The Tennessee Constitution

[Guest Jamie]

McDonald will set that straight, it will render outright bans illegal, but it will not give carte blanch to tote whatever weapon one wishes, wherever one wants. Each State has its own Constitution, and each has restrictions of a type.

As I understand it, Alan Gura already has a case lined up to handle the "bear" part of the 2nd... and how that one comes out, if SCOTUS also hears it, may very well cause some changes in certain state constitutions...

Which is what I was thinking on when I started this thread.

No, I do not think the McDonald case will have any direct impact on Tn's constitution. McDonald, like Heller, is only a stepping stone.

However, if McDonald comes out like a lot of us hope it will, and more cases are built off of that and won, the end result may very well have a significant impact in any state's legislature having much of a say in who can carry a gun, or where.

We're having to eat this elephant one bite at a time, and I'm simply wondering if we'll be successful, and if so, how long before some of our legislators end up choking on their particular serving.

You have to admit, it would be nice if people like Jimmy Naifeh no longer got to decide what we do or do not need... wouldn't it?

J.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Jamie

[Worriedman]

We're having to eat this elephant one bite at a time, and I'm simply wondering if we'll be successful, and if so, how long before some of our legislators end up choking on their particular serving.

You have to admit, it would be nice if people like Jimmy Naifeh no longer got to decide what we do or do not need... wouldn't it?

I think the most enjoyable part of the Legislative session last year was Naifeh becoming Ex-Speaker. I am surprised his suit made it through the session, what with the rending of his clothes and gnashing of teeth at the loss of his strangle-hold on the State. The passage of every gun Bill must have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to his soul.

I believe we have a unique opportunity to effect change this year. With the mood of the electorate, if we can garner just a few more Conservative seats in both the House and Senate, (along with putting a true Tennessean in the Governor's seat), there is no telling what we might accomplish.

[Guest Jamie]

I believe we have a unique opportunity to effect change this year. With the mood of the electorate, if we can garner just a few more Conservative seats in both the House and Senate, (along with putting a true Tennessean in the Governor's seat), there is no telling what we might accomplish.

The thing I think you're missing is the fact it's looking more and more like the future of 2A rights is being decided in the court houses, not the state houses.

What happened with the restaurant carry law is a good example; the legislature made the law, and one judge removed it.

That's exactly what I believe is going to happen with the McDonald case, and the cases that spring from it. That's the McDonald case's entire purpose, to undo some of what certain legislatures have done.

I'm just wondering what the trickle-down will eventually be for Tennessee.

J.

[DaveTN]

As I understand it, Alan Gura already has a case lined up to handle the "bear" part of the 2nd... and how that one comes out, if SCOTUS also hears it, may very well cause some changes in certain state constitutions...

You do understand don’t you that the Supreme Court is not required to hear any case? They can choose to stand silent and leave it up to the Federal Districts as they have done for the last 50 years. Do your research on how the various Federal Districts stand on 2nd amendment issues.

I'm just wondering what the trickle-down will eventually be for Tennessee.

What are you hoping it will be?

Edited March 9, 2010 by DaveTN

[Guest Jamie]

You do understand don’t you that the Supreme Court is not required to hear any case? They can choose to stand silent and leave it up to the Federal Districts as they have done for the last 50 years. Do your research on how the various Federal Districts stand on 2nd amendment issues.

Yes I understand the Supreme court doesn't have to hear the case, thus the "if SCOTUS also hears it" in the part you quoted.

And yes, I've been digging into how the various Federal courts view 2A issues since Heller.

SCOTUS stayed silent on 2A issues for more than 70 years, and left things to those courts... thus the mess we currently have. What's different now is that SCOTUS is no longer silent, and the lower courts will now have to follow their rulings on the matter. ( This is where the Chicago ban will actually fall. )

I also think that Alan Gura and others have a pretty good idea of what SCOTUS will now hear if it's brought to them, and are making the most of it.

And in this case, it seems the court is inclined to finish what it started with Heller - which nobody thought they'd hear in the first place - and quite probably the issue of "bearing arms" as well, since it is the other portion of the 2nd that they didn't address.

Is it all a gamble? Yes.

But it at least appears that the odds are now better for the 2A than they've ever been.

What are you hoping it will be?

How about that eventually, we don't have to worry about what our elected officials views are of the 2A and gun rights, for the simple fact that they've been barred by court ruling from screwing around with them, and injecting their own various personal views into the mix?

After all, when was the last time you worried about whether one of our legislators was pro-1A or not? Shouldn't it be the same with 2A?

J.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Jamie

[JayC]

You will not live long enough to see a SCOTUS ruling that will allow carry. It can’t happen; we already fought a war over that.

And McDonald has nothing to do with carry.

I disagree, some of the justices Scalia are already hinting in the oral arguments that carry is covered by incorporation of the 2nd amendment.

[JayC]

I don't think it is as far fetched as you might believe... From my count there are 27 states that already allow unlicensed open carry in some way shape or form to all citizens in that state. Another 14 which allow it if you're licensed....

So a majority of states already allow what you're saying is so far fetched to me...

I agree it's not going to be this case that ends the matter, but there is at least hope we can solve this problem from within the system.

So it is your opinion that somewhere along the line the SCOTUS may say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and all the folks in Illinois, New York, California and even Tennessee can strap on their sidearm and go walking down the street? Does that even remotely sound like a possibility to you?

BTW… I’m all for anyone being able to carry a gun. I believe it is a right; I just don’t tie that right to the 2nd amendment. But I’m also a realist and I know that there are several states that would tell the SCOTUS to go pound sand. The court knows that and they are not going to go there.

[Worriedman]

The thing I think you're missing is the fact it's looking more and more like the future of 2A rights is being decided in the court houses, not the state houses.

What happened with the restaurant carry law is a good example; the legislature made the law, and one judge removed it.

That's exactly what I believe is going to happen with the McDonald case, and the cases that spring from it. That's the McDonald case's entire purpose, to undo some of what certain legislatures have done.

I'm just wondering what the trickle-down will eventually be for Tennessee.

J.

I am not "missing" that by any stretch. I do understand though, that our Legislators need to craft their laws such that there is no ambiguity. The AG has appealed the Bonnyman ruling, but how long till that is heard?

It is the way of our system, Legislators pass laws, courts hear them to see if they pass muster. Anybody can sue for anything here. Make the laws clear and without question, and the courts do not get to slant them with their interpretation.

[DaveTN]

I disagree, some of the justices Scalia are already hinting in the oral arguments that carry is covered by incorporation of the 2nd amendment.

I’m saying the Feds do not have the authority to tell citizens of a state like Illinois, New York or California that they can all strap on their guns and go walking down the street. I’m also saying that the Feds know that and the SCOTUS will never try.

Are the Feds ready to take over the responsibility for law enforcement in all the states? While that may be the Obama plan the states will not stand for it.

Of all the people on this forum I am really surprised that you would think this is okay for one second. If this wasn’t a gun issue you would be going nuts if someone suggest that the Feds were going to call the shots. Who carries guns is a states rights issue, pure and simple.

I am going to keep this handy and post it the next time you go on one of your anti-government tirades.

[Worriedman]

Who carries guns is a states rights issue, pure and simple.

It actually is a State Powers issue under the Tenth Amendment, as States being a Government have Powers, not Rights.

[Guest Jamie]

I’m saying the Feds do not have the authority to tell citizens of a state like Illinois, New York or California that they can all strap on their guns and go walking down the street.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who carries guns is a states rights issue, pure and simple.

Dave, it's obvious that you really don't understand what this whole incorporation business is all about, or what it means. Or what it has the potential to do.

It's not about giving the Feds or the States any power at all. It's about taking it away from them and giving it back to the PEOPLE. US. You and me.

It's about not having to ask the government... any government, Federal, State, or Local... for permission to exercise our rights. Period.

Now, I don't know how long it'll take to get there... or if we will at all... but that's why these SCOTUS cases these last few years, and the ones that will no doubt be coming in the next few, are so important.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

It is the way of our system, Legislators pass laws, courts hear them to see if they pass muster. Anybody can sue for anything here. Make the laws clear and without question, and the courts do not get to slant them with their interpretation.

The thing is, there are some matters that the legislators simply don't get to make laws concerning. If they do, they get struck down, and they know it. So they just don't bother.

The right rulings out of SCOTUS, and that could be the case with guns and gun laws; there could be some things that the legislature just couldn't touch any longer. Some existing laws could (will) fall, and some new ones just never get off the ground.

J.