HB2409 Van Huss/SB2424 Beavers

[Worriedman]

Worth a look see, this one is scheduled for floor vote in the Senate next week, s/c Finance, Ways and Means in House.

Looking at the Amendment which makes the bill, DO NOT be fooled by the names on the Amendments, Kelsey and Lundberg DID NOT write them, we are looking at "flow" which means that the GA is trying to get into pick-pocket mode, and any one can add an amendment, had they been timely filed, they would have gone to the committees chaired by the names on the Amendment.

 

Bill summary:

 

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB2424&ga=108

 

Amendment:
 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Amend/SA1043.pdf

Redo on the Fiscal Note:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Fiscal/SB2424.pdf

 

Word is, there is a fair chance this could pass in the Senate, does not cure all, but is for sure a step in the right direction.

 

Tune those phones up, if nothing else, we need to support Sen. Kelsey's fine work...(sarcasm off)

Edited April 5, 2014 by Worriedman

[Guest PapaB]

The amendment says

"(2) A person commits an offense who carries a handgun fully concealed from ordinary observation on his person."

 

Am I missing something? Why do we want to criminalize concealed carry?

[Guest Lowbuster]

The amendment says

Am I missing something? Why do we want to criminalize concealed carry?

I would say the two main reasons are ignorance and stupidity.

[Worriedman]

 

 

Am I missing something? Why do we want to criminalize concealed carry?

 

Papa, as the law stands now, concealed or open carry is a crime, this would simply relegate only concealed carry to needing a permit.  Like many other States, open carry would not require a permit.

 

 

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”; and

WHEREAS, by requiring Tennesseans to pay for and obtain a permit to publicly carry a handgun in all forms, including openly and while in a motor vehicle, current Tennessee law converts the right to carry a handgun into a privilege;

Edited April 5, 2014 by Worriedman

[Guest semiautots]

Papa, as the law stands now, concealed or open carry is a crime, this would simply relegate only concealed carry to needing a permit.  Like many other States, open carry would not require a permit.

 

Reminds me of an antiquated writing:  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Oh Shoot]

Reminds me of an antiquated writing:  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

TN Constitution doesn't agree. This is a way to circumvent at least part of it by throwing out "a view to prevent crime" as justification.

 

I'm afraid the buck flow involved with the HCP may well be a much larger impediment than the TN Constitution on allowing concealed carry, though.

 

Only part of 2A has been incorporated to the states, and the "bear" part isn't included.

 

- OS

Edited April 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest semiautots]

TN Constitution doesn't agree. This is a way to circumvent at least part of it by throwing out "a view to prevent crime" as justification.

 

I'm afraid the buck flow involved with the HCP may well be a much larger impediment than the TN Constitution on allowing concealed carry, though.

 

Only part of 2A has been incorporated to the states, and the "bear" part isn't included.

 

- OS

 

With that logic, a state could completely ban guns.  That is, if the 2nd doesn't apply, as written, to all U.S. citizens.

[Guest PapaB]

I have to say, I enjoyed reading this in the Amendment:

 

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."

 

How is it that, given this precedent, no-one has sued gun permits out of existance.

[K191145]

Reminds me of an antiquated writing:  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/JMH42/media/beararms_zpsaba1f78d.jpg.html][/URL]

[Oh Shoot]

With that logic, a state could completely ban guns.  That is, if the 2nd doesn't apply, as written, to all U.S. citizens.

 

I guess a state could, before McDonald vs Chicago. Until then, the ownership part of 2A had not been incorporated to the states.

 

So far, the carry part has not been,  and indeed of course doesn't apply to the federal government, as it bans carry in DC and federal buildings.

 

- OS

[Guest semiautots]

I guess a state could, before McDonald vs Chicago. Until then, the ownership part of 2A had not been incorporated to the states.

 

So far, the carry part has not been,  and indeed of course doesn't apply to the federal government, as it bans carry in DC and federal buildings.

 

- OS

 

Then who does the Bill of Rights encompass?  And what rights does it protect?  Either it's for the average citizen, or it's not.

There was no prohibition on any arms for at least 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.  Prohibition on possession and/or carry is something that has been allowed to fester.  Surrendering Liberty for safety.  Surrendering Liberty to politicians and judges. 

 

Yes, we let them.

[Oh Shoot]

Then who does the Bill of Rights encompass?  And what rights does it protect?  Either it's for the average citizen, or it's not.

 

The BOR is a "contract" between the federal government and you, not the state and you. But of course the fact that there are federal firearm laws at all should clue you that the Constitution is only as good as the federal laws (or lack of them) allow. Not to mention that access to certain arms can be determined by a mere stoke of one man's pen, no additional law required.

 

Further, as has been determined over time by SCOTUS, the Constitution does not necessarily grant you the same rights under your state's law, unless determined to apply ("incorporated").  Remember for example that is was not illegal for states to discriminate in myriad ways against certain segments of their citizenry until 1964.

 

- OS

Edited April 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest semiautots]

The BOR is a "contract" between the federal government and you, not the state and you. But of course the fact that there are federal firearm laws at all should clue you that the Constitution is only as good as the federal laws (or lack of them) allow. Not to mention that access to certain arms can be determined by a mere stoke of one man's pen, no additional law required.

 

Further, as has been determined over time by SCOTUS, the Constitution does not necessarily grant you the same rights under your state's law, unless determined to apply ("incorporated").  Remember for example that is was not illegal for states to discriminate in myriad ways against certain segments of their citizenry until 1964.

 

- OS

 

Then the Constitution has absolutely no meaning.  If a state can take away the rights the Constitution grants, then we have nothing but an interesting piece of paper.  What if a state allowed new manufacture of machine guns for private ownership?  State law take precedence?

 

Don't think so . . .

 

[Oh Shoot]

Then the Constitution has absolutely no meaning.  If a state can take away the rights the Constitution grants, then we have nothing but an interesting piece of paper.

Now you're catching on. If you can't exercise a right, you don't have it. If US Constitution says one thing, but federal law says another, the law wins.
 

What if a state allowed new manufacture of machine guns for private ownership?  State law take precedence?

I think one or more have enacted the legality of doing exactly that. TN excludes full auto, but says that you may make and sell firearms, including short barreled rifles and suppressors within this state without a license. Feds say no, because it has laws against that sort of thing, which apply to all states.

I'd bet on the feds.

- OS Edited April 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest semiautots]

Now you're catching on. If you can't exercise a right, you don't have it. If US Constitution says one thing, but federal law says another, the law wins.
 

I think one or more have enacted the legality of doing exactly that. TN excludes full auto, but says that you may make and sell firearms, including short barreled rifles and suppressors within this state without a license. Feds say no, because it has laws against that sort of thing, which apply to all states.

I'd bet on the feds.

- OS

 

Then I'm pretty much going to do what I want to.  No one else will tell me what my "rights" are.

 

Again, the tree needs watered.

[Oh Shoot]

Then I'm pretty much going to do what I want to.  No one else will tell me what my "rights" are.

 

Anyone can do exactly what he wants to, if he doesn't get caught. :)

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

Anyone can do exactly what he wants to, if he doesn't get caught. :)

 

- OS

 

Yep. I remember when kissin' certain lady parts was illegal. :) I hope this passes, even though it won't really change my life

Edited April 6, 2014 by mikegideon

[btq96r]

The bottom line is that every amendment of the Constitution applies to the states the same way it applies to the federal government.  It wasn't always this way as OS points out, but rulings are leaning toward blanket coverage across all levels of government for the Constitution. Since legislative bodies couldn't care about that finer point, people need the courts to help settle this under the system of checks and balances.  Every law is up for challenge and McDonald was a perfect example of holding a local government to account under the Incorporation Theory. 

 

For things not expressly addressed in the Constitution, state law is supposed to be the order of the day, but the catch all's such as Necessary and Proper and Commerce Clause have been upheld many times.  The Supremacy Clause is also going to come into play to support N&P and Commerce when state and federal laws collide.  This is why Obamacare is legal as a tax for example.

[Guest semiautots]

And Colorado's pot experiment?

[btq96r]

And Colorado's pot experiment?

 

Honestly, in Colorado I think the federal government is sitting back and watching how things go.  They are taking the wait and see approach.  Who knows how this would have played out under a different administration (D or R). Another reason for not taking federal action is that CO isn't the only state that will see legal pot.  Washington is legal as well and I think other states will get on board soon enough.

 

I think they could legally be covered if they closed all those shops and applied federal drug laws (not that I agree with those laws) to the store owners.  But since they are wary of overstepping on something that was passed by the state through a ballot measure.  Also, sending in the FBI or DEA for such a minor thing wouldn't win them any PR battles.  Now, if a state legalized what are now NFA weapons, you would see them squash that, riki tik.  But weed isn't something the federal government is willing to battle the states on anymore.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if they were holding back just to see how much of a tax revenue this could become. Even if there is no direct federal taxation, Colorado adding money from the 25% tax they apply to weed would lessen their need for federal funding.

Edited April 7, 2014 by btq96r

[Worriedman]

 

 

  But since they are wary of overstepping on something that was passed by the state through a ballot measure.  

Does not bother them related to marriage, or immigration, or voter ID... 

[btq96r]

Does not bother them related to marriage, or immigration, or voter ID... 

 

Two factors in those, power and political necessity. 

 

Immigration is a federal responsibility.  A state can't assume it since they have no power along a national border.  Just because the federal government isn't up to or simply can't handle the problem doesn't give the states the right to usurp it.  The last thing we need is every state along the border deciding what laws they want to enforce or not on top of a federal government that is over their heads with it.

 

Voter ID challenges are Democrats protecting their voter base.  The Republicans absolutely are passing voter ID laws to suppress the minority vote.  Having not done it up until the minority vote became a major electoral issue sums it up for me.  Problem for Democrats is the courts are finding a voter ID requirement legal.  They need a better strategy to deal with it like proving how the cost is passed along to the voter as a form of a poll tax or combating it by helping voter registration efforts.

 

Likewise for gay marriage- on both sides.  DOMA was Republicans getting a bill to President Clinton's desk he couldn't possibly veto and attacking gay marriage laws or refusing to defend them is how Democrats tell their base they are fighting them.  In this issue, I agree with the Democrats and will take them doing the right thing out of political necessity. 

[Worriedman]

Two factors in those, power and political necessity. 

 

 

So "Political Necessity" is the standard by which you allow a faction of the feds to "overreach' on issues involving States Rights, you agree with the Democrats on gay marriage, how about illegal immigration? Not talking about border actions, simply how a State reacts to a non Citizen being in their jurisdiction, maybe if they move into your house, you would be cool with that, not an individual issue, belongs to the feds?
 

If you agree with the Democrats doing the "right" thing on gay marriage, are you in agreement with their stance on voter ID disallowment to protect their voter base, (with a stroke of the pen they pretty much can do what ever they want, proven time and again) I see it as simply you are eligible to vote, or you are not.

Kind of off base to the OP's topic actually, and on this one I have a decent stance. I see the 2nd Amendment as the federal government not infringing on the Right of the People to keep and bear military grade arms, the People of TN ratified the TN Constitution which says the GA can regulate the wearing of them, not the federal government, hence the interest in the aforementioned piece of legislation.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Worriedman

[btq96r]

So "Political Necessity" is the standard by which you allow a faction of the feds to "overreach' on issues involving States Rights, you agree with the Democrats on gay marriage, how about illegal immigration? Not talking about border actions, simply how a State reacts to a non Citizen being in their jurisdiction, maybe if they move into your house, you would be cool with that, not an individual issue, belongs to the feds?
 

If you agree with the Democrats doing the "right" thing on gay marriage, are you in agreement with their stance on voter ID disallowment to protect their voter base, (with a stroke of the pen they pretty much can do what ever they want, proven time and again) I see it as simply you are eligible to vote, or you are not.

Kind of off base to the OP's topic actually, and on this one I have a decent stance. I see the 2nd Amendment as the federal government not infringing on the Right of the People to keep and bear military grade arms, the People of TN ratified the TN Constitution which says the GA can regulate the wearing of them, not the federal government, hence the interest in the aforementioned piece of legislation.

 

I don't "allow" anything.  States don't have immigration authority.  Making it a state crime to violate a federal law like Arizona did is a no-go.  All they can do is detain someone they determine isn't a citizen (without the profiling BS) until a federal agent takes custody.  I get that the feds aren't doing a bang up job on this, but you can make the argument that the system is so overloaded that prioritizing is needed.  Focusing on the violent gangs or drug traffickers before going after the guy who just wants to pick lettuce or wash dishes to make money to feed his family is okay with me if the resources are accounted for to show that that's the best you can do at the moment.  The topic of more enforcement being needed is separate since it would require an appropriation for the extra money and/or reallocating funds to pay for it.

 

I disagree with the voter ID laws- I think they stand up to legal challenge- but any law can be brought before the court for adjudication.

 

The gay marriage issue boils down to equal protection for me.  One involved in marriage, governments can't decide to deny it to anybody like is happening to gays now in some jurisdictions. 

 

The difference between the Federal Constitution and the TN State Constitution involving guns to me is won by the 2nd Amendment.  Tennessee added something that changes the meaning of the intent of the second amendment.

[Worriedman]

I don't "allow" anything.  States don't have immigration authority.  Making it a state crime to violate a federal law like Arizona did is a no-go.  All they can do is detain someone they determine isn't a citizen (without the profiling BS) until a federal agent takes custody.  I get that the feds aren't doing a bang up job on this, but you can make the argument that the system is so overloaded that prioritizing is needed.  Focusing on the violent gangs or drug traffickers before going after the guy who just wants to pick lettuce or wash dishes to make money to feed his family is okay with me if the resources are accounted for to show that that's the best you can do at the moment.  The topic of more enforcement being needed is separate since it would require an appropriation for the extra money and/or reallocating funds to pay for it.

 

I disagree with the voter ID laws- I think they stand up to legal challenge- but any law can be brought before the court for adjudication.

 

The gay marriage issue boils down to equal protection for me.  One involved in marriage, governments can't decide to deny it to anybody like is happening to gays now in some jurisdictions. 

 

The difference between the Federal Constitution and the TN State Constitution involving guns to me is won by the 2nd Amendment.  Tennessee added something that changes the meaning of the intent of the second amendment.

I get where you stand on the issues that are simply not involved with SB 2424, and I don't care, you can think whatever you want to about them, they do not bear on the subject of the thread.

 

I do however understand the intent of the 10th Amendment, and it limits the federal government from involving itself in issues that were not specifically apportioned it by the States, (it is after all the United States of America).  If our GA members would simply uphold their oath, we would not have the laws that prohibit the enjoyment of our Rights as designed.  Currently Fed Ex, Amazon and the Chamber have far more to say about what our TCA Code is than the Constitution does.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Worriedman