Worriedman

Their website is not working this week, but the gist of this bill: 1. Does away with criminal aspect of carrying a firearm. 2. Changes age from 21 to 18 to carry or perfect a permit. 3. Includes long guns into the the permissible carry group, all permits now will say firearms, not handguns. 4. Removes immunity for those entities that choose to post. By inference now those entities that choose NOT to post are given immunity from action ont he premises unless gross negligence or willful intent can be proved. This bill codifies the inverse.

Got rolled a week...

This is up in its amended form tomorrow, hit up the offices of the Civil Justice Sub. I don't like it, but the sponsor has asked me to testify, should be interesting.

Capley is getting a lot of push back on his bill from Dept. of Safety and Sheriff's Assc., there is no help with respect to Safety, but I do have a call with someone that matters in the Sheriff's Assc. today. A number of judges are wringing their hands too, but they knew the job when they ran for office, if you think you are more important than I am, find different employment. Bill got rolled at least till next week. Calls and e-mails please.

NRA is what it is, but, the less than intelligent Legislators in Nashville cling to that three letter mantra like it is the Holy Grail, Gardenhire has an NRA cap as a centerpiece in his office... We have a new lobbyist for TN this year, Kelby Seanor, Kseanor@NRAHQ.org, for those who are NRA members, chat him up about what you want, let hem know he needs to be responsive to Tennesseans. He was a shooting team member at Bethel University in McKenzie, so at least he is a shooting enthusiast. I am supposed to meet with him this week in Nashville.

Here is the Amendment that makes the bill language: AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 Chapter 17, Part 13 relative to firearms. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1306(a) is amended by deleting “building in which judicial proceedings are in progress” and substituting “courtroom”. SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1306(c) is amended by deleting all language in subdivision (1) and substituting “Is in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the armed forces of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of official duties as a guard employed by a penal institution, or as a bailiff, marshal or other court officer who has responsibility for protecting persons or property or providing security;”. SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1306(c) is amended by deleting subdivisions (4) and (5) in their entirety. SECTION 4. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1359(c)(2)(C) is amended by deleting “ at all times regardless of whether judicial proceedings are in progress”. SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. Dear________________ I am writing to encourage the Tennessee Legislature to fix the the way that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1306 is presently written. Prior to 2017, it only prohibited weapons in a specific “room” while judicial proceedings were being conducted in that room. As such, it was relatively easy to determine whether judicial proceedings were in process and if so that firearm possession, particularly by permit holders, was prohibited. The statute is now, I feel, unconstitutional. It was amended by changing in the first paragraph the word “room” to “building”. With that change, the entire building becomes a gun free zone with felony charges applicable but only if judicial proceedings (which according to an Attorney General opinion would include things like judicial conference calls) are occurring. So, in our county with multiple government offices in the same building, it could be perfectly legal for someone to come in the building with a firearm one day to, for example, record a deed so long as there were no judicial proceedings taking place. But, if the person was standing in line to record that deed and a judge somewhere else in the building called court to order, that individual could be charged with a felony and not even know that he was doing something illegal. That is wrong and must be corrected. I am requesting either that the word “building” in the first paragraph be changed back to “room” or that the entire statute be repealed now under the Supreme Court’s Bruen holding from 2022, as “historical tradition” must be used as the metric for scrutiny with respect to 2nd Amendment issues. Signature This bill will be in the House Civil Justice sub committee this coming Tuesday. For those who live outside of Davidson and Shelby Counties write your elected employees, (House and Senate) as well as the members of the sub committee asking for support.

Always to the Committee Members where a bill is.

I will be posting the basis of a letter that needs to be sent to every Senator, it speaks to their duty and the fact we all know what they swear to God to do, but fail on most accounts. I appreciate your efforts and words, next week will be very important.

As the General Assembly moves forward, the strangle hold of those who live to deny the rights and privileges contained in the Constitutions of the State and Union are about their sinister work. Failure to stand up and be heard is the sustenance that feeds that monster. Those of us who portend to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment spend hours typing and snipping at each other on forums, yet how many actually avail themselves of the Opportunities to act on their charge to "instruct their representatives" as levied in Article 1 Section 23 of our State Constitution? The Senate has mandated that every 2nd Amendment bill be heard in Judiciary March 7th. This mandated by Chairman Gardenhire, (who by the way will again this year, champion and sponsor the attempt to give the children of illegals a huge tax break via offering them in-state tuition to our colleges and universities). It is his desire to General Sub (kill) as many 2nd Amendment issues as possible by this tactic. Know full well that the House will have trouble getting these bills moving in the respective committees in that chamber by that time and the "will" of the Senate is to consider nothing that is not moving in the House when it is put on notice in the Senate. If there is not an outcry of disapproval from the true masters of government (The People) they will once again shred the ability to enjoy the true rights and privileges contained in our Constitutions, but that of the State and Union, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If you snooze, you loose. If an issue is killed this year, it is dead next as well.

This is a Constitutional Amendment resolution which will require passage in two successive years of the General Assembly to be put on the ballot in 2026. It will be amended from its current language to read "The Citizens of this state have the right to keep, bear and wear arms." This verbiage is necessary to defeat challenges to the change as there are over 200 years of court cases that could be brought against the issue, however Supreme Court rulings uphold and justify this specific language and its intent. It comports with our original analog of the 2nd Amendment without the racial "overtones", and as such needs all the support we can muster.

Before the beatings begin, it must be noted that regardless of the morality of an issue used to restrict the ability to possess a firearm, under Bruen if it was not a qualifier in 1791, it is not one now... The important words out of this caser are thus: No longer should lower courts evaluating firearm restrictions “defer to the determinations of legislatures,” because while “that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not the deference that the Constitution demands.” And while “end- justifies-the-means” rationalizations should generally be understood as antithetical to the rule of law, Bruen now leaves no doubt that such rationalizations have no place in our Second Amendment jurisprudence. The question here is thus whether stripping someone of their right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If it is not, then § 922(g)(3) cannot be constitutionally applied to Harrison—no matter the reasonableness of the policy it embodies. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “‘the people’ . . . unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset,” further explaining that the term refers to “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” The Court thus concluded that there is a “strong presumption” that the Second Amendment right to keep and carry handguns publicly for self-defense “belongs to all Americans.” Because “[c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them,” historical analogues in existence near the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 are of primary relevance.

From the ruling: The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not. Zackey Rahimi levies a facial challenge to § 922(g)(8). The district court and a prior panel upheld the statute, applying this court’s pre-Bruen precedent. See United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11011, 2022 WL 2070392 at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. June 8, 2022). Rahimi filed a petition for rehearing en banc; while the petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen. The prior panel withdrew its opinion and requested supplemental briefing on the impact of that case on this one. Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster. We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling to the contrary and vacate Rahimi’s conviction. The take away is that if it did not exist as a law regarding firearms and their possession in 1791, it does not apply today.

Texas does not seem to have a problem administering their law relative to this issue. Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.41 Protection of One’s Own Property (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Sec. 9.42 Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

It is now more imperative than ever that the Senators hear from their constituents. It is not a matter solely of something we want, rather what we have that the General Assembly has taken. Maybe not this iteration, but factually their past actions as a group, ordained by the Constitution to have that kind of power IS responsible for the taking (infringement of the 2nd Amendment) of a right due the people. There are those in both chambers who agree with a restoration, (more especially in the House) but if the public does not let them know the People support it they will not stick their heads up out of the foxholes to do the correct thing. The admission by our new Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti in the Beeler case last week proves that the State government of Tennessee recognizes the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms as declared by the Constitutions of the State and Union against the age group in the posted agreement which states "The Challenged Scheme regulating the possession and carrying of handguns that restricts individuals aged 18 years old to 20 years old from carrying handguns or obtaining permits to carry handguns on the basis of age alone violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (emphasis mine) proves the contention I make. It also points to the correct interpretation of the Bruen decision by that office. It is important to note that the AG did not say carry by permit only, there are two distinctions in his admission that it is legal to carry without or to obtain a permit, words matter. The unspoken, though verifiable admission is that Tennessee has been guilty of a Federal Civil Rights violation with respect to our 2nd Amendment rights. When the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in 2010, they placed the same chains on the states as the Constitution has on the Federal government, and named the 2nd Amendment a Civil right Now is the time to write your Senators and to call their offices and politely ask to be recorded in favor of returning the right to carry lawfully possessed firearms, in case of confrontation, in public, without it being deemed a crime by our employees.

No, Court ordered State to comply within 90 days. Department of Safety (Bureaucracy charged statutorily with keeping our roads safe but who now lobbies against your rights using your tax dollars to do so, and is responsible for administering the permit system) will drag its feet as long as possible. Their history is to never give back the rights to arms the General Assembly took from the People in 1801.

I was privileged to have a sit down with the Speaker of the House on Wednesday, orchestrated by my State Rep, Chris Todd, and attended as well by Rep. Clay Doggett The take away is that we will, in the House at least, face no Leadership opposition in achieving the removal of the criminal aspect of carrying a firearm, the inclusion of long guns into the permissible weapons list (basically removing TCA 1307 (a) (1) and 1308 from the Code) and some realignment of "Public" place carry without penalty. With respect to "gun free zones" the Speaker portends that "Private Property Rights" stand above 2nd and 14th Rights with respect to who has the power to allow or disallow carry in stores. The Mississippi scheme was mentioned, that possibly the Enhanced Permit Holders be able to carry past signs without criminal penalty, unless the management became aware of a firearm and ask the person to leave, which then would result in a criminal trespass. No resolution was forthcoming at that time though lines of communication are still open regarding the issue. I have forwarded the Federal code section 42 to the parties: 42 U.S. Code § 12181 – Definitions As used in this subchapter (7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce— (A)an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor; (B)a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; (C)a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; (D)an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; (E)a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; (F)a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; (G)a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; (H)a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection; (I)a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; (J)a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; (K)a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and (L)a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation. The jury is still out on what the GA will "allow". It was clearly stated that there is expectation of positive movement of restorative measures in the House, due to the recent court cases which show heavy favor to our request, but that the Speaker could not be held accountable for the actions of the Senate, which mirrors the thoughts I have expressed in a previous thread. From that meeting to the next, which included a number of 2nd Amendment friendly Representatives, again hosted by Reps Chris Todd and Clay Doggett to include Jay Reedy, and Johnny Garrett (majority whip) plus a number of freshman Representatives, Jody Barrett, Monty Fritts, Kip Capley, Elaine Davis, Brian Richey, Gino Bulso, Brock Martin and William Slater. Included in the invitees was Toby Maire, paid lobbyist for T-Rex Arms. Toby is a German ex patriot, an attorney by trade, and is a constant fixture at the GA for the last several years. To say that I was heartened by the general enthusiasm and support for the full expectation of returning the rights intended with respect to arms would be putting it mildly. Barrett and Bulso are seasoned attorneys and well placed in committees. With the exception of Fritts (who for some reason fell under the radar for support in the races earlier in the year, and which was grievous mistake on my part) we were monetarily invested in all their races. This is without doubt the best freshman class of legislators in decades. All that being said, we have a plan for moving forward. That MUST include contact and advocacy in the Senate. The recent AG admission of the State's guilt in committing a Federal Civil Rights violation with respect to withholding the rights of 18-20 year olds right to carry handguns shows the GA that if they do not move back to what Bruen describes, we will simply win it in the courts. Offering the Senate the chance to make themselves heroes of doing the right thing instead of being spanked into admitting they were doing their best to deny our rights may be the tact we need to take.

The Senate will not note in favor of this bill. They are too old, rich and staid, and, listen to the NRA too much, but in truth it is the Chamber of Commerce that will put the hex on this one.

Notice the agreement is founded on the 2nd And 14th Amendments. You either believe in the validity of the documents or you do not.

Are military allowed to carry weapons at will? No they are sheparded and controlled. I remember my grandfather lied about his age and joined the military early, at 16. Served 20 years in the Marines. Maybe the Constitution has it right and society has allowed it to go wrong.

For some reason the PDF file will not load.

Exactly, if they want to continue to make money off their citizens they need to make enhanced, enhanced. Notice the "Scheme" AG Skrmetti agreed that was unconstitutional was under the 2nd and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, not just the bad laws in Tennessee's TCA or it's Declaration of Rights. Basically he is saying the second part of Article 1 Section 26 is void, where is says the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Get ready for that to fall as well.

We have had 18 year olds with permits since 2014, just had to be active military. Any reciprocity we would loose was lost then. Check out the list from Department of safety, you see those states that do and those who do not, we will not lose a single state. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/safety/documents/handgun/Reciprocity_August_2022.pdf

From the orders of the Court.

First of a number. Getting ready to battle in court, been playing with the GA long enough.