Worriedman

When I lived in TX, I worked as Gen. Supt. for a bridge company. I averaged about 500 miles a day checking the different jobs, always in a hurry. I took defensive driving class so many times that I could, and did teach it. Had an instructor in Arlington, ex-fire fighter that had lost his right leg below the knee, we would set it up for me to trip him as he came from the back of the room to the front, loose the prosthetic limb and scream as he went down, he liked to get the kids attention, and that would do it. Did a job in Covington a few years back, I think I paid for the new roof on the courthouse. I would walk in, the judge would see me, I would not even sit down, he would shake his head and wave me out to pay the court cost, never had a ticket go on my record down there, but I showed up a bunch.

But I did not know how smart, and foresighted he was: "The officers of Congress, may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen [taxmen] may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained ... go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and measure, everything you eat, drink, and wear." Patrick Henry

I am not beat till I draw my last ragged breath. This is where you and I disagree. I believe that in Tennessee, I do have the Right to bear arms, subject only to restrictions which are proved to reduce crime. I believe that the current TCA statues which limit those rights via the "Intent to go armed" clause are unconstitutional, and given the education of our voters, and the removal of enough Legislators who stand for usurping the rights of our Citizens, we have a chance to remedy that unconstitutional situation. Unlike Illinois, which evidently is all for a Police State: Illinois Constitution SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Tennessee has the Power to regulate the wearing of arms vested in it's Legislature. All that is required is to place Constitutional minded individuals in the seats of that Legislature and get the laws fixed, no mean feat, but possible. To take back Citizens Rights from a non-regulated "police power" would seem much more difficult. Again, vote with your feet, seems you have already done that.

These are the same folks that consider veterans, pro life advocates, and Tea Party members as worthy of watching for terrorist tendencies.

Thanks for the response. I would however, like to know your answer to the #4 question. I realize it is somewhat of an opinion seeker, but, knowing your avocation, I would greatly desire to hear you speak to your own view point, and the Department's (where you are employed) take on the Second Amendment (if you are privy to their assessment, or if there is even an official stance).

The questions were postulated to two specific groups. #'s 1-3 are specific questions, relative to the same issue, but they are, in fact, specific questions. #1 ask about the responsibility issue, #2 about recourse in the event of a crime, and #3 ask for specific case law. I thought they were plain. Was not looking for an opinion on the framing of the questions, rather answers to them. #4 ask about how Tennessee LE views the Second Amendment, related to a supposition stated in another thread. My question was how Tennessee LE views that situation, so it has everything to do with the Second Amendment, it is the foundation of the question. My question #4 again, is how Tennessee LE views the Second Amendment. Possibly I should have made it multiple choice, (a)does the Second Amendment deal in the creation and maintenance of a "security force" or ( does it relate to individual Rights to keep and bear arms?

As I am ignorant of the basic principals of LE Responsibilities on several issues, and not being a lawyer or a member of any LE organization, I would like the help of those on the board who are, either past or present, and have specific knowledge related to a few questions: 1. What responsibility to the average Citizen does Tennessee LE have relative to preventing crime? 2. If a Citizen is the victim of crime, does that citizen have any recourse to recompense from the various LE agencies, or their controlling bodies, i.e. State, county or Local Government? 3. Is there case law which states the responsibilities of LE toward the safety of the individual Citizen? 4. I has been intoned in another thread about the Second Amendment “you can see the intent is to maintain a well regulated security forceâ€. Is that the assesement of Tennessee LE as a general rule?

DaveTN said: <O:p</O:p Following Dave’s reasoning: <O:p</O:p 1. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply requires that the Federal Government has no authority to deny the Citizens of the various States to keep and bear arms. Tenth amendment will substantiate this, as there is not other section in the U.S. Constitution which references the issue. None. <O:p</O:p 2. So far, SCOTUS has not seen fit to incorporate the Second to the States, (yet) as in the case of the First, as case law brought before it has not decried the necessity. However, the current Court did agree to give standing to the McDonald case, so here we go. Heller is the first stone rolling down the hill, got the word “individual†out there, no reading brought to bear of “militia†or “collectiveâ€. As I am not an attorney, simply a constructor, I understand the reality of needing a foundation in place prior to erecting the walls. <O:p</O:p 3. The States in fact, have the Power to regulate the wearing (bearing) of arms. It is so stated in our Tennessee Constitution, duly recognized, in Article 1 Section 26 of the Declaration of Rights: <O:p</O:p “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.†<O:p</O:p The important thing to take away from this is that the citizens have a right which is expressed, and the action which succeeds that right is their common defense. The Legislature is charged with regulating the wearing of arms, such that “crime†is prevented, per Opinion No. 96-080, by Office of the Attorney General State of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pTennessee</ST1:place</st1:State>, April 25, 1996 indicates that such regulations must "bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime....", otherwise, any restriction placed by the Legislature is unconstitutional. We simply need to remind our Legislators what their duty is, and what chains we have upon them for the wielding of the Power vested in them. If we allow the Jimmy Naifehs and Johnny Shaws of Tennessee to bilk us of our Rights, that is on us, because if a Legislator fails in their duty, or presupposes to rule instead of serve the citizens of this State, they need to be voted out, and replaced with honest people who understand the Law, and agree to abide by it!<O:p</O:p <O:p</O:p LE is chartered to investigate crime, not to prevent it, and as such the duty of providing safety for the individual lies with that individual. If any would argue that point, find me a case where an individual was mugged, robbed, assaulted sans the presence of an LEO, and the successful suit against a City, County or State entity judged liable because there was no Police presence to thwart the crime. <O:p</O:p (DaveTN, find me TN case Law that says otherwise.) <O:p</O:p We get to “vote with our feetâ€, if a State takes upon itself unreasonable restrictions relative to gun ownership and ability to carry the same, we get to move to one that is reasonable. <O:p</O:p

One of Founders agrees:

It is worth the price to just to hear Jackson Councilman Brooks gnash his teeth over the "NRA nuts" who beat his Resolution to Ban HCP Carry in Parks. NRA did not have a thing to do with it, but if he wants to rant about how the NRA is the "boogie man" so be it.

Life Member, Nathan Bedford Forrest Camp #215.

Crash The Tea Party! This is pretty funny!

So true!

Huge difference from the "Intent to go Armed" laws currently in force. Your average hunter headed to the deer stand, with his rifle in the cab of his truck and a few rounds in his hunting coat is now in violation of the Law. Stipulation for violation is "within reach", oft construed to mean in the same compartment, i.e. not in bed of truck, or in a car, not in the trunk. This Bill will allow ammo to be in the vicinity, just not in a magazine. Makes the average hunter legal to transport both firearm and ammo in the same compartment for the first time. is the key here, no prohibition for ammo "within reach" just not in magazine or clip in close proximity. Means the ammo can be there, boxed or loose, just not in the tube (shotgun) magazine or clip (rifle, handgun).It extends the exception that having a HCP is a defense for those sans the HCP, with the added restriction that the magazine may not be loaded, and is a defense against the charge of "Intending to go Armed".

If this has been posted already, please delete. This one on Governor's desk for signature. HB 2567 by *Fincher, Williams, Todd, Faulkner, Borchert, McDonald, Yokley, Niceley, Haynes, Johnson C, Sargent. (*SB 2390 by *Jackson, Gresham, Burks, Bunch.) Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, allows person without handgun carry permit to transport rifle or shotgun in privately-owned motor vehicle provided there is no ammunition in the chamber or cylinder and no loaded clip or magazine in the weapon or in close proximity to the weapon. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13. Bill Summary Under present law, it is an exception to the criminal offense of unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon that the person is the holder of a handgun carry permit and was transporting a shotgun or rifle that did not have ammunition in the chamber. It is a defense to prosecution, but not an exception to the offense, that the person was in possession of or carrying an unloaded rifle, shotgun, or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon. This bill extends the aforementioned exception to present law to persons who do not have a handgun carry permit and who are transporting an unloaded rifle or shotgun. ON FEBRUARY 18, 2010, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 2390, AS AMENDED. AMENDMENT #1 limits the exception that this bill would add to persons who do not have a handgun carry permit, who are transporting an unloaded shotgun or rifle in a privately-owned motor vehicle, and who have not been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence or a deadly weapon, or been convicted of a felony drug offense. ON APRIL 5, 2010, THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTED SENATE BILL 2390 FOR HOUSE BILL 2567, ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1, AND PASSED SENATE BILL 2390, AS AMENDED. AMENDMENT #1 makes the same changes as those described in the summary of Senate Amendment #1 and specifies that the exemption for transport of long guns in privately owned motor vehicles, whether by permit holders or persons who do not possess a handgun carry permit, does not apply to persons who are otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms generally, or handguns specifically, due to a prior felony conviction or, a prior misdemeanor conviction for a crime of domestic violence, being subject to an order of protection, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other provision of state or federal law.

Nicholas Beadle (JSun_Politics) on Twitter At a Democratic rally last evening, Rep. Johnny Shaw, (Charter Member of the Kill the Second Amendment Club, along with Spk. Em. Jimmy Naifeh) said this "We've got people who hate our president as much as I hate George Bush." I somehow got stuck in his Federally Mandated Minority Majority district. I have never received a reply from any letter, phone call, nor e-mail I have sent him in the last 4 years. By his own admission, he is a hater, just what we need. He also said some Dems deny who they are in Nashville, says he won't during his re-election campaign. Hmmmm! I sure desire (I do not use the word hope anymore, it has changed from what it meant when I was younger, tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth these days) that he keeps flapping his gums along those lines. He has an opponent this year for the first time in a while, and the demographics have changed somewhat in his district. We will just have to see!

What is the quickest way to get it pulled down from unlimited view and use? If it's being out there starts getting more people involved on the side of Pro Gun, they will pull the availability quick.

I know Jimmy Eldridge well, he stands with us on Gun Rights issues.

There will be no reply, I have been communicating "one way" with him for years, he never responds.

No problem, use away!

My e-note to Rep. Shaw, (for what good it will do) I did send a shorter verion to all the rest of the members of Ways and Means:

I'm confused, if the whole purpose was to gain the freedom to bare breast with impunity, then why the outrage when people paid attention?

Dang, don't see how that is possible with all those Tea Party folks running aroung the country by the bus load.

NRA-ILA :: Questions Arise Over Army Bases

.