Worriedman

Most likely this Non-profit is funded by Bill Haslam, sure smells like it.

In every meeting at the legislature there are 100s of Moms Demand Action, and me...the picture added was the hearing on HB1005,themost important bill to come up in years and sponsored the the same legislator, where were the 2nd Amendment supporters for that one?

How about some of the members here show up in committee meetings?

He knows what we think, he carried the Civil Immunity bill, I work with him all the time. He is trying to get metrics to push back against the RINOS that are in charge. He has been shown the data that there are no contrary to the gun grabbers responses, meaning all of Tennessee is in favor of more gun control. If you cannot discern how to answer the questions, (strongly disagree) I guess we are truly doomed. The other side will show all their buds answers and there will be an insignificant amount of push back.

One of the best Reps. asked me to get responses that would at least have some modicum of offset, I try to work with them.

Characteristically, prior to the late 20th Century, state governments denied concealed carry as they were concerned about the criminal element "hiding" firearms for nefarious purposes. Tennessee even had a form of "Constitutional" carry for decades, allowing for the carry of Army or Navy pistols in the hand, openly only. Many states denied concealed carry but allowed open carry up until the early 1900's. Nunn v. State Georgia Supreme Court (1848) which mandated the right to carry arms openly is protected, not to secret them so that the other person or government cannot take heed to the fact: ""Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable : “ The right of the people to bear arms shall not he infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such, merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree ; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charla l And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation ! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right. We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Rut that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed"" Funny how things turn about. The People and the government share a "whistle in the graveyard" mentality, that if they can not SEE the firearm it does not exist.

We have run that bill a number of times and will again this year, you are up against the Chamber of Commerce on it. You know, the ones who spend the most money every year buying politicians. They couch their adversarial stance in Private Property rights, but that is a scurrilous argument as the Federal Government says any place that hangs out a sign and invites the public in is a public conveyance. We have two separate TN Supreme Court cases that say off duty police officers are simply citizens, and if they can carry past signs why not enhanced permit holders at least. (that would make the state money). But no, the Chamber and its whores refuse to allow you top protect yourself while making them rich.

A letter I started sending out to legislators today. Since at least June 2022, the United States Supreme Court has mandated that government restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights impose on the government the burden to demonstrate that the restriction mirrors or is consistent with the “national historical tradition” that existed when the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791. Accordingly, I have been seeking the historical evidence of analogues from the era of the ratification with respect to long gun carry in Tennessee. I can find no statute in Tennessee that existed prior to 1989 that criminalizes the carry of any long gun. There are various, albeit only a few, statutes that regulated in some fashion civilian possession of handguns, as well as knives, clubs, sling shots and brass knuckles. However, even those statutes appeared to be regulations based on collateral factors such as the individual’s conduct and were not broad bans. Indeed, even as of 1989, citizen possession and carry of certain “military” style handguns was exempted from the statutory regulation. Thus, it is apparent that the General Assembly was precise in its desire to list each of those items and the circumstances attendant to the restrictions but yet no such list included long arms. It is likewise clear that Tennessee’s approach, which has been referenced by the Supreme Court, is not one that was in line with the “national” historical tradition. It is now clear that the General Assembly, or the majority of the members thereof, appear to have an animus against the inalienable and indefeasible right of the citizen to keep, bear and wear arms. Indeed, in 2023, the State’s attorney general entered into a voluntary settlement of a federal lawsuit, a settlement which remains subject to federal court enforcement, whereby the State agreed in writing that state laws which restricted the rights of 18-20 year olds to carry handguns violated the 2nd Amendment, the 14th Amendment and constituted a federal civil rights violation. Yet, despite that federal settlement and consent decree, the General Assembly has repeatedly refused to repeal or amend the statutes in question to eliminate the unconstitutional provisions. Rifles and shotguns are items that are in common use today in the United States. The case Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), proscribed that if there were 200,000 stun guns in the possession of Americans, that this quantity satisfied the rule found by the United States Supreme Court in Miller (1939) and reiterated by it in Heller (2008) that only those weapons that are dangerous AND unusual could be denied the citizen and, more specifically, that firearms that are useful for military purposes and/or that are in common use are protected by the 2nd Amendment. In McDonald (2010), the Supreme Court said it was a conjunctive test, bolstering the previous rulings from the Supreme Court protecting those categories of arms. Today, there are at least 24.4 million AR 15s in the possession of Americans and likely at least 200,000 within a sixty mile radius of Nashville. If 200,000 stun guns was deemed to be a sufficient quantity nationally to achieve constitutional protections as “common use” then certainly 24.4 million is as well. In Tennessee, our Supreme Court stated in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 179–80 (1871) - “[W]e would hold, that the rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket, and repeater, are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep such arms, cannot be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.” It appears that by 1989, the General Assembly elected to ignore the state Supreme Court’s constitutional ruling. The Tennessee Supreme Court holding in Andrews further held: "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution…Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier." The Tennessee General Assembly and the members thereof have an affirmative duty, pursuant to their respective oaths of office, to follow the constitution and to protect the rights of the citizens, with a priority on those rights which themselves are expressly protected by the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 20-843. (2022) stated “In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” This is the Court’s holding and not merely dicta. It is an affirmative holding that must be recognized as such by those who profess to uphold the Constitutions of the State and Union. We, as Tennesseans, expect the General Assembly to likewise protect and defend clearly established constitutional rights. It, and its members, have failed to do so. I am asking for your written assurances, assurances that we can share with the members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, that the General Assembly will no longer abdicate its constitutional obligations but that it and its members will move forthwith in 2024 to repeal any and all statutes, regulations, ordinances or orders for which there is no existing clear and convincing national historical tradition as a precedent. It would be good ir it came from more than just one person...

