Worriedman

Nope that is the clean up after the call out.

If you want to feel betrayed, consider the Democrats made it a crime to carry a handgun in 1801 ,then any forearm in 1870 and the Republicans have had a majority for 8 years under Haslam, then a super majority for 6 more years and have not corrected that lack yet. They have been told time and again their actions are unconstitutional but they do not care, they love power and they love to control. If you don't believe that just look at how they killed the Constitutional Amendment to let the People vote on removing the Jim Crow law from 1870.

I have a feeling it will pass with flying colors.

That call has been made, we are waiting on a reply. Actually, I hope they let it go forward as we will sue and win, as will FPC, GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, NAGR and maybe even the slothful NRA as it might make them some money.

39-17-1314 This is what they are NOT allowed to do: (a) Except as otherwise provided by state law or as specifically provided in subsection (b), the general assembly preempts the whole field of the regulation of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof including, but not limited to, the use, purchase, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, carrying, sale, acquisition, gift, devise, licensing, registration, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments or regulation. No county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government nor any local agency, department, or official shall occupy any part of the field regulation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof. They are allowed to do this: (b) A city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government is expressly authorized to regulate by ordinance, resolution, policy, rule or other enactment the following: (1) The carrying of firearms by employees or independent contractors of the city, county, town municipality or metropolitan government when acting in the course and scope of their employment or contract, except as otherwise provided in § 39-17-1313; (2) The discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the applicable city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government, except when and where the discharge of a firearm is expressly authorized or permitted by state law; (3) The location of a sport shooting range, except as otherwise provided in §§ 39-17-316 and 13-3-412. To the extent that a city, county, town, municipality, or metropolitan government has or enforces any regulation of privately owned or operated sport shooting ranges, the city, county, town, municipality, or metropolitan government shall not impose greater restrictions or requirements on privately owned or operated ranges than are applicable to any range located within the same unit of local government and owned or operated by a government entity. A party may challenge any regulation of a sport shooting range that violates this subdivision (b)(3) in the manner described in subsection (g); and (4) The enforcement of any state or federal law pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof, except as prohibited by § 38-3-115. They are doing a bang-up job on (b) (2)...

This is what they will face if they try to enforce the sure to be passed issues: 39-1701314 (g)(1) (A) Notwithstanding title 29, chapter 20; title 9, chapter 8; and § 20-13-102, a party may file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against any of the persons or entities listed in subdivisions (g)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), if the party is adversely affected by: (i) An ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, or other enactment that is adopted or enforced by a county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government or any local agency, department, or official that violates this section; or (ii) The creation or maintenance of a record, database, registry, or collection of records, in violation of § 39-17-1305, by a state or local government entity, official, employee, or agent. (B) The adversely affected party may seek: (i) Declaratory and injunctive relief; and (ii) Damages, as provided in subsection (i). (2) This subsection (g) shall apply to any ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, or other enactment that is adopted or enforced on or after July 1, 2017, or any record, database, registry, or collection of records that is made or maintained on or after July 1, 2021. (h) As used in subsection (g), a party is “adversely affected” if: (1) The party is an individual who: (A) Lawfully resides within the United States; (B) May legally possess a firearm under Tennessee law; and (C) Is or was subject to the ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, or other enactment or was included as an entry on a database, registry, or collection of records, that is the subject of an action filed under subsection (g). An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, or other enactment if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason; or (2) The party is a membership organization that: (A) Includes two (2) or more individuals described in subdivision (h)(1); and (B) Is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the rights of persons who possess, own, or use firearms for competitive, sporting, defensive, or other lawful purposes. (i) A prevailing plaintiff in an action under subsection (g) is entitled to recover from the county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan, state, or local government entity the following: (1) The greater of: (A) Actual damages, including consequential damages, attributable to the ordinance, resolution, policy, rule, enactment, database, registry, or collection of records; or (B) Three (3) times the plaintiff's attorney's fees; (2) Court costs, including fees; and (3) Reasonable attorney's fees; provided, that attorney's fees shall not be awarded under this subdivision (i)(3) if the plaintiff recovers under subdivision (i)(1)(B).

This is the same judge that issued the TRO on my "engaged in the business" case with GOA and Ken Paxton. Here is a poignant quote from the ruling: Because the Cargill decisions from the en banc Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court are squarely dispositive of the issue in this case, the Court concludes that ATF’s regulation is not in accord with the statutory definition of “machinegun.” By redefining the statutory definition, the ATF exceeded the scope of its authority. Upon determining that an agency’s action is unlawful, that “agency action must be set aside if the action was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’ or if the action failed to meet statutory, procedural, or constitutional requirements.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 413–14 (1971) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(D)). NAGR v. Garland, pp. 47-48.

The worthless NRA gave Haile an Orange card, that should be evidence enough that he is the wrong guy. His sponsorship and passage of the Puberty Blockers bill shows he is deep in the pocket of Big Pharma, that is all I need to know.

“If the party is protected in the keeping and use of such arms as we have indicated, only to be restrained by such regulations as may be enacted by the Legislature, with a view to prevent crime, it would seem that the use of such a weapon for defense of the person when in actual peril, the end being a lawful one, ought not, upon any sound principle, to subject a party to punishment.” - Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).

Been to Memphis lately? "We may say, that the clause of the Constitution authorizing the Legislature to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, could scarcely be construed to authorize the Legislature to prohibit such wearing, where it was clearly shown they were worn bona fide to ward off or meet imminent and threatened danger to life or limb, or great bodily harm, circumstances essential to make out a case of self-defense. It might well be maintained they were not worn under such circumstances in order to crime, or that such purpose existed, or that the wearing under the circumstances indicated, of a weapon that might lawfully be kept, had any direct tendency to produce crime. On the contrary, the purpose would be to prevent the commission of crime on the part of another." - Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).

She supported The Governor's special Session for Red Flag laws, that is enough right there. I can remember when Ogles was head of AFP in 2016 and Brian Kelsey then Chair of Senate Judiciary told me he was voting against Constitutional Carry, Ogles threatened to cut him off from AFP if he did not support the bill, of course Kelsey forced Stevens to vote against it to kill the bill, but is shows that Ogles is a real 2A supporter.

"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."

I remember a former Speaker of the House, Beth Harwell, who claimed the mantle of Conservative and never once voted in favor of a 2nd Amendment piece of legislation. She supported the Democrat Governor when he vetoed the Guns in Bars Bill, she voted twice on the floor two years in a row against it and voted then to sustain his veto two years in a row. Makes me leery of those who toss that modifier about.

The seminal 2A case in our Supreme Court of Tennessee, and not a single legislator acts like it exist, or that they have ever read it. More to come from this ruling but the important part to be understood is the General Assembly does not have to power to deny the right to arms, they get by with it because we let them. "What, then, is he protected in the right to keep and thus use? Not every thing that may be useful for offense or defense; but what may properly be included or understood under the title of arms, taken in connection with the fact that the citizen is to keep them, as a citizen. Such, then, as are found to make up the usual arms of the citizen of the country, and the use of which will properly train and render him efficient in defense of his own liberties, as well as of the State. Under this head, with a knowledge of the habits of our people, and of the arms in the use of which a soldier should be trained, we 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, can not be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature." Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871). "No enactment of a Legislature can, in the nature of things, reach back, and control or give direction to an act already accomplished. It was complete from the moment of its birth, so to speak, and can not be influenced or affected by another act, subsequent in time." - Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871). Our original 2nd Amendment analogue read: "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Now that right is a crime.

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Suzanna Hupp Is Speaker Sexton a reliable Conservative, how about Governor Bill Lee?