A little ammo to fight anti-gun Legislation.

[Guest PapaB]

While writing a recent blog, my research brought me to some info I wanted to share to help in the fight. If you contact our State Legislators regarding gun legislation, you may want to use this ammunition.

Constitution Of The State Of Tennessee

Article 1

Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I know most of us knew that but they may not remember the exact wording. Directly on point with this is the following:

In an opinion provided by the Attorney General of Tennessee, Opinion No. 04-020 in February 2004, it was noted:

“The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however,

“must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.â€

Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).â€

When questioning them on new laws being considered, or about changing current laws, I would press them, and press them hard, to prove that there is "some well defined relation to the prevention of crime".

Ask pointed questions like "what crimes are valid HCP holders committing that this law will prevent" or "What crimes by valid HCP holders has this law prevented" and "What documentation do you have to back up your statements".

When the wild statements start, demand facts and proof. If we can't change their minds, and we probably can't, at least we can frustrate them and show them to be ignorant of the truth.

[macville]

but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Does anyone know if this was in the original TN Constitution? I find it hard to believe that the writers of our Constitution would put something like that considering when the state was founded.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

Does anyone know if this was in the original TN Constitution? I find it hard to believe that the writers of our Constitution would put something like that considering when the state was founded.

Matthew

I believe it was added in 1986 about the time of the HCP law.

[LagerHead]

I believe it was added in 1986 about the time of the HCP law.

And summarily ignored by every municipality that "opted out" of the new law allowing HCP holders to carry in parks.

[DaveTN]

Ask pointed questions like "what crimes are valid HCP holders committing that this law will prevent" or "What crimes by valid HCP holders has this law prevented" and "What documentation do you have to back up your statements".

When the wild statements start, demand facts and proof. If we can't change their minds, and we probably can't, at least we can frustrate them and show them to be ignorant of the truth.

Or they could just pull out the very document that you are quoting from and read the part you left out.

I find it interesting that you would try to make a Constitutional rights argument whether it be state or U.S. and then proceed to argue for a special group that does not include all of the people of Tennessee.

But that’s just my opinion. It just pizzes me off when I hear someone try to tie my ability to carry a gun to any Constitution. Because the minute those words pass your lips you will be shot down.

A right to bear arms applies to all the people. Not a select group that have the money and the ability to jump through the hoops. I am blessed that I have the money to do so; many in this state are not, some on this forum are not. Most citizens have never committed a crime and asking legislators to hold up HCP holders as a special group has everything to do with privileges and absolutely nothing to do with rights.

Sorry for the rant, but I have the privilege of carrying a handgun in the state of Tennessee. I have no misconceptions about where that comes from; and it’s not the Constitution. Tennessee is very liberal on gun issues; as long as you pay. And that is better than the alternative.

[Guest PapaB]

macville

It was added in 1870 according to my source:

From Criminal law reports: Being reports of cases determined in the federal and state courts of the United States … Volume 1 By Nicholas St. John Green 1874

In the case of

Aymette

v.

The/State,

2 Hum. 159, Judge Green said that ” the convention, in securing the public political right in question, did not intend to take away from the Legislature all power of regulating the social relations of the citizen upon this subject. … This was said in reference to the clause of the Constitution of 1834.

The Convention of 1870, knowing that there had been differences of opinion on this question, have conferred on the Legislature in this added clause, the right to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

DaveTN

I understand where you're coming from and would usually agree. In this case I worded like that for 2 reasons.

1. The Tennessee Legislature does have the Constitutional right to require permits. Lets not go off an a tangent here, I'd like to see that changed too, but I don't think that dog's gonna hunt.

2. They can make the argument that, in some cases, regulation is needed to prevent crime in general. An example would be in some localities that have recently had shootings in parks. They would have some evidence that allows them to ban guns but they still wouldn't have evidence that HCP holders should be banned. I, imho, don't think we should argue that everyone, including criminals, should be allowed to carry where crime is being commited. I think that would be irresponsible and, under the "with a view to prevent crime" clause, would be unconstitutional.

PapaB

[Hershmeister]

the scoundrels rally around "protecting the children" while they ignore the rights that the people enumerated in the law of the land (State and Federal Constitutions). Its as simple as that.

