Worriedman

I spoke with John this morning about this issue this morning. These two brothers pop up in states and capture a name to fund raise off of, they did not realize TGO was already owned. They showed up one day, took some video and talked dirty about TFA and NRA and asked for money. David needs to be prepped...

Interview with Sen. Paul Bailey.

Interview 6/14/23

Voters in TN believe we should remove dangerous people, not guns

John Rich jumps in to the discussion. John Rich tweet on Lee's Special Session

All the interest in "Major" issues on the National scene, ATF, Pistol Braces and such, are important. However, nothing even approaches the impact that the Governor's "Special Session on Gun Safety" entails for Tennessee. If you have not contacted your state Representative and Senators demanding that they do not cave to the Red Flag/Extreme Risk Protection Oder push you are not paying attention. If they can take Tennessee down that path, then every Red State in the Nation is a target. We are the nexus for this takeover attempt.

They put those they sentenced to jail to hard labor. They killed the ones who committed violent crimes, they did not let them out. You get that going and we have a lot less problems.

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) From Heller “For example, we found it "fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of' dangerous and unusual weapons'" that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are "'in common use at the time.'"” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 18 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) From Heller: “We then concluded: "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 20 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U.S., at 582. "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 25 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250-251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government. See, e.g., Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. __, __ (2020) (slip op., at 7); Timbs v. Indiana,586 U.S. __, __ - __ (2019) (slip op., at 2-3); Malloy v. Hogan,378 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1964). And we have generally assumed that the scope of the protection applicable to the Federal Government and States is pegged to the public understanding of the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. See, e.g., Crawford v. Washington,541 U.S. 36, 42-50 (2004) (Sixth Amendment); Virginia v. Moore,553 U.S. 164, 168-169 (2008) (Fourth Amendment); Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan,564 U.S. 117, 122-125 (2011) (First Amendment). New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 34-35 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

Did you read the ruling I posted? At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”). Yet the Government’s attempts to analogize those early laws to Range’s situation fall short. That Founding-era governments punished some nonviolent crimes with death does not suggest that the particular (and distinct) punishment at issue—lifetime disarmament—is rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition. The greater does not necessarily include the lesser: founding-era governments’ execution of some individuals convicted of certain offenses does not mean the State, then or now, could constitutionally strip a felon of his right to possess arms if he was not executed. As one of our dissenting colleagues notes, a felon could “repurchase arms” after successfully completing his sentence and reintegrating into society. Krause Dissent at 28–29. That aptly describes Range’s situation. So the Government’s attempt to disarm Range is not “relevantly similar” to earlier statutes allowing for execution and forfeiture. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132. From the concurrence by Judge Potter: As the majority opinion makes plain, these modern laws have no longstanding analogue in our national history and tradition of firearm regulation.2 Maj. Op. 15–22. That’s unsurprising because before the New Deal Revolution, Congress was powerless to regulate gun possession and use. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) (Congress lacks power to infringe the right declared by the Second Amendment); Presser v. People of State of Ill. 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (same). The Supreme Court has said that “if a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 682, 687 (2019); see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2137.

It is served or judicially abrogated, one of the too. There are a a lot of 'diversions" granted by judges, but the courts count it settled through probation or whatever is put for by the judge.

You have to read the Constitution AND the SCOTUS rulings. Bruen says only those law on the books at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to scrutiny of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. (reiterated from Heller in 2008) If you read the Opinion posted it tells you that government is constrained, the Constitution does not grant rights, it is a contract among the People and is a written set of hiring practices for the servants we need to hire to function government for us. The Bill of Rights enumerates (or list) those rights we were granted by our creators and the government, neither the state or federal is that creator. The Constitution places chains on government, not the People. This case sets about a study of what the laws were and what subsets of the People can be denied the right to keep and bear arms, and a nonviolent crime is not one that at the time of the ratification was a listed (test and history) limit. Murder, rape, home invasion, armed robbery and the like were "capital" crimes and were punishable by death. If a lessor non violent crime were committed, once the sentence were served and any restitution paid back as decided by a court, the dues were paid and you were released back into society. If so you got your voting rights and your gun rights back. That is the "historical tradition" this panel of judges found with regard to a non violent crime and its after effects on a member of the People. The more important part of the Opinion is that legislators and judges cannot deprive the People of those right over "feelings", thank goodness.

All boils down to Bruen and the "New" test to be applied. If there was a law on the books in 1791 you can use it, the further from that date a law is passed, the less value it has for scrutiny on 2nd or 14th Amendment issues. The take away from this case is that the plaintiff is a member of the People, and as such his rights to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf

TN Governor calls out NRA for wanting to use laws on the books instead of passing Red Flag. From the article: "Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee's administration accused the National Rifle Association of wanting to use involuntary commitment laws "to round up mentally ill people and deprive them of other liberties," according to documents drafted by the Republican's staffers as part of their initial attempt to pass a gun control proposal earlier this year. Tennessee laws that allow committing people without their permission if they pose "a substantial likelihood of serious harm" due to a "mental illness or serious emotional disturbance." "Not only is the NRA's proposal impractical — it would drastically expand the scope of government," one of the memos reads." Yeah, we had mental hospitals for those who needed treatment, and to keep those who were serious dangers to themselves or others off out streets, now they are the “homeless” and wander about panhandling and stealing to survive. Lets don’t use the laws on our books, just give more power to the 4th branch of government (LE) to determine how we live our lives. The current involuntary committal laws use medical professionals to determine who gets held as a danger, the governor’s plan is like the FBI taking people re Jan. 06, more power for his pet Departments. How about we take some of the half billion dollars we gave the Kneeling Titans for their new stadium and put it back to work opening up our closed mental hospitals? Lee is exactly what I thought he would be, second in the line of Haslam Democrats wearing an “R”. He has met with the "Tennessee Three" and is working with them to institute "common sense gun laws" in his "Official Oppression Special Session"!

Could not agree more, we are about the business of filing suits currently. Plus, we are instituting a 501 (c) (3) for the sole purpose of litigation. We currently have a suit, in concert with Gun Owners of America against the State regarding carry in parks, as it will be the easiest to win, in which we assert that the State has invoked a "gun free zone" on the entire state under 39-17-1307 (a) (1). We have standing and have been granted the case. They moved to dismiss of course as we named Lee and Skrmetti as defendants, as is required, but have refiled naming Commissioner of Department of Safety and the Gibson County Sheriff and their DA as that is the district we filed in. Narrow set of facts, but if you take the low hanging fruit, you start the lineage of wins to come out on top. To your point, I attach a copy of the suit. It should be noted that the jurisdiction it is filed in required TFA to NOT be a party to the suit, so we got with GOA to invest time and money in it as well, though we will argue the case. https://tennesseefirearms.com/2023/02/state-of-tennessee-sued-in-action-seeking-to-declare-the-parks-statute-to-be-unconstitutional/

All 4 Memphis area Senators are on the Judiciary committee, with Gardenhire that is a 5 vote block what will keep anything restorative from passing out of the committee, giving cover to the rest of the Senate to say they never got a chance to vote on any 2nd Amendment issue. Uniparty at it's finest. Straight line Bill Lee to Randy McNally to continue to violate their oath of office.

Taylor thinks we are all incapable of enjoying the natural rights enshrined in our Constitutions...not only did he kill the long gun carry, but the removal of the criminal intent to go armed.

Just cut off the State funds till they remove illegal laws. TCA 39-17-1314. Preemption of local regulation of firearms, ammunition, and knives — Actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer — Party adversely affected by local regulation. (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. (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.

Being armed IN the Capitol is illegal (unless you are a legislator or POST Certified Police officer in pursuance of duty, or private security guard for important people), but in the meeting rooms for committees in Cordell Hull or the offices of the legislators themselves, if you have a permit and conceal it, is legal and permissible to be armed with the intent to go armed. (handguns only and certainly on the "grounds" outside the capitol building it is legal)

How may were jailed in 2020 in Virginia? https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-richmond-virginia-charlottesville-us-news-2c997c92fa7acd394f7cbb89882d9b5b

The MSM is not letting this crisis go to waste, nor is your governor, his minions and the Lt. governor. and most of the Senate. It all depends on what is important to you. I can tell you that as restorative laws come up in committee, I am normally the only one there in support of the 2nd. Elsewhere it was mentioned that T-Rex Arms will show up form time to time for a bill that Tobi Maire has written, but to date I find his expat understanding of our language and laws to be lacking depth. He was of the opinion that it was illegal to carry a shotgun for any reason when he wrote the short barreled rifle and shotgun bill for Rep. Grills a few years back. It was a nothing-burger as the ATF does not recognize state laws on SBRs. He is paid by T-Rex and he inserts himself in every instance that he can to whatever degree he can. His insistence on including carrying by permittees or those under Lee's permitless carry statute on school grounds K-12 killed the latest campus carry bill dead. His testimony in the Senate Judiciary on that bill was disjointed and ineffective at best and bordering on embarrassing for 2ndAmendment advocates...but hey, at least he is showing up. I have never been able to get him to understand that the "intent to go armed" clause in our statures is anathema to Liberty. He insist we must keep it, as I am not an attorney and do not understand the law like he does... Speaking with a number of legislators who are actually on our side or returning Tennessee to the rights intended by our founders, they say it is disheartening to never see a crowd show up in favor of our bills, while Moms Demand Action show up in droves. I suggest if you are interested in the future of the ability to keep and bear arms August 21 and 22 (governor Lee's Official Oppression Special Session) are days you should schedule vacation and show up at the Capitol. I will be there.

Ask him why he does not trust Tennesseans to carry long guns like the other states in this graphic do?

He was saying thank you to Sen. Taylor for sponsoring an amendment that stripped the meat of the bill. In fact it made the TCA Code worse than it was before. I met with Sen. Rose early in the session about this bill, which would have allowed long gun carry like 42 other states do without it being a crime, and 4 more with permits, only 4 call it a crime unless hunting or sport shooting, New York, New Jersey, Florida and Tennessee. His statement about the Constitutionality was simply that the ladies in his Church in Covington did not want to see AR15s in the Wal Mart. He does not care what is lawful, feelings trump the Constitutions. He is a 2nd Amendment Butter Club member. He is trying by reading one sentence of the Bruen Ruling, (which he mischaracterizes as Heller) trying to make it sound like the Supreme court agrees with his interpretation.

The lead-in was a play on the words our Mothers used to say when we broke a lamp or a certain dish or glass. Sorry for the lame attempt at levity. However, a tax payer paid legislator who pulls a few words out of a document and uses that to deny a preexisting to the Constitution's ratification, and enshrined in it as a natural right to the people is a criminal act in and of itself. 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. I guess because Whoopi and Joy run their pie holes incessantly we should let some politician do away with freedom of speech? Or because a huge percentage of drivers can't even begin to follow the rules of the road some .gov official should be able to upcharge that privilege as well? I see, you are of the "punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty" ilk.

The ones who can't belong in prison. If our legislators returned the rights intended then those who break those rules need to be incarcerated.