Tennessee becomes 20th state to sign constitutional carry into law.

[DadSmith]

Tennessee the 20th State to Abolish Concealed Permit Requirement

Gov. Bill Lee (R) was signed legislation Tuesday to do away with Tennessee's concealed carry permit requirement.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Gabriel]

 

[jerrob]

This is awesome news as the Mrs. and I will be retiring to Tennessee after the first of the year.
I was hoping Indiana would do the same, but that turned out to just further my disappointment with our state leadership.

 

[gregr]

Tennessee the 20th State to Abolish Concealed Permit Requirement

Gov. Bill Lee (R) was signed legislation Tuesday to do away with Tennessee's concealed carry permit requirement.

www.breitbart.com

Indiana needs to finally pass constitutional carry too. As well as, get rid of the illegal "red flag" law.

 

[gregr]

This is awesome news as the Mrs. and I will be retiring to Tennessee after the first of the year.
I was hoping Indiana would do the same, but that turned out to just further my disappointment with our state leadership.

Supposedly, local law enforcement doesn`t want constitutional carry in the state. It`s odd, there`s nothing in the Second Amendment about needing approval from government, or, law enforcement...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Indiana needs to finally pass constitutional carry too. As well as, get rid of the illegal "red flag" law.

I am all in favor of Constitutional Carry. I believe in the Second Amendment as written. At the same time, I recognize that there are some people who should not be in possession of a firearm (or a knife, or a car or a whatever)

Some of the reasons for this would be felony crime and a lack of sanity. Case in point: You hear someone talking about going and shooting up a school. You know that he happens to own a few rifles, and you know that when he says he's going to do something, he is nothing if not reliable. Should you or should you not take some form of action to stop him? What action would you take?

Supposedly, local law enforcement doesn`t want constitutional carry in the state. It`s odd, there`s nothing in the Second Amendment about needing approval from government, or, law enforcement...

There is also nothing in it about the above listed felons, the criminally insane, and/or for that matter, young children. There IS the proviso that you shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property "...without due process of law..."


I stand by the first sentences I wrote in this post. I also recognize the hard realities. That police do not want Constitutional Carry is not a reason not to have it. The citizens who are police officers do still have a voice in government, and those peoples' experience with the criminal elements of our society do put them in a position to speak on the behavior of criminals and the difficulties of enforcing laws when this is the law. Again, not a reason in and of itself.

I'm sure some will see equivocation in my post, and they will be wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

I am all in favor of Constitutional Carry. I believe in the Second Amendment as written. At the same time, I recognize that there are some people who should not be in possession of a firearm (or a knife, or a car or a whatever)

Some of the reasons for this would be felony crime and a lack of sanity. Case in point: You hear someone talking about going and shooting up a school. You know that he happens to own a few rifles, and you know that when he says he's going to do something, he is nothing if not reliable. Should you or should you not take some form of action to stop him? What action would you take?



There is also nothing in it about the above listed felons, the criminally insane, and/or for that matter, young children. There IS the proviso that you shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property "...without due process of law..."


I stand by the first sentences I wrote in this post. I also recognize the hard realities. That police do not want Constitutional Carry is not a reason not to have it. The citizens who are police officers do still have a voice in government, and those peoples' experience with the criminal elements of our society do put them in a position to speak on the behavior of criminals and the difficulties of enforcing laws when this is the law. Again, not a reason in and of itself.

I'm sure some will see equivocation in my post, and they will be wrong.

Blessings,
Bill

As stated, these so called "red-flag" laws are entirely unconstitutional. Period. You suggest not just ignoring, but trampling the Fourth Amendment. Hitler would be all in your corner. And with constitutional carry, "prohibited persons" are still prohibited, it`s just that with the permit system, it`s easier for police to know if someone shouldn`t have a firearm. Their laziness should in no way interfere with our Second Amendment rights. Many other states have implements constitutional carry, and they`re doing just fine.

 

[JettaKnight]

As stated, these so called "red-flag" laws are entirely unconstitutional. Period. You suggest not just ignoring, but trampling the Fourth Amendment. Hitler would be all in your corner. And with constitutional carry, "prohibited persons" are still prohibited, it`s just that with the permit system, it`s easier for police to know if someone shouldn`t have a firearm. Their laziness should in no way interfere with our Second Amendment rights. Many other states have implements constitutional carry, and they`re doing just fine.

Godwin's Law is alive and well.

Maybe you should spend some time researching how Jake Laird's Law works.


And if something (e.g. Jake Laird's Law) is passed as law, it is ipso facto law, therefore not illegal.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As stated, these so called "red-flag" laws are entirely unconstitutional. Period. You suggest not just ignoring, but trampling the Fourth Amendment. Hitler would be all in your corner. And with constitutional carry, "prohibited persons" are still prohibited, it`s just that with the permit system, it`s easier for police to know if someone shouldn`t have a firearm. Their laziness should in no way interfere with our Second Amendment rights. Many other states have implements constitutional carry, and they`re doing just fine.

See now, this is what I mean. No, I do not suggest nor agree with "trampling" any of the Constitution or Amendments, possibly excepting the 16th.