Really, you don't think West Memphis, AK runs in Memphis, TN?

It is lawful in Arkansas and Mississippi, see anything on the news about gangsters doing it there? And in 40 other states.

My understanding is he got fired from his job today, have not verified that for sure but KWAM put it up this afternoon. I get not wanting to be a target for exercising your God given rights, but us giving them up will just play into the hands of those who want us disarmed, of everything, and if you don't see that is the aim, we are looking at different things.

Miller v. Bonta (2023) “Between 1607 and 1815 ... the colonial and state governments of what would become the first fourteen states neglected to exercise any police power over the ownership of guns by members of the body politic . . . . These limits on colonial and early state regulation of arms ownership outlined a significant zone of immunity around the private arms of the individual citizen.” More importantly, it is a conclusion confirmed by the Supreme Court. Bruen says, “[a]part from a few late 19th-century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.” Case 3:19-cv-01537-BEN-JLB Document 175 Filed 10/19/23 PageID.21492 Page 27 of 79

I would not carry mine displayed, but you can bet your bippy if I go through Memphis, I have mine with me. I challenge anyone to show me a law in Tennessee from 1796 till 1989 that said it was unlawful to carry a rifle or a shotgun loaded. (there are plenty about handguns, pocket pistols, pistols, knives of all sorts, brass knuckles, sling shots, clubs etc. but nowhere is a rifle or shotgun mentioned as a prohibited item. You have to understand the conjunctive test set forth in Heller and upheld in Caetano (where 200,000 stun guns in use was allowed by SCOTUS as enough to put that type of weapon "in common use" to satisfy the Heller requirement), that for a weapon to be denied the citizen for self defense, it has to be dangerous AND unusual. With 24.4 million AR 15s in the hands of the general public, that meets the criteria of "in common use". In 1871 the Supreme Court of Tennessee said this: “[W]e would hold, that the rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket, and repeater, are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep such arms, cannot be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 179–80 (1871) Did this tool act inconsiderately, yes, but I can promise, there are 42 states that would have found the action of carrying a rifle non-criminal if it was not used to threaten anyone. I think he carried a pistol version because he knew he could not be arrested for that, I am of the opinion it was a photo-op to harm the quest for a return to the intent of the founding principals in Tennessee.

You are correct.

I still think that those of us interested in the issue should fill out the questionnaire, don't let them just have the Commie Mommies as the only respondents. This was sent to be my one of the best House members asking me to get our side involved in answering.