Worriedman

Texas does not seem to have a problem administering their law relative to this issue. Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.41 Protection of One’s Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Sec. 9.42 Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

It is now more imperative than ever that the Senators hear from their constituents. It is not a matter solely of something we want, rather what we have that the General Assembly has taken. Maybe not this iteration, but factually their past actions as a group, ordained by the Constitution to have that kind of power IS responsible for the taking (infringement of the 2nd Amendment) of a right due the people. There are those in both chambers who agree with a restoration, (more especially in the House) but if the public does not let them know the People support it they will not stick their heads up out of the foxholes to do the correct thing. The admission by our new Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti in the Beeler case last week proves that the State government of Tennessee recognizes the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms as declared by the Constitutions of the State and Union against the age group in the posted agreement which states "The Challenged Scheme regulating the possession and carrying of handguns that restricts individuals aged 18 years old to 20 years old from carrying handguns or obtaining permits to carry handguns on the basis of age alone violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (emphasis mine) proves the contention I make. It also points to the correct interpretation of the Bruen decision by that office. It is important to note that the AG did not say carry by permit only, there are two distinctions in his admission that it is legal to carry without or to obtain a permit, words matter. The unspoken, though verifiable admission is that Tennessee has been guilty of a Federal Civil Rights violation with respect to our 2nd Amendment rights. When the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in 2010, they placed the same chains on the states as the Constitution has on the Federal government, and named the 2nd Amendment a Civil right Now is the time to write your Senators and to call their offices and politely ask to be recorded in favor of returning the right to carry lawfully possessed firearms, in case of confrontation, in public, without it being deemed a crime by our employees.

No, Court ordered State to comply within 90 days. Department of Safety (Bureaucracy charged statutorily with keeping our roads safe but who now lobbies against your rights using your tax dollars to do so, and is responsible for administering the permit system) will drag its feet as long as possible. Their history is to never give back the rights to arms the General Assembly took from the People in 1801.

I was privileged to have a sit down with the Speaker of the House on Wednesday, orchestrated by my State Rep, Chris Todd, and attended as well by Rep. Clay Doggett The take away is that we will, in the House at least, face no Leadership opposition in achieving the removal of the criminal aspect of carrying a firearm, the inclusion of long guns into the permissible weapons list (basically removing TCA 1307 (a) (1) and 1308 from the Code) and some realignment of "Public" place carry without penalty. With respect to "gun free zones" the Speaker portends that "Private Property Rights" stand above 2nd and 14th Rights with respect to who has the power to allow or disallow carry in stores. The Mississippi scheme was mentioned, that possibly the Enhanced Permit Holders be able to carry past signs without criminal penalty, unless the management became aware of a firearm and ask the person to leave, which then would result in a criminal trespass. No resolution was forthcoming at that time though lines of communication are still open regarding the issue. I have forwarded the Federal code section 42 to the parties: 42 U.S. Code § 12181 – Definitions As used in this subchapter (7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce— (A)an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor; (B)a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; (C)a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; (D)an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; (E)a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; (F)a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; (G)a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; (H)a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection; (I)a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; (J)a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; (K)a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and (L)a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation. The jury is still out on what the GA will "allow". It was clearly stated that there is expectation of positive movement of restorative measures in the House, due to the recent court cases which show heavy favor to our request, but that the Speaker could not be held accountable for the actions of the Senate, which mirrors the thoughts I have expressed in a previous thread. From that meeting to the next, which included a number of 2nd Amendment friendly Representatives, again hosted by Reps Chris Todd and Clay Doggett to include Jay Reedy, and Johnny Garrett (majority whip) plus a number of freshman Representatives, Jody Barrett, Monty Fritts, Kip Capley, Elaine Davis, Brian Richey, Gino Bulso, Brock Martin and William Slater. Included in the invitees was Toby Maire, paid lobbyist for T-Rex Arms. Toby is a German ex patriot, an attorney by trade, and is a constant fixture at the GA for the last several years. To say that I was heartened by the general enthusiasm and support for the full expectation of returning the rights intended with respect to arms would be putting it mildly. Barrett and Bulso are seasoned attorneys and well placed in committees. With the exception of Fritts (who for some reason fell under the radar for support in the races earlier in the year, and which was grievous mistake on my part) we were monetarily invested in all their races. This is without doubt the best freshman class of legislators in decades. All that being said, we have a plan for moving forward. That MUST include contact and advocacy in the Senate. The recent AG admission of the State's guilt in committing a Federal Civil Rights violation with respect to withholding the rights of 18-20 year olds right to carry handguns shows the GA that if they do not move back to what Bruen describes, we will simply win it in the courts. Offering the Senate the chance to make themselves heroes of doing the right thing instead of being spanked into admitting they were doing their best to deny our rights may be the tact we need to take.

The Senate will not note in favor of this bill. They are too old, rich and staid, and, listen to the NRA too much, but in truth it is the Chamber of Commerce that will put the hex on this one.

Notice the agreement is founded on the 2nd And 14th Amendments. You either believe in the validity of the documents or you do not.

Are military allowed to carry weapons at will? No they are sheparded and controlled. I remember my grandfather lied about his age and joined the military early, at 16. Served 20 years in the Marines. Maybe the Constitution has it right and society has allowed it to go wrong.

For some reason the PDF file will not load.

Exactly, if they want to continue to make money off their citizens they need to make enhanced, enhanced. Notice the "Scheme" AG Skrmetti agreed that was unconstitutional was under the 2nd and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, not just the bad laws in Tennessee's TCA or it's Declaration of Rights. Basically he is saying the second part of Article 1 Section 26 is void, where is says the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Get ready for that to fall as well.

We have had 18 year olds with permits since 2014, just had to be active military. Any reciprocity we would loose was lost then. Check out the list from Department of safety, you see those states that do and those who do not, we will not lose a single state. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/safety/documents/handgun/Reciprocity_August_2022.pdf

From the orders of the Court.

First of a number. Getting ready to battle in court, been playing with the GA long enough.

Can't get the pdf to load, but our new AG has agreed that the ban on 18 year olds being able to get permits is unconstitutional.

The Department of Safety, as a part of the Administration/Executive branch of government carries out their wishes and directives, I think we can agree on that. Here is more of their testimony last year, on Rep. Grills bill that would have added long guns to the "Enhanced Permit". Keep in mind that 44 states allow carry of loaded long guns as a non criminal act and 2 more via permit. Only 4 States consider it a crime, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Florida. MS Stroeker and the Department of Safety keeping their thumb on the balance of legislation. It should be noted that after her testimony this bill was killed for lack of a second in the Civil Justice sub-committee.