Knoxville PD apologizes for open carry incident in Wal-Mart

[The Rabbi]

Dave, Rabbi - you guys call it a privilege, if you like. I'm gonna continue saying it is a right (recognised also by the TN constitution, IIRC).

Mark, anything that requires a permit by definition is not a right. You can call a dog a cat if you'd like, but that doesn't make it correct.

[TGO David]

Dave, Rabbi - you guys call it a privilege, if you like. I'm gonna continue saying it is a right (recognised also by the TN constitution, IIRC).

Anything that requires a permit is not a right. You don't have to seek a permit to exercise freedom of speech do you?

Just so that you don't misunderstand, we're on the same side here. I just see things for what they are and you're seeing them for what you want them to be. Do I want them to be that way too? Sure.

The problem is that as I see it 2nd Amendment Rights are an endangered species. Over the past 10 years there has definitely been a resuscitation of those Rights as evidenced by the number of states that have "Shall issue" permits... but again, a Right should not require a permit.

• You do not have the Right to drive a car on public streets. The State issues you a permit to do so if you meet their requirements which were ostensibly set forth for the common good.

• You do not have the Right to carry a firearm in Tennessee. The State issues you a permit to do so if you meet their requirements which were also ostensibly set forth for the common good. And revenue.

Either of those permits can be revoked for just cause by the State. If they revoke your driver's license, you're no longer legally allowed to drive on public streets. If they revoke your carry permit, you're no longer legally allowed to carry on public property.

Like I said, I don't disagree that it should be a Right if you take the Constitution and interpret the clause "to bear arms" as meaning that you should be able to literally bear arms anywhere and everywhere that you choose. The current school of thought is that "bearing arms" means that you can just simply OWN them. Not necessarily that you'll be toting them around all the time and in effect going armed.

The State of Tennessee takes the latter approach on this. They acknowledge that you have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm. They do not acknowledge that you have a Constitutional Right to carry that firearm to Kroger. Therefore they issue carry permits for that sort of thing.

Frankly I'm with Marswolf and the others here who have said that activist Open Carry will become the death of the open carry provision. And then we can all sit around and thank the folks who pushed the envelope of the law for their hard work at getting the noose pulled even tighter for the rest of us.

Remember... discretion is the better part of valor. There's wisdom in that.

Just my $0.02 on the subject.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Well said.

[Mark@Sea]

Rabbi, I see your point - I just don't agree with you.

The Tennessee constitution could be clearer on the point, but it still calls it a right.

I prefer to start from the supposition that it is a right that is somewhat infringed by regulation, the purpose of which is to attempt to assure that a citizen knows at least bare-bones minimums of both the legal and practical exercise of his right. Doesn't matter if the local law or politico doesn't like Joe Gunny. As long as he isn't a felon, they have no say in the matter. Tennessee is shall issue, not may issue.

2A is, unless you take the unusual view that the framers wanted to enshrine in the constitution the right of the army to have guns, clearly recognising an individual right. That it has been infringed doesn't make it go away - unless you believe the brady bunch morons.

I personally refuse to let VPC et. al. frame the debate on those terms, and I'm not going to buy it from anyone else, regardless of their bona fides, legal experiences, moral authority, or cool smilies.

I'm just stubborn that way.

[DaveTN]

2A is, unless you take the unusual view that the framers wanted to enshrine in the constitution the right of the army to have guns, clearly recognising an individual right. That it has been infringed doesn't make it go away - unless you believe the brady bunch morons.

Mark,

The Brady bunch has nothing to do with this; no one cares what their opinions are on the Constitution.

The view that the framers wanted to protect the militia is not an unusual view; it is the view and the written opinion of almost every Federal District Court. It is the law of the land that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right; it protects the states from the Federal government disarming Police Departments and State National Guard and reserve units. (Like in England)

There is only one stop left for this “individual right†argument and that is the Supreme Court of the United States. They have chosen not to hear cases on this and are leaving it up to the Federal Districts. But pressure is being put on them to make a ruling.

They can only rule in one of three ways. One ruling would open the door for states like Illinois, California and New York to ban guns period. One ruling would be a violation of States Rights and simply be rejected by the states, and one ruling would mean that nothing changes. I see no chance here of a good outcome for gun owners.

If the framers of the Constitution wanted to guarantee that you could walk around carrying a gun don’t you think they would have said that?

The second amendment as it is…..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment as we all want it to be….

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You can’t remove “A well regulated Militia†from the 2nd anymore than you can remove the word “Unreasonable†from the 4th amendment to get it to read the way most people want.

[TGO David]

Again, you have a Constitutional Right to bear firearms in the sense that you have the protected right to own them. You can even own them in California, with restrictions. However you do not have a Constitutional Right to carry a firearm as you go about your daily business. The State sells you that privilege providing you meet predefined criteria.

Saying that you see the point but don't agree with it is fine I guess... but it's like saying that you see the point that fire is hot, but don't agree with that either. Disagree all you want, but if you reach your hand into the fire you're going to get burned and then what will all of that disagreement gained you? Surely the fire doesn't care what you think.

This whole discussion reminds me of a cartoon...

...plenty of smart folks here. None of us are dumb. But some of us are pushing against a door marked PULL.

[Mark@Sea]

Well, guys, if I'm the only one here that thinks I'm right...

It doesn't make me wrong, just lonely. I can live with that.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Well, guys, if I'm the only one here that thinks I'm right...

It doesn't make me wrong, just lonely. I can live with that.

You smell funny, too.

[TGO David]

Well, guys, if I'm the only one here that thinks I'm right...

It doesn't make me wrong, just lonely. I can live with that.

I've been in that group before. Might be in it now, but ignorance is bliss if I am. Just don't tell me.

[Marswolf]

Oh, I'm constantly the only one who is right.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, I see your point - I just don't agree with you.

The Tennessee constitution could be clearer on the point, but it still calls it a right.

I prefer to start from the supposition that it is a right that is somewhat infringed by regulation, the purpose of which is to attempt to assure that a citizen knows at least bare-bones minimums of both the legal and practical exercise of his right. Doesn't matter if the local law or politico doesn't like Joe Gunny. As long as he isn't a felon, they have no say in the matter. Tennessee is shall issue, not may issue.

You're missing the point here. BY DEFINITION, something cannot be a right and require a permit to exercise it. You have a right to vote. You dont need a permit for that. You have a right to go to whatever church you want, or not go at all. You dont need a permit for that.

You do not have a right to drive, you need a permit. You do not have a right to operate a business in this state, you need a business license. You do not have a right to work as a barber or embalmer or a hundred other things, you need a license for that.

See the difference?

Whether the TN State constitution guarantees a right is largely irrelevant because court interpretation of that clause holds that it is a privilege not a right. I'm not making it up, go look at John Harris' book on the topic. And as long as that remains the state of case law on the matter, that's how it is.

[Mark@Sea]

You forgot a few privileges, Rabbi

Free speech without a permit? Depends on the venue.

Marriage without a permit? Not in my county, how about yours?

Geez, can you even have a kid without a birth certificate?

I bet we could, in a spirit of friendly poking fun, come up with a half a hundred more. Demonstrating that first, the law is an ass, and second, we have too much time on our hands.

My rights don't come and go with the tides, or the legislature, although their recognition by the state may do just that. Someone once said that rights are never granted by government, they are asserted by free men. The question then becomes whether or not there will be a fight on the subject.

You've made your point abundantly clear. I don't think you're getting mine, but hey, you don't have to. I'm just going to drop the subject; feel free to take that however you will.

[DaveTN]

My rights don't come and go with the tides

I agree. I have said here many times that I believe I have a right to bear arms; but I have also said that it doesn’t come form the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

<O:p</O:p

If you feel that you have a right to bear arms, or if you feel that you should have a right to bear arms; then say so. But don’t hang those rights on a dog like the second amendment; the anti-gun lobby will slap you down as soon as the words pass your lips.

<O:p</O:p

We have a right to protect ourselves from thugs that are trying to kill us. The government needs to recognize that regardless of what the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment says; don’t make it a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment issue…. You will lose.

[The Rabbi]

Where does the "right to protect ourselves against thugs" come from?

[towerclimber37]

I COULD say that even an animal will protect itself when its attacked. an instinct put there by God, recognized by darwin.

I COULD say that common sense dictates that, after all the studies that have been done and history has been examined, a firearm is the easiest way to protect ones self and property from harm.

I COULD say alot of things that are just common sense..but you already knew that Rab, or you wouldn't own a gun store

[The Rabbi]

I COULD say that even an animal will protect itself when its attacked. an instinct put there by God, recognized by darwin.

I COULD say that common sense dictates that, after all the studies that have been done and history has been examined, a firearm is the easiest way to protect ones self and property from harm.

I COULD say alot of things that are just common sense..but you already knew that Rab, or you wouldn't own a gun store

That doesn't answer the question though. An animal will steal food. Common sense dictates that we practice euthanasia. There are a million counter-examples.

[DaveTN]

Where does the "right to protect ourselves against thugs" come from?

God

But if you don’t believe in God or you need to see it written down and recognized by the government you can read it here…

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[The Rabbi]

God

But if you don’t believe in God or you need to see it written down and recognized by the government you can read it here…

Invoking the deity is the surest way to lose the argument.

As for the other, that comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is not binding law here. It also invokes the idea of "natural rights" which are unproven.

[towerclimber37]

Invoking the deity is the surest way to lose the argument.

As for the other, that comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is not binding law here. It also invokes the idea of "natural rights" which are unproven.

I have seen proof of natural rights all over the place.

Its not a philosopical argument...its a physical argument. You see it proven every time someone defends themselves successfully against predation.

If there weren't natural rights, there wouldn't be a food chain...

[Mark@Sea]

[molonlabetn]

Invoking the deity is the surest way to lose the argument...

Seemed to fit pretty well in the Declaration of Independance...

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[The Rabbi]

Seemed to fit pretty well in the Declaration of Independance...

And intellectually their argument was weak. They won by force of arms.

[TGO David]

And intellectually their argument was weak. They won by force of arms.

I would counter that their argument was only weak by today's "forward thinking, intellectually superior [read: smug]" standards which hold little or no regard for a supreme being and have elevated men to that position of authority. In that period of time, God (or the Deity) was unilaterally recognized as the supreme authority from which all worldly power originated.

But I do agree that the Declaration of Independence has little bearing on the laws of our land now. It was, at the most basic level, a letter from the Colonists to the English monarchy to go piss up a burning rope. The Constitution is the document from which our laws more or less originate.

[molonlabetn]

And intellectually their argument was weak. They won by force of arms.

Then I guess it didn't matter what the people they were struggling against thought or believed about their convictions... what mattered was how strongly THEY believed them, and how far they were willing to go to defend them.

Similarly, whether or not you believe that I was created with a right to defend my life doesn't affect my tenacity on the matter in the least. So, a lost argument? No, it has simply not been comprehended or taken to heart by the opposing party.

[saintsfanbrian]

Remember, it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog.