Worriedman

Interesting articles. In almost every discussion I have read, it seems to be almost a consensus that Slaughter-House needs to be set aside, and, this issue is part of nearly every McDonald debate I have seen.

Campfield's Amendment to HB 2718 spanked UT pretty well. Haynes said Hamilton "may have overreacted just a bit" with his pronouncement, and said UT had no problem with the Amendment. He was tossing the proverbial "hot potato"!

It actually is a State Powers issue under the Tenth Amendment, as States being a Government have Powers, not Rights.

I am not "missing" that by any stretch. I do understand though, that our Legislators need to craft their laws such that there is no ambiguity. The AG has appealed the Bonnyman ruling, but how long till that is heard? It is the way of our system, Legislators pass laws, courts hear them to see if they pass muster. Anybody can sue for anything here. Make the laws clear and without question, and the courts do not get to slant them with their interpretation.

I think the most enjoyable part of the Legislative session last year was Naifeh becoming Ex-Speaker. I am surprised his suit made it through the session, what with the rending of his clothes and gnashing of teeth at the loss of his strangle-hold on the State. The passage of every gun Bill must have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to his soul. I believe we have a unique opportunity to effect change this year. With the mood of the electorate, if we can garner just a few more Conservative seats in both the House and Senate, (along with putting a true Tennessean in the Governor's seat), there is no telling what we might accomplish.

I understand the question before SCOTUS. Do I think the Second Amendment should be Incorporated, yes. Do I think it will be, yes. Heller was vital in that it gave individual vs. a collective "Right" precedence. Although not being a State, the DC decision left the incorporation against States issue unresolved. McDonald will set that straight, it will render outright bans illegal, but it will not give carte blanch to tote whatever weapon one wishes, wherever one wants. Each State has its own Constitution, and each has restrictions of a type. The chance to fight, State by State, unreasonable restrictions will be given life with this decision, but the battle will not be over by a long shot.

Putting it another way, the Federal Government has no business involving itself in the discussion of limiting the ability of its Citizens to keep and bear arms (have and carry), except to affirm that each individual has that right under the Second Amendment. The Tenth lays out that all other Power not given the Federal Government is to belong to the States, that would include restrictions of all types, severe or lax. The Federal Government's only duty in regard to arms is to protect the individual's "Right" to keep and bear them.

Not at all, I believe they must incorporate the 2nd against (or rather to) the States, and then it is up to the citizens of each State as to what they will require of their Legislators. My view is that the Federal Government must admit they have no Power to involve themselves in infringing on the "Right" to keep and bear arms, that it in fact it is solely the responsibility of the States as to what laws are written regarding the issue.

A "Right" is simply a guarantee against Government Power and intrusion into the issue stated. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, there is a substantive guarantee that the Federal Government, "shall not infringe" the "right" of the people to keep and bear arms. That means, for those who understand the language, that the Federal Government has no stake in the question of the individual Citizen's ability to have and carry arms. Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill dealt with a tyrannical Government attempting to confiscate arms without due process, against natural law of the individual to provide for their own defense. The Crown knew that the only way to contain the unrest against the issues fermenting toward Revolution was to disarm the populace. The Constitution itself is a list of chains placed on Government, it does not enumerate "Rights", in fact the word is used only once in the entire document, and that in restricting the Power of the Federal Government with respect to the proceeds of writings, art and inventions of an individual. Jefferson and Madison did not believe at first, that there was a need for a list of "Rights", assuming that having come through the trials of the Revolution that any listing was necessary, and might even if provided, give the Government power to take any not enumerated. The Bill of Rights was added just in case the Government would presume to overstep its bounds. The Tenth says any Power not expressly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution belonged to the States, or the People. The issue of arms, having and bearing, is precluded from Federal Government involvement, by the "not be infringed" statement. These issues are left to the States, and to the People by virtue of "consent of the governed". Article 1, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution contains the controls of arms ownership and ability to bear them in our State. It is given as a Power to the Legislature to restrict the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. We have the ability to elect those Legislators and to effect how the laws and codes are written and enforced. If we do not like the laws we have, we can elect new Legislators and replace the laws. The map is laid out in the Tennessee Constitution, it is up to us to demand and control what comes out of Nashville in respect to what we, the People will allow.

Isn't that Randy Rayburn and Adam Dread's group?

In the Fifth Amendment, is states "no person", which is synonymous with "the people", The Fourteenth states "nor shall any state deprive any person". No allusion to a group, strictly individual. Pretty clear cut.

As originally written, (1796) Article 11, Section 26 stated: Reconstruction at an end, the 1870 rendition changed and added to the original: Legislators being what they are, we will never get them to relinquish that power. I would be happy to get them to abide by the letter of the law as written, and force them to provide empirical data to prove that their restrictions actually reduce crime, requiring repeal of any restriction on the books that could not be proven to do so.

If the Amendment does away with the "Restaurant" designation, and allows HCP carry in all establishments that serve alcohol, then there is merit in the Bill. If that is not accomplished, then we need to defeat it. Giving credence to any legislation that supports the "Good Ol' Boy" ABC back room control by the Liqueur Lobby needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.

For those in The Gibson County area who have not had a chance to hear Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey speak, he will be at the Gibson County Patriots meeting, March 9, 2010, at the Milan VFW. The program will begin at 7:00 P.M.

As Brooks brought the issue to vote with the introduction of his Resolution in September, and its defeat, HCP carry in Parks is valid in Jackson. Had he left it alone, as they did in Knoxville, the pre 1986 rule would have stood in force. The Council defeated that Resolution 6-3, upholding the HB 0716, allowing permit holders to carry in Parks.. The current Municipal Code still had the pre 1986 Ordinance included, but by virtue of the vote on the Resolution last fall, it stands moot.

MTAS re-codified the Jackson Municipal Code this year, in reading the entirety, we discovered the section. We simply asked for it to be stricken, along with the section that precludes carry in parks, which has been used in other municipalities to avoid bringing the Parks Resolution to a vote. MTAS and the City Attorney gave an opinion that it could not done be without Council action, and that the statute was enforceable if left unchallenged.

Today at the Jackson City Council Meeting, Chapter 6, Section 11, relative to manufacture, sales and transfer of handguns, (which was grandfathered by virtue of it's adoption prior to 1986) was stricken from the City Municipal Code. This action brings the City in line with State preemption laws under TCA39-17-1314. The Citizens of this area owe a debt of gratitude to Councilmen Randy Wallace, Danny Ellis and Frank Neudecker for their efforts, which resulted in 9-0 vote to remove the 15 day waiting period, application to the Chief of Police, and requirement to provide a "reason" for acquiring the weapon.

The condition you speak of is a denial of a citizens Right to keep and bear arms, if they want to "play ball". Might as well burn the rest of the Tennessee Constitution with relationship to being a student at UT if this travesty is remains in force. If this is allowed to stand, then it will just as easily be "no voting in Republican primaries" next, and Baptist only, no Catholics or agnostics allowed. If the Government is bound by the consent of the governed to not infringe on these rights, why would a University be allowed to do so? It is no different than an employer mandating that it's workers not be in possession of a weapon off it's premises, (except that private enterprises are not funded by TN tax dollars as is UT). Article 1, Section 26 of the TN Constitution says it is left to the State Legislature to control who and where weapons may be kept and borne. The University is taking to itself powers given to the State Government only, under TCA39-17-1314 "no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof; provided, that this section shall be prospective only and shall not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution lawfully enacted before April 8, 1986." Given that somehow regulating a Constitutional Right becomes the purvey of the University, this was not in place prior to April 8, 1986.

I fail to see how putting their power against the gun owning public in any way enhances the stature of the UT organization. I suggest it is more to advance a Progressive (read anti-gun) agenda with my tax dollars against my interest. I also have learned that the TAS's are one of the largest lending institutions to the Counties and Cities in the State. Somehow they have morphed from being a legal opinion giver to bankers.

As an alumnus, they have received the last penny of my private funds. I have been very unhappy with the performance of the MTAS and CTAS, both which are funded and governed by UT. For those who have short memories, MTAS was the author of the Resolution against HCP carry in parks last year that was sent to every municipality in the State, informing them how to preclude HCP carry in parks, and provided a written template to do so. Your tax dollars at work.

It may not be the Government, but it is taxpayer funded, and as such has an obligation to not restrict Rights under TCA 39-16-403. If in fact the University itself is responsible, then the whole consortium is guilty of Official Oppression, as they are taxpayer funded. The only chance they have of making this stick is if the Athletic Dept. can somehow be construed as Privately funded, otherwise for a taxpayer funded entity, then they are precluded by TN Law from abridging a Right, and now until the Legislature makes a law restricting the possession of weapons by athletes, the school has no power to deny them their Rights under the 2nd Amendment and Article 1, Section 26 of the TN Constitution. But more importantly, if we the People of TN allow it, then shame on us.

College athletics are amateur in nature, it is not a "contract", as they can not be "paid". All students have to pay for the classes they take. Student athletes simply swap their skill and labor for the cash they would otherwise have to pony up. If in fact UT can propose and enforce this edict for it's players, they can do it for all students. It is wrong because some of them are U.S. Citizens. The school can restrict possession ON CAMPUS, but to attempt to do the same off their grounds is in fact, a violation of those Citizen's Rights, as I think will be shown in the near future.

Is AD Hamilton paid with tax dollars? If so, he should be charged with Official Oppression. TCA 39-16-403. Official oppression. — (a) A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who: (1) Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, stop, frisk, halt, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful; or (2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful. ( For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of office or employment if the public servant acts, or purports to act, in an official capacity or takes advantage of the actual or purported capacity. © An offense under this section is a Class E felony. (d) Charges for official oppression may be brought only by indictment, presentment or criminal information; provided, that nothing in this section shall deny a person from pursuing other criminal charges by affidavit of complaint.

Wonder where the Ruling Class at UT thinks we got our name? Guess they ought to hold a vote to select a new handle. The "Volunteers" sends a message of violence, as it comes from the recognition of a populace armed and ready to visit war upon a group (The Red Sticks) bent on killing the inhabitants of the State. Surely Old Hickory should have made the militia members that answered the call of Governor Blount, stack and melt their rifles, and go have a conversation with the Creeks and the British.

One CAN leave the Republican Party, and not become a Democrat. I have had to firmly ensconce myself as an Conservative Independent, as neither party has what I consider my grand children's best interest at heart. The Republicans have gone Democrat Light, that "Big Tent" and all that. When John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter (before he finally fessed up and quit his Judas ways and joined the party his heart was with), are examples of the best that party has to offer, we need to look elsewhere for public servants. Benedict Brown comes to mind as well. Just wish we had races where we could vote FOR a conservative candidate, instead of AGAINST a bad liberal one.