Bill to Allow Guns Under Martial Law

[Guest SMZRU275]

From Channel Fox 13 Memphis:

Bill to Allow Guns Under Martail Law

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A person who legally possesses a gun would not have it seized during periods of martial rule under a proposal that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The measure sponsored by Republican Sen. Jack Johnson of Franklin was approved 7-2 on Wednesday. The companion bill passed the House last week.

Johnson said martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. He says he proposed the bill after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Johnson says one woman who legally owned a gun was injured by officers when she refused to relinquish her weapon.

He says he doesn't expect such behavior in Tennessee but believes legislation should be in place just in case.

___

Read SB1992

Link to the bill:

Tennessee General Assembly Legislation

Edited April 30, 2009 by SMZRU275

[Paletiger13]

Good job Sen.Jack Johnson.

[Guest HexHead]

:He says he doesn't expect such behavior in Tennessee but believes legislation should be in place just in case."

Serpas was the deputy chief in New Orleans. Granted, it was before Katrina, but I'm just sayin'.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

this wont matter if its imposed at the federal level...

[Guest SomeGuy]

Glock,

So, are you advocating we abandon this issue?

[Guest nraforlife]

Only if you let them take it away...

[Fallguy]

this wont matter if its imposed at the federal level...

True, but it will on a state level.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Anybody wanna buy Sen. Jackson a tinfoil hat? Cause that would NEVER happen...would it?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Glock,

So, are you advocating we abandon this issue?

not at all Im all for it, but I just wanted to make sure some of you realize it has no real teeth.

[texfrazer]

If we're going all , picture this:

Fed's call of martial law enforced by the states. TN the only state legally allowing the possession of firearms. TN becomes the most populous state. TN seceeds.....

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Under the 10th.. it has a lot of teeth.

[Fallguy]

If the Governor was to ever impose martial law in part of or all of the state...I'm not naive enough to think that ever local guard commander and/or police chief and sheriff will be aware of the law, or even obey it if they are aware of it.

But unlike after Katrina, where the citizens had little to no recourse after their weapons were taken, if this bill passes, the citizens of TN will have recourse if some authority chooses to violate the law.

For those interested...

58-1-112 Martial rule — Proclamation by governor — Procedure.

(a) Whenever any portion of the national guard is employed pursuant to § 58-1-106, the governor, if in the governor's judgment the maintenance of law and order will thereby be promoted, may, by proclamation, declare the county or city in which troops are serving, or any specified portion thereof, to be under martial rule.

( Following the governor's martial rule proclamation, the governor may promulgate the following orders to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation under control:

(1)

The establishment of a curfew and the prohibition and control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, except essential emergency vehicles and personnel;

(2)

The designation of specific zones within which the occupance and use of buildings and the ingress and egress of vehicles and persons may be prohibited or regulated;

(3)

The regulation and closing of places of amusement and assembly;

(4)

The prohibition of the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages;

(5)

The prohibition and control of the presence of persons on public streets;

(6)

The regulation and control of the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition; and

(7)

The regulation and control of the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of explosives, and flammable materials and liquids.

© Such orders shall be effective from the time and in the manner prescribed in such orders and shall be given to the press, radio and television media for publication and broadcast.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a declaration of martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Under the 10th.. it has a lot of teeth.

maybe, but my forefathers all wore Grey uniforms and tried and lost that fight long ago. What you think they cant do and what the will do are two different things.

Again Im all for it if it makes some folks feel all warm and fuzzy, but thats about all it may do.

[Guest djack41]

Anybody wanna buy Sen. Jackson a tinfoil hat? Cause that would NEVER happen...would it?

Do you mean Sen. Jack Johnson? Sen. Doug Jackson is sponsoring the Restaurant Carry bill.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Yes, the Sen. Jackson that is relevant to the OP in the thread.

[Fallguy]

Yes, the Sen. Jackson that is relevant to the OP in the thread.

Ummm....re-read the OP

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ummm....re-read the OP

From the OP: Sen. Jack Johnson

I swear I can read...I'm blaming it on the NyQuil. ;)

Sorry, djack41!

[Mike.357]

Didn't a law get passed a year or so ago that supposedly protected our ability to possess firearms in times of disaster?

What would the difference be between this martian law thing and the law I mentioned?

And I am not naive enough to believe that no matter what laws are on the books, that if the man wants to try to take our guns they will go ahead and try it.

[Fallguy]

Didn't a law get passed a year or so ago that supposedly protected our ability to possess firearms in times of disaster?

What would the difference be between this martian law thing and the law I mentioned?

And I am not naive enough to believe that no matter what laws are on the books, that if the man wants to try to take our guns they will go ahead and try it.

The current law (the one you mention) only covers a declared "state of emergency"

Not sure how much difference there is in practicality, but there is technically.

This bill is just an attempt to cover all the bases.

[Mike.357]

the entire thing is freaking retarded.

how about a law that say the people can possess guns?

Oh wait we have that and no one pays attention to it.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Sure they do, Mike, its just mostly negative.

[Guest Rick O'Shay]

maybe, but my forefathers all wore Grey uniforms and tried and lost that fight long ago. What you think they cant do and what the will do are two different things.

Again Im all for it if it makes some folks feel all warm and fuzzy, but thats about all it may do.

Except for his choice of personal firearm, I agree with Herr GLOCKMEISTER 100%.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Rick O'Shay

[Fallguy]

You know after looking a bit closer at this bill, really all it does is prevent confiscation.

It says that can still regulate and control the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition.

So they can still keep you from going out in public armed, stop gun and ammo sales and the like.

...and I'm not saying that is bad, just noting that although they aren't supposed to confiscate them from you, they still retain a lot of control over their display and use.