[Guest jwb68]

I believe it was added in 1986 about the time of the HCP law.

It has been in the Constitution since at least 1930 as it is cited in case law from that year. It was not in the Constitution in 1793 or 1834. 1870 sounds right as you see a carry law passed that year as well.

Act of June 11, 1870, to preserve the peace and prevent homicide, provides that that it shall not be lawful for any person to publicly or privately carry a dirk, sword-cane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol or revolver. Any person guilty of a violation of this section shall be subject to presentment or indictment, and on conviction, shall pay a fine of not less than ten, nor more than fifty dollars, and be imprisoned at the discretion of the court, for a period of not less than thirty days, nor more than six months; and shall give bond in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, to keep the peace for the next six months after such conviction. The Act imposes upon all peace officers of the state the duty of seeing the Act enforced. The Act also makes certain exceptions in favor of officers and policemen, while bona fide engaged in their official duties in execution of process, or while searching for, or engaged in arrest of criminals, and in favor of persons bona fide assisting officers of the law, and persons on a journey out of their county or state.

My question...could I carry a Ugandan Stiletto???

Edited August 31, 2009 by jwb68

[Guest H0TSH0T]

Just a question, and i am aware of the law, but this is just a point of view from the other side, my outside the box thinking, If the law states that fire arms are not lawfully allowed in parks, that this is now a crime, point 1. if you were to carry concealed how would they know if your breaking the law? they do not have probable cause or reasonable cause to search you, as long as your not breaking another law, or have it in plain sight. (unlawful search and seizure clause).

point 2. if it is a state law that bans fire arms in parks or a city law, what special legislation allows the police to carry in a park that just opted out?

point 3. if your in your vehicle and have a permit, your still allowed to have a firearm loaded and on your person under the castle law, regardless of in a park or at a school?

point 4. is a baseball bat considered a deadly weapon? rope? how about a knife? a broken glass bottle? how about metal wire? or rocks? or lumber including branches? how about someones hands that is bigger and stronger than you? or say a group of people that are bigger and stronger than you? all these things can and have been used to commit murder yet it is against the law to defend your self in a park with a tool that puts all those thing at a equal or less than equal force as a firearm? where is the law regarding banning all of those things out of reach or sight of our children (under the guise of saftey), to me if those things are allowed in parks it is only there to possably kill me?, i wonder how stupid this is, that the argument of why law abiding citizens cant carry a fire arm, but it is ok for any turd to use any of the preceding deadly weapons. to me its not about citizens rights, we have none, "If you have to ask if you can do it you have no rights." and to me voids any unconstitutional law on the books or off, i will defend myself period, i do not have to ask if it is ok or not, if it is a matter of a fine-its just another way of someone generating revenue of offending and oppressing your natural rites. If someone makes a law it must be equal and followed by all, it must also be able to be enforced, if not it is just useless words, and a catch all at a trial.

the real evil that exist is someone thinking that you are to be controlled by someone else to meet some unwritten or written criteria, people need to be tough that they are responsible for just themselves, and the actions they do, what someone else does is there right as long as it does not impede on someones rights. they are equal no point of view greater than the others, unless the rights of the individual are violated. and when that happens we all will be outraged and a appropriate punitive action will be taken by a jury of peers.

by no-means am i proposing to violate the law or to insight any anti government unrest or standing against any law enforcement officer. i follow the law, as silly as it may be at times but just wanted to make a point on how ridiculous it is to once again make another law that only will cause law abiding citizens to be at a disadvantage to a criminal and may possibly do more harm than good. and point out that just about anything in the world used in a manner other than intended can be something dangerous and be used to take the life of someone. thus just as much opposition should be against those items if safety is the sole reason. and from what i have seen in town meetings its not about safety,children, its only anti gun.

Edited August 31, 2009 by H0TSH0T

[Fallguy]

point 1. if you were to carry concealed how would they know if your breaking the law? they do not have probable cause or reasonable cause to search you, as long as your not breaking another law, or have it in plain sight. (unlawful search and seizure clause).

point 2. if it is a state law that bans fire arms in parks or a city law, what special legislation allows the police to carry in a park that just opted out?

point 3. if your in your vehicle and have a permit, your still allowed to have a firearm loaded and on your person under the castle law, regardless of in a park or at a school?

point 4. is a baseball bat considered a deadly weapon? rope? how about a knife? a broken glass bottle? how about metal wire? or rocks? or lumber including branches? how about someones hands that is bigger and stronger than you? or say a group of people that are bigger and stronger than you?

Point 1 - They may not know, but even if they don't you are breaking the law regardless. But there are many ways you can be made, even when you conceal.

Point 2 - 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry at all times and in all places in TN, except those places list in sub-section ©. Parks are not listed in that subsection.

Point 3 - No, your are not allowed to have a handgun in your car unless you have a carry permit. Even then you can only have it in your car in schools or parks under certain circumstance. Also 39-17-1359 signs can legally prevent you from leaving your handgun in your car if they have posted their parking lot.

Point 4 - All of those things could be considered weapons if it is your intent to use it as such. A baseball bat hitting a baseball, ok. A baseball bat hitting someone in the hear, assualt with a deadly weapon. But unlike those other items firearms are seen as a weapon 100% of the time.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

that is good to know, reason i asked is in the town meeting one of the opposing residents was making a point that all persons including law enforcement should not have the right to carry in a park. i kinda snickered when he mentioned it, thinking that the police on or off duty had to carry. something like a police officer was always on duty even when off duty.

but here is another question, if you are a permit holder and had a handgun in your car, parked while attending some activity at say a park, or near but off the property if posted not allowed on the property, and someone was to go Virgina Tech and start a rampage shooting up everyone in sight. and say you were close to said vehicle are you legally allowed to retrieve your firearm and use it to protect a third party even though it is posted? just curious. I would be more likely to stay out of harms way and call 911, and be the best witness i could be. but still would like to know....

[Fallguy]

that is good to know, reason i asked is in the town meeting one of the opposing residents was making a point that all persons including law enforcement should not have the right to carry in a park. i kinda snickered when he mentioned it, thinking that the police on or off duty had to carry. something like a police officer was always on duty even when off duty.

but here is another question, if you are a permit holder and had a handgun in your car, parked while attending some activity at say a park, or near but off the property if posted not allowed on the property, and someone was to go Virgina Tech and start a rampage shooting up everyone in sight. and say you were close to said vehicle are you legally allowed to retrieve your firearm and use it to protect a third party even though it is posted? just curious. I would be more likely to stay out of harms way and call 911, and be the best witness i could be. but still would like to know....

I would say Yes.

39-17-1322 says you shouldn't be charged or convicted of any crime under Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 Weapons of the T.C.A. if the weapon was used in self-defense or defense of a third person.

[DaveTN]

1. if you were to carry concealed how would they know if your breaking the law? they do not have probable cause or reasonable cause to search you, as long as your not breaking another law, or have it in plain sight. (unlawful search and seizure clause).

Carrying a firearm in Tennessee is a crime. The presence of a weapon is probable cause for a stop.

2. if it is a state law that bans fire arms in parks or a city law, what special legislation allows the police to carry in a park that just opted out?

What Fallguy said.

Just like us they are another “special Group†with “special considerationsâ€.

3. if your in your vehicle and have a permit, your still allowed to have a firearm loaded and on your person under the castle law, regardless of in a park or at a school?

Castle law has nothing to do with the unlawful possession of firearms.

4. to me its not about citizens rights, we have none,

Now you are getting the idea.

Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right to bear arms anymore than the states where it is banned.

[DaveTN]

but here is another question, if you are a permit holder and had a handgun in your car, parked while attending some activity at say a park, or near but off the property if posted not allowed on the property, and someone was to go Virgina Tech and start a rampage shooting up everyone in sight. and say you were close to said vehicle are you legally allowed to retrieve your firearm and use it to protect a third party even though it is posted? just curious. I would be more likely to stay out of harms way and call 911, and be the best witness i could be. but still would like to know....

Tennessee has a law that protects you from being charged criminally on weapons charges if you were justified in the use of deadly force.

Oops..Fallguy already posted the law.

Edited August 31, 2009 by DaveTN