Take this example: Average citizen, we'll call him "John". John does fine until about a month after he turns 43. John's mannerisms start to change. He becomes suspicious and borderline paranoid. John starts going on to anyone who will sit still for 4.5 seconds about waves and beams and he's sure the government has implanted devices in his body, despite no evidence of scarring in the places he indicates. John starts talking about "takin' a few of 'em out". He will not see a psychologist/psychiatrist, nor even his regular doc. The mailman comes to the door with a package his cousin sent for Christmas, and he meets them at the door with a shotgun kinda halfway between low-ready and the mailman's navel, which is to say, he is not "pointing a firearm at another person", which is a crime in Indiana.

The situation I'm trying to create here is that John has a brain tumor, but no one knows that yet.He has not committed any crimes, but he is clearly, at least in my mind, dangerous. I do NOT like the implications of this.... John still has rights and those should be, must be, respected.

At the same time, my grandson, or someone's grandson, lives near John. I cannot fail to recognize that in his present circumstances, John is a threat and a risk to innocent lives. When his friends start to notice something wrong, maybe something can be said. When he comes to the door for the mailman, pointing a gun in his general direction (again, not AT him) I think John has crossed a line, and when the mailman reports what happened to the police..... Are you saying nothing should be done? We should wait until he actually does put a couple pieces of buckshot in some unfortunate 6 year old's head?

I'm clearly not saying that Joe Gunowner should have his guns taken away because some Karen got offended at his NRA bumper sticker.
I also said (though perhaps not in this thread) that I would be in favor of taking the PERSON into custody, not just confiscating his guns.... because a piece of property can sit in a property room for much longer than they can hold a living person.

So Greg, ignoring the Hitler reference..... And for the record, I was raised Jewish, so that's kind of laughable....I will again ask you:

What would YOU do in the above situation? How would YOU address the case of a clearly dangerous person who has not yet actually broken the law?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DadSmith]

See now, this is what I mean. No, I do not suggest nor agree with "trampling" any of the Constitution or Amendments, possibly excepting the 16th.

Take this example: Average citizen, we'll call him "John". John does fine until about a month after he turns 43. John's mannerisms start to change. He becomes suspicious and borderline paranoid. John starts going on to anyone who will sit still for 4.5 seconds about waves and beams and he's sure the government has implanted devices in his body, despite no evidence of scarring in the places he indicates. John starts talking about "takin' a few of 'em out". He will not see a psychologist/psychiatrist, nor even his regular doc. The mailman comes to the door with a package his cousin sent for Christmas, and he meets them at the door with a shotgun kinda halfway between low-ready and the mailman's navel, which is to say, he is not "pointing a firearm at another person", which is a crime in Indiana.

The situation I'm trying to create here is that John has a brain tumor, but no one knows that yet.He has not committed any crimes, but he is clearly, at least in my mind, dangerous. I do NOT like the implications of this.... John still has rights and those should be, must be, respected.

At the same time, my grandson, or someone's grandson, lives near John. I cannot fail to recognize that in his present circumstances, John is a threat and a risk to innocent lives. When his friends start to notice something wrong, maybe something can be said. When he comes to the door for the mailman, pointing a gun in his general direction (again, not AT him) I think John has crossed a line, and when the mailman reports what happened to the police..... Are you saying nothing should be done? We should wait until he actually does put a couple pieces of buckshot in some unfortunate 6 year old's head?

I'm clearly not saying that Joe Gunowner should have his guns taken away because some Karen got offended at his NRA bumper sticker.
I also said (though perhaps not in this thread) that I would be in favor of taking the PERSON into custody, not just confiscating his guns.... because a piece of property can sit in a property room for much longer than they can hold a living person.

So Greg, ignoring the Hitler reference..... And for the record, I was raised Jewish, so that's kind of laughable....I will again ask you:

What would YOU do in the above situation? How would YOU address the case of a clearly dangerous person who has not yet actually broken the law?

Blessings,
Bill

Is John guilty until proven innocent in these Red Flag laws?

Does the DA have to prove he is guilty of being insane?

Or is it all on John to prove he is sane and innocent?

 

[gregr]

Godwin's Law is alive and well.

Maybe you should spend some time researching how Jake Laird's Law works.


And if something (e.g. Jake Laird's Law) is passed as law, it is ipso facto law, therefore not illegal.

Probably YOU should spend some time researching the Constitution and early constitutional law. You might not then look so foolish.



"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

 

[JettaKnight]

Probably YOU should spend some time researching the Constitution and early constitutional law. You might not then look so foolish.



"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

 

[1nderbeard]

how in the heck do we have such weak republicans that we can't pass this? makes me almost sick.

 

[1nderbeard]

also want to point out to the lengthy post above:

Constitutional carry does not affect the background check required to purchase a gun in the first place.

And, because of the likelihood of the bureaucratic abuse of so called "Red flag" laws, I can't support them.

Given that most mass shooting events are preceded by some government ignoring of trouble (like the Parkland shooting, which was assisted by a grossly incompetents Sherriff ignoring multiple "red flags"), what is a Reg Flag law going to do other than remove due process from a law abiding citizen?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Is John guilty until proven innocent in these Red Flag laws?

Does the DA have to prove he is guilty of being insane?

Or is it all on John to prove he is sane and innocent?

I asked about this recently, and was told that the guns AND the person are taken into custody, the guns for safekeeping, and the person for a psych eval.

When John is evaluated and the tumor is found and removed, John returns to his life and his property is returned to him.

So to answer your questions:
There is no guilt or innocