Worriedman

I would ask then where have you been in respect to the last 25 years of advocacy for the 2nd? Some of us have been actively raising money and helping get solid supporters elected and on the committees that make the decisions. Writing the bills that gave us what little freedom we have. I was in on the penning of Civil Immunity and worked it hard for two years to get it passed. I did not see anyone else there walking the halls, but I sure did. I posted 3 issues that need folks here to share with their elected employees, if you want to help, send those letters to the Governor, the Director of the TBI, the Commissioner of the Department of Safety, you house members and Senators. I sent those write ups to over 40 legislators and talked to over 20 personally. You want to make a difference, get to know them, get their cell phone numbers, be engaged at the GA. Donate to the 2nd Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Fun Owners of America and TFA. Follow 4boxes and Tom Grieve, learn what the real rules are, not what feelings are.

Contact your House Rep, the members of Civil Justice and Criminal Justice in the House, your Senators and all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and pose these facts and ask these questions: Please find below Court findings that are important and have major bearing on what I consider to be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms via statute in Tennessee, (the intent to go armed) and questions related: “…the intent to carry the pistol for evil purposes, or for the purpose of being armed, in the sense of the statute, is clearly negatived, and the motive an innocent one. The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen…”. Moorfield v. The State, 73 Tenn. 348 Supreme Court of Tennessee, (1880) “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.”- District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008) “It is not every removal of a weapon from one place to another which constitutes a “carrying” within the meaning of this section, to constitute the offense the weapon must be carried as arms.” Page v. State, 50 Tenn. 198 (1871) “Instructions that the fact that defendant had pistols in his automobile raised presumption that he carried them for purpose of going armed and that the burden was on defendant to show that he had them for some lawful purpose was error since it relieved the state of the obligation of showing intent to go armed which is an essential ingredient of the offense.” Liming v. State, 220 Tenn. 371, 417 S.W.2d 769 (1967). Without the intent or purpose of going armed there is no violation of this statute, and the mere carrying of a weapon does not deprive a defendant of the presumption of innocence. Cole v. State, 539 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 1 (2010) “The provision at issue in this case, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."” McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 6 (2010) “Instead, the Court decisively held that incorporated Bill of Rights protections "are all to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment."’ Id., at 10; see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655-656 (1961); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33-34 (1963); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 110 (1964); Pointer, 380 U. S., at 406; Duncan, supra, at 149, 157-158; Benton, 395 U. S., at 794-795; Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 48-49 (1985) - McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 17-18 (2010) Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ____ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right").- McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 19 (2010) The “intent to go armed” clause IS the crime in 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.(a)(1) A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club. Questions: 1. If SCOTUS in Heller, McDonald and Bruen say there is a right to carry a firearm in case of confrontation, is the Intent to go Armed Clause unconstitutional. 2. Does the ruling from SCOTUS in Heller, recognized in McDonald and Bruen, that the citizen of the US has a right to carry firearms for self-protection in case of confrontation with another abrogate TCA 39-17-1307 (a) (1)? 3. If the right to carry firearms for self-protection in case of confrontation with another citizen is valid, does Article 6 Section 2 of the US Constitution mandate that Tennessee remove the infringement? 4. Dos the Incorporation of the 2nd amendment against Tennessee invalidate the “Intent to go armed” clause?

Historically, the legislature has been very specific (Down to naming sling shots as prohibited "dangerous" weapons) but there has been no prescription against long guns, until 1989, that does not comport with Heller, McDonald or Bruen time frame. Show your house rep., senator, the governor, Commissioner of the Department of Safety and Director of the TBI these facts and ask these questions: Please find attachments that I have found that require investigation related to current infringements on the 2nd Amendment found in Tennessee jurisprudence and Statutes, and questions that are raised in their stead. Are rifles and shotguns protected by the 2nd Amendment as lawful weapons of carry?: “Government simply does not have the authority to dictate a list of firearms or configurations that it finds “suitable” for citizen self-defense, hunting, target practice, militia use, or some other lawful use.” JAMES MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROB BONTA Case No.: 19-cv-01537 BEN (JLB) pg. 75 “[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace.” Andrews, 50 Tenn., at 178 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 614 (2008) “[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) "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." Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871). “The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer and, under God, his tutelary protector” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 609 (2008) “The state may punish crimes carried out with a gun. But prohibiting the carrying of a gun, by itself, is not within the police power of the state…“it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement-- the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose--and the mischievous result--which essentially constitutes the crime.” State v. Huntly 25 N.C. 418 (1843) "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.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 179–80 (1871) “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…” Nunn v State quoted in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 612-13 (2008) as perfectly defining the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler,289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)) District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008) There is no mention of rifles or shotguns in a list of prohibited “dangerous” weapons in the Codes or Public Chapters of Tennessee until 1989. The predecessor to the re-write of the criminal codes that I can find is from TCA 1975: 39-6-1701. Carrying dangerous weapons. – (a) Any person who shall carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, bowie knife or other like form, shape or size, sword cane, ice pick, sling shot, blackjack, brass-knucks, spanish stiletto, or a fountain pen pistol or gun, or like instrument containing a firing pin capable of shooting tear gas or pistol cartridges, or any pistol or revolver of any kind whatever, except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Any person guilty of such offense shall be subject to presentment or indictment, and on conviction shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and imprisoned in the county jail, imprisonment only in the discretion of the court; provided, the defendant shall give good and sufficient security for all the costs, fine, and any jail fees that may accrue by virtue of his imprisonment. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 14 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) Held “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 14 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) Questions: Are rifles and shotguns protected arms under the 2nd Amendment? Is the 2nd Amendment a protected Civil Right due to McDonald v. City of Chicago? Per Bruen, is Tennessee required to prove there is historical tradition of denying citizens the right to bear rifles and shotguns for self defense or defense of the state or to validate its prescriptions against carry for lawful purposes. Is Tennessee is an outlier with respect to denying its citizens the ability to bear rifles and shotguns for lawful purposes? (see graphic map attached) Is 39-17-1308 unconstitutional? Where can I find the predecessor code sections listed in TCA 39-6-1701 from 1975?

I would suggest that if you are concerned with what is coming down from DC and The Biden Junta, you contact your elected employees about this issue: The State of Tennessee treats self defense as a statutory issue instead of as a right guaranteed the citizen. Proof of that is in the following A.G Opinion from 1996: Tenn. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 96-079 (Tenn.A.G.), 1996 WL 205427 Office of the Attorney General State of Tennessee Opinion No. 96-079 April 24, 1996 Self Defense *1 Representative James L. Peach, Sr. 115 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0174 QUESTIONS (1) Does a citizen have a fundamental constitutional right under the United States or Tennessee Constitution to engage in self defense or is such right merely a statutory one? (2) If a person does have a constitutional right to self defense, do the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1307, prohibiting a person from carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed, conflict with a person's right to carry a weapon for self protection? OPINIONS (1) The doctrine of self defense is statutory in Tennessee. (2) The answer to question one (1) renders a response to question two (2) unnecessary. ANALYSIS 1. No provision of the Tennessee or United States constitutions expressly mentions self defense. In Tennessee, it has been viewed as developing from the common law. The doctrine of self defense arose in England. The laws provided for punishment even when the defendant killed or injured someone in self defense. The King began the practice of pardoning these defendants. 2 F. Pollack and F. Maitland, The History of English Law 478-84 (1899). Eventually a series of statutes recognized self defense as an excuse for breaches of the peace and even homicide. 2 Blackstone's Commentaries (1803). Tennessee, through North Carolina, adopted the common law of England. Dunn v. Palermo, 522 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1975). The common law “prevails unless and until changed by statute.” State v. Alley, 594 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Tenn. 1980). Tennessee statutes establish the defense of self defense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611. The Tennessee Sentencing Commission Comments appearing after the statute state that “this section codifies much of the common law doctrine of self defense.” It is the opinion of this Office that in Tennessee the law of self defense is statutory. It is not a constitutional right under the Tennessee Constitution. (2) The answer to question one (1) renders a response to question two (2) unnecessary. Charles W. Burson Attorney General & Reporter Michael E. Moore Per the following Court rulings: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right to self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 606 (2008) “[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace.” Andrews, 50 Tenn., at 178 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 614 (2008) “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler,289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)) District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008) At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “s

Firearms Policy Coalition, GOA and SAF are on this case big time, where is the NRA?

You could carry in Court houses here till William Lamberth passed his bill in 2016 changing the word from room to house. We tried to run that last year as a roll back and the Judges all had a fit. They can carry in the court room. We got no help from the Republicans either.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1697737480/2023.10.19_175_OPINION.pdf?1697737480 The Judge Roger T. Benitez does a great job of rebutting the lies of the government in this case in California which sets back the "Assault Weapons Ban". From the opinion : Americans have an individual right to keep and bear firearms. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons, is not important. This guarantee is fully binding on the States and limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems. And the guarantee protects “the possession of weapons that are ‘in common use,’ ” or arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” These are the decisions this Court is bound to apply. “It's our duty as judges to interpret the Constitution based on the text and original understanding of the relevant provision—not on public policy considerations, or worse, fear of public opprobrium or criticism from the political branches.” Text, then history... The judge does the heavy lifting, far better than the attorneys for the plaintiffs, and in so doing proves out that Tennessee is the ONLY state that passed a law to criminalize and completely deny the carry of permitted, protected firearms by any state in the important period from 1791 to 1870s. We as a state are the outlier. He continues; "Unless the Supreme Court clearly says otherwise, commonly owned weapons that may be useful for war and are reasonably related to militia use are also fully protected, so long as they are not useful solely for military purposes. Modern semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols are such reasonably-related arms. In Staples, the Supreme Court identified some types of weapons that do lay beyond the fence of absolute constitutional protection -- and they are not modern semiautomatic rifles, normal shotguns, or threaded barrel pistols."..."This Court has previously determined that the State's ban on modern semi-automatics has no historical pedigree. Prior to the 1990's, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with furniture like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers, or threaded barrels."..."The term “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. The Court explained that the terms “keep” and “bear” mean that the Second Amendment's text protects individuals’ rights to “ ‘keep’ firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense,” and to carry arms on one's person in and outside the home in case of confrontation". It is long, but worth the read for those interested in the 2nd Amendment.

We have a statute that gives immunity to those business owners who do not deny constitutional rights within their premises. Mississippi allows their Enhanced Permit Holders to carry past signs, of course, they can also carry long guns.

There is a House member who is very desirous of getting that legislation passed. I suspect the house might, the Senate will not pass that, and probably the Governor would not sign it if passed.

Is Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution in fact unconstitutional? From the case, Moorfield v. The State, 73 Tenn. 348 Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1880: The case arose from a situation where a neighbor came before his fellows saying he had been fighting with a bear. The neighbors gathered the firearms that were available and went to hunt to the animal. Moorfield borrowed a pistol and joined the group in pursuit of the bear. Returning from the venture, he was spied carrying the handgun, reported as such and arrested for violating the “intent to go armed” statute (this is still on out books today). Going through the lower courts he was convicted of breaking the law. Appealing to the highest Court of the State, he was finally exonerated and his conviction reversed. It is instructive to the People to understand what the Court used to render its verdict. Quoting from the actual transcript “…the intent to carry the pistol for evil purposes, or for the purpose of being armed, in the sense of the statute, is clearly negatived, and the motive an innocent one. The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen…”. That being the specific definition of the “intent to go armed” in 1880 by our highest court, we find in 2008, in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller a definition of what the 2nd Amendment protects: “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008) Quoting Justice Ginsburg in Heller from Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ Scalia said of that quote in Heller “We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.” Regarding the Tennessee restrictions placed on the People by the General Assembly in 1801, 1821 and 1870, making it a crime for a citizen to carry a firearm with the “intent to go armed” (as is currently still on our books today), it is my belief that the action of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case in 2010 where the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, invokes Article 6 Section 2 of our Federal Constitution and renders the current Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution moot. Itr must be changed to satisfy the requirement set forth recently: “After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an "individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," Heller, 554 U.S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 30 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) Our state legislators have the power to set punishment for criminal acts. It is their job to listen to the People (who are to instruct them) and construct laws which provide protection for the People within the confines of the Constitution. Their Oath however requires them each to “in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this state.” These same legislators do not have the power to deny Constitutional rights, regardless of their intent, however “good” their “feelings” might be.

Extreme caution appropriate when considering support of a new "advocacy" group that appeared suddenly in Tennessee. - Tennessee Firearms Association

Forwarded to all the legislators I have contact with. We have to be ready in January to get after these culls and take Tennessee back to the promise of our founding documents.

My interview on the Mighty 990 with Todd Starns from Memphis on Wednesday morning.

I plan on showing up, irrespective of the bussed/flown in agitators. John Sevier and Issac Shelby would have. Most likely David Crockett and Sam Houston too. Do as you will, I plan to testify.

I have a friend who used to be in the Republican Party in Shelby County, a divorce and health issues have resulted in him taking a lower profile in politics. However, he texted Gillespie yesterday over the same issue and received a disjointed tirade of invectives, being called a right-wing nut job and such. Suffice it to say that Gillespie will not be getting any more checks for campaign donations from that source. What is it with the caliber of politicians from Shelby County? At least Senators Rose and Taylor are smart enough not to publicly support the Red Flag agenda, even though they do, which is obvious from their stabbing SB 1503 to death in Judiciary committee last session.

Gillespie would not reocgnize the Constitution if it ran over him in the hall on the way to the bathroom. Mark White is no better. Rose and Taylor are virulntly anti 2ndAmendment as well. They say one thing, do another.

Representatibve Rusty Grills and Chris Todd, both members of the House Civil Justice committee, who most likley will hear any Red Flag inititative.

I spoke with the TN State lobbyist Kelby Senor yesterday afternoon. NRA has had no communication with Haile about legislation and is not sponsoring or writing any for or with him. Kelby said the usual "NRA" would be willing to look at legislation proposed to see if it meets Constitutional muster, but at this time none has been proffered. He did say he had met with Haile in North Carolina at the Leadership Institute last week, and that Haile had suggested that he had options to some mental health proposals, but offered no plan, no specifics. Haile is casting about to try and gain some conservative bona fides as he has a challenger in the upcoming primary that appears well funded and of a conservative nature. The challenger is tied to the Sumner County Conservative Republicans, who have taken over the County Commission there, rooting out our old friend Debra Maggart's supported moderates from the majority. In all my years of working with the General Assembly, Haile has never championed a 2nd Amendment issue or even cosponsored one to my knowledge. He is a McNally sycophant of the First Order.

Arguably one of the better group of answers...

I like the way he hammered TBI Director Rauch in Civil Justice Committee. I think he is going to be a big help in the House. Here are his thoughts on the Special Session and Red Flag Laws. (By the way he intends to run good legislation if the Governor opens chapters involving firearms}

John Rich has decided to join forces with TFA to fight the governor's Red Flag push.

A copy of their mailer is in TGO David's message box.