, (1880)

“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In 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.’ ” Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). 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.”- District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008)
“It is not every removal of a weapon from one place to another which constitutes a “carrying” within the meaning of this section, to constitute the offense the weapon must be carried as arms.” Page v. State, 50 Tenn. 198 (1871)      
 “Instructions that the fact that defendant had pistols in his automobile raised presumption that he carried them for purpose of going armed and that the burden was on defendant to show that he had them for some lawful purpose was error since it relieved the state of the obligation of showing intent to go armed which is an essential ingredient of the offense.”  Liming v. State, 220 Tenn. 371, 417 S.W.2d 769 (1967).
Without the intent or purpose of going armed there is no violation of this statute, and the mere carrying of a weapon does not deprive a defendant of the presumption of innocence. Cole v. State, 539 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976).
“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 1 (2010)
“The provision at issue in this case, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."” McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 6 (2010)

“Instead, the Court decisively held that incorporated Bill of Rights protections "are all to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment."’ Id., at 10; see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655-656 (1961); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33-34 (1963); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 110 (1964); Pointer, 380 U. S., at 406; Duncan, supra, at 149, 157-158; Benton, 395 U. S., at 794-795; Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 48-49 (1985) - McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 17-18 (2010)
Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ____ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right").- McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 19 (2010) 
The “intent to go armed” clause IS the crime in 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.(a)(1) A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.
Questions:
1.    If SCOTUS in Heller, McDonald and Bruen say there is a right to carry a firearm in case of confrontation, is the Intent to go Armed Clause unconstitutional.
2.    Does the ruling from SCOTUS in Heller, recognized in McDonald and Bruen, that the citizen of the US has a right to carry firearms for self-protection in case of confrontation with another abrogate TCA 39-17-1307 (a) (1)?
3.    If the right to carry firearms for self-protection in case of confrontation with another citizen is valid, does Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution mandate that Tennessee remove the infringement?
4.    Dos the Incorporation of the 2nd amendment against Tennessee invalidate the “Intent to go armed” clause?
 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Worriedman

[leroy]

This will never be fixed until it's adjudicated in court.  The political class ( .even in Tennessee.) love giving " permissions" to us " Delightful Rustics ". 

The current language of the Tennessee Constitution, put in place by a bunch of dammed Reconstructionists after the Civil War says; as I remember: " The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, BUT the legislature may regulate the wearing of arms with an eye toward keeping the peace "... 

" ready ta litigate " leroy, the Anti Reconstructionist.