Is the cost of the TN HCP equal to a de facto ban on poor people?

[Oh Shoot]

I don't think that OS was being unfriendly. The thing is, anyone who reads the statute may interpret it slightly differently. While sometimes those who post here may say what they think the statute means (or discuss or even argue about differing interpretations), the person qualified to interpret the statute for you - with case law to back up that interpretation - would be an attorney. Beyond that, the person best qualified to decide what you think the statute means is you. When OS suggests that you read the statute for yourself, he is simply saying that you would be better off seeing what you think of it rather than relying on someone else's interpretation. To be truthful, this actually shows respect for you and your ability to read the statute and form your own opinion rather than simply telling you what to believe (while avoiding the pitfalls of trying to give 'legal advice' to someone on an Internet forum when he may or may not even be qualified to give such advice.)

Pretty well sums it up, thanks.

I had already stated that carry without a permit in public is Class A 'meanor, and in another post, could be any of 3 levels of misdemeanor, without a link to the statute, suggesting he read it. Derek comes back with, so it's Class C, right?

So, I re-suggested he read the statute, with link to it. I don't know how to be any more forthcoming with information to answer his question.

But since he found either a misstated or misinterpreted comment from a rep, and now Google so helpful, don't know why he's asking here in the first place.

Another good deed that did not go unpunished, thanks for the reminder, Derek.

apologies for the off-topic aside in general,

OS

[Mike.357]

A Class A misdomeaner normally would not affect your rught to own or carry legally.

But a conviction of "intent to go armed" is one Class A that is going to throw a wrench in legally carrying.

[Oh Shoot]

A Class A misdomeaner normally would not affect your rught to own or carry legally.

...

Mike, ANY Class A 'meanor conviction, you lose your HCP for duration of the sentence, and have to reapply to get it back. Probation period is part of sentence, too.

- OS

[Derek]

Pretty well sums it up, thanks.

I had already stated that carry without a permit in public is Class A 'meanor, and in another post, could be any of 3 levels of misdemeanor, without a link to the statute, suggesting he read it. Derek comes back with, so it's Class C, right?

So, I re-suggested he read the statute, with link to it. I don't know how to be any more forthcoming with information to answer his question.

But since he found either a misstated or misinterpreted comment from a rep, and now Google so helpful, don't know why he's asking here in the first place.

Another good deed that did not go unpunished, thanks for the reminder, Derek.OS

Such a friendly place here. like I said, I wasnt trying to be a bother. From now on I'll direct my questions elsewhere.

[Oh Shoot]

... From now on I'll direct my questions elsewhere.

Excellent idea.

- OS

[Guest 1817ak47]

No, actually been there and done that and have bettered myself.

Others can do it too if they want too. I've lived in the projects when younger, struggled raising a family, just like everybody else. There not anything that was untrue in my statement, sometimes it is simply a matter of what matters to you.

I have also, I have one degree and a second in progress, and I have made less than most people I when to high school with in my 10 yrs out of high school.

many stereotype that bettering ones self will always make them more money. for me it made it more difficult to get a job cause employers felt I was to qualified and that i wouldn't be happy and wouldn't stay long and would quit/leave.

Edited April 9, 2010 by 1817ak47

[Mike.357]

Mike, ANY Class A 'meanor conviction, you lose your HCP for duration of the sentence, and have to reapply to get it back. Probation period is part of sentence, too.

- OS

thanks OS, I guess what I meant is that this particular offense will fubar you with gun rights similar to having a felony. At least that was the reason given to me by an attorney on another board to be very vigerous in defense of that charge when I was charged. He expressed great concern over Lautenberg laws too.

[Mike.357]

Such a friendly place here. like I said, I wasnt trying to be a bother. From now on I'll direct my questions elsewhere.

lighten up Francis

[Derek]

Pretty sure the winks and smiles in my reply show that I mean that in a light way. geez why so serious?

[Derek]

I don't think that OS was being unfriendly. The thing is, anyone who reads the statute may interpret it slightly differently. While sometimes those who post here may say what they think the statute means (or discuss or even argue about differing interpretations), the person qualified to interpret the statute for you - with case law to back up that interpretation - would be an attorney. Beyond that, the person best qualified to decide what you think the statute means is you. When OS suggests that you read the statute for yourself, he is simply saying that you would be better off seeing what you think of it rather than relying on someone else's interpretation. To be truthful, this actually shows respect for you and your ability to read the statute and form your own opinion rather than simply telling you what to believe (while avoiding the pitfalls of trying to give 'legal advice' to someone on an Internet forum when he may or may not even be qualified to give such advice.)

Makes sense... thanks JAB

[Guest c.a.s.]

Of course it is a barrier to entry. I would not want it any other way, with the exception of unlicensed open carry. Even that, however, is risky.

I am in favor of mandatory firearms training. I would prefer to see it integrated in school curriculum and transition in to a two year minimum military service requirement for able-bodied citizens.

But basically, if you can't afford $200 you probably don't have a great job. In turn, that speaks about your intellect. I don't want morons or thugs legally packin'.

How gorramed nice. And quite ignorant. So, because my mother, a college graduate, can't find work but minimum wage retail work in a feasible distance, she's a moron and thug? I'm a moron thug, because I only made $3000 last year (Which was split 1/3 taxes, helping with bills, and then a small amount saved for luxuries), regardless of the fact that I'm third in the entire school for testing, in the top 95% percentile in America, and a contracted, sworn-in future soldier?

Yeah, go know yourself in the carnal way.

[sigmtnman]

I pose it is at minimum a tall barrier for everyone. Especially for both a husband and wife.

It is a tax, yet another tax among a litany of other taxes. Folks that want to act like it is a privileged or some sort of way of earning a right, I just don't understand that.

Land of the Free to be taxed and legislated to death.

[Derek]

How gorramed nice. And quite ignorant. So, because my mother, a college graduate, can't find work but minimum wage retail work in a feasible distance, she's a moron and thug? I'm a moron thug, because I only made $3000 last year (Which was split 1/3 taxes, helping with bills, and then a small amount saved for luxuries), regardless of the fact that I'm third in the entire school for testing, in the top 95% percentile in America, and a contracted, sworn-in future soldier?

Yeah, go know yourself in the carnal way.

Nicely put Income is in no way a reflection on a persons character. To assume so is definitely a reflection of yours.

[LagerHead]

Here's my question: Does the U.S. Constitution not ban states from making laws that infringe on our right to bear arms?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

...

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems to me that the 10th Amendment prohibits the state from passing laws that infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. If "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," that seems to me to be "prohibited by it [the Constitution]." So just because it's a law, doesn't make it right.

Maybe our lawyers on here can point out the flaw in my argument, other than the fact that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated," which is another crock of B.S. that hopefully will be resolved in June.

And another thing. I have been poor too. I don't care what your situation was when you were poor, my situation was that I couldn't afford a gun and $300 in classes and fees, period. So it did result in being a de facto ban on the poor to me.

[Hgunner]

Here's my question: Does the U.S. Constitution not ban states from making laws that infringe on our right to bear arms?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

...

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems to me that the 10th Amendment prohibits the state from passing laws that infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. If "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," that seems to me to be "prohibited by it [the Constitution]." So just because it's a law, doesn't make it right.

Maybe our lawyers on here can point out the flaw in my argument, other than the fact that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated," which is another crock of B.S. that hopefully will be resolved in June.

And another thing. I have been poor too. I don't care what your situation was when you were poor, my situation was that I couldn't afford a gun and $300 in classes and fees, period. So it did result in being a de facto ban on the poor to me.

Disclaimer: This is not my opinion, please do not kill the messenger.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

<!-- SiteCatalyst code version: H.20.3.Copyright 1997-2009 Omniture, Inc. More info available athttp://www.omniture.com --><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript src="http://www.findlaw.com/resources/www.findlaw.com/js/omtr_code.js?ver=2"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript><!--/* You may give each page an identifying name, server, and channel on the next lines. */<!-- START SITECATALYST -->omtr.hier1="FL.com:LegalProfessional:Laws:Caselaw"<!-- END SITECATALYST -->/************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/var omtr_code=omtr.t();if(omtr_code)document.write(omtr_code)//--></SCRIPT><!--/DO NOT REMOVE/--><!-- End SiteCatalyst code version: H.20.3. --><!-- BEGIN WEBSIDESTORY CODE --><SCRIPT language=javascript1.1 src="http://images.findlaw.com/tracking/wss-lp.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript1.1 src="http://images.findlaw.com/tracking/hbx-0250.js"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!--//--><!-- END WEBSIDESTORY CODE -->

<HR>

<CENTER>U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment</CENTER>

<!-- BEGIN CONST. TEXT -->Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

Annotations

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

However this may change with the SCOTUS MacDonald ruling.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Hgunner

[Hgunner]

How gorramed nice. And quite ignorant. So, because my mother, a college graduate, can't find work but minimum wage retail work in a feasible distance, she's a moron and thug? I'm a moron thug, because I only made $3000 last year (Which was split 1/3 taxes, helping with bills, and then a small amount saved for luxuries), regardless of the fact that I'm third in the entire school for testing, in the top 95% percentile in America, and a contracted, sworn-in future soldier?

Yeah, go know yourself in the carnal way.

I love how people love to throw the word ignorant around on this board,

and not just this post. I was taught to be tolerant of others opinions even

if you disagree with them. Debate them and have vibrant discourse,

but your argument is lost when the name calling starts. The man has an opinion he believes the fee's help keep a certain amount of rift raft from obtaining a permit. He did not personally attack you or your mother, and you could have made your point without the insults.

My opinion is that you should have more pressing prioritys right now than

a HCP. If your mother really needs a HCP perhaps some of us on the board could help out.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Hgunner

[Guest c.a.s.]

Maybe you can pay attention to exactly what he said. If you don't have a good job, "that speaks worlds about your intellect" as if you are GIVEN a gorramed six-digit job the day you receive your degree. He HAS personally insulted me, my mother, and pretty much all by one member of my family, because we ARE impoverished. Very much so. He implied that those less-well-off are morons and thugs, so he can keep his own mouth shut and defend his own opinions. Maybe he can try raising two kids on $7000 a year.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Any way you want to look at it, any tax placed on carry will

cause a higher barrier as the income level decreases.

Funny doing that to a right, isn't it?

Whoever said 'mandatory training'. Good, you

pay for it. The word 'mandatory' implies you consider

it a privilege. What else do you wish to give up?

[Hgunner]

Maybe you can pay attention to exactly what he said. If you don't have a good job, "that speaks worlds about your intellect" as if you are GIVEN a gorramed six-digit job the day you receive your degree. He HAS personally insulted me, my mother, and pretty much all by one member of my family, because we ARE impoverished. Very much so. He implied that those less-well-off are morons and thugs, so he can keep his own mouth shut and defend his own opinions. Maybe he can try raising two kids on $7000 a year.

Missed the point entirely, a little friendly advice, if you are going in the service, I would advise you to grow a thicker skin.

[Hgunner]

Any way you want to look at it, any tax placed on carry will

cause a higher barrier as the income level decreases.

Funny doing that to a right, isn't it?

Whoever said 'mandatory training'. Good, you

pay for it. The word 'mandatory' implies you consider

it a privilege. What else do you wish to give up?

Not going to address the priviledge right argument again.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

I think mandatory training is good also. I would perfer mandatory universal military service for all males and females

for a minimum of 2 years. However I don't see that happening

any time soon. Teaching gun saftey and handleing as a mandatory class in high school would be ok too. Until we get rid of the NEA/TEA and regain

local control of our schools I don't see that happening either.

So I either pay for the required training myself or I pay the State

additional taxes to teach the required training. Personally I'd rather

just pay myself as to pay addititonal taxes.

And lets face it the classes may not be benificial to everyone, but they do give an overview of the legal issues and make people think about using deadly force. Also it does demonstrate which end the round comes out of.

I wish to give up an over bearing, over reaching,over taxing,tyrannical

Federal Government.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Hgunner

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Read the last page and a half... Can finally use this.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hgunner. When you use the term "mandatory" you imply there is no right, but obligation. I wasn't referring only to the 2nd, but to the fact that nothing in the constitution allows for mandating such practice. Our country is "self governed" not "ruled". I'm not against everyone knowing how to defend themselves, quite the opposite, but you can't force one thing without forcing other things that might not be so desireable. Encourage with reasoning

makes for a great republic. A similar argument is being used against this nonsense health care law.

[wjh2657]

You have the right to own a weapon and to keep one in your home for defense. That is guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. You don't need a state permit for that.

The state has the right to regulate public carry of that weapon, again guaranteed by the State Constitution. That makes public carry a privilege and the state can determine how the individual is to pay for the privilege.

Your constitutional rights (USC 2dA, as determined by the SCOTUS doesn't address public carry, at least not yet) are therefore covered. Moot point.

The only way to make carry a right instead of a privilege is to change the State Constitution. Don't hold your breath.

As far as classes are concerned, since they are not mandated for weapon in home (a right), the state does not have give them for free (Although I also would like to see that happen.)

It could be worse, you could live in Chicago or NYC!

[Hgunner]

Hgunner. When you use the term "mandatory" you imply there is no right, but obligation. I wasn't referring only to the 2nd, but to the fact that nothing in the constitution allows for mandating such practice. Our country is "self governed" not "ruled". I'm not against everyone knowing how to defend themselves, quite the opposite, but you can't force one thing without forcing other things that might not be so desireable. Encourage with reasoning

makes for a great republic. A similar argument is being used against this nonsense health care law.

See Militia Act 1792, its what gives Congress the right ot raise and fund a standing Army. It could be ammended to mandate manditory militay service. Its what authorized a draft also, but I sure am not going to get into this. That wasn't my point.

My point was that every citizen is not trained by any uniform life experience to handle a firearm in this country. Some learn for our dad's others from a uncle's, friend etc. I was just saying that as far as Tennessee goes the legislature has the right to regulate carry and I don't have a problem with them mandating training to do so, especialy after reading some of the stuff on this and other boards. I would rather pay for it myself and go where I want as to paying an addition tax to the state and having to take a state taught course.

[Worriedman]

You have the right to own a weapon and to keep one in your home for defense. That is guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. You don't need a state permit for that.

The state has the right to regulate public carry of that weapon, again guaranteed by the State Constitution. That makes public carry a privilege and the state can determine how the individual is to pay for the privilege.

Your constitutional rights (USC 2dA, as determined by the SCOTUS doesn't address public carry, at least not yet) are therefore covered. Moot point.

The only way to make carry a right instead of a privilege is to change the State Constitution. Don't hold your breath.

Article 1 Section 26 of the State of Tennessee Declaration of Rights does in fact list the Right of the Citizens to keep and bear arms for the common defense, however the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. People have Rights, governments, in this case the Legislature, have powers granted them by the people. Those powers were supposed to limitations on the government, the Rights are supposed to be a promise against government interference related to the issue spoken of in the declaratory statement.

Having and wearing arms could once again become a full Right if the Legislature paid attention to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and could (and would) read and understand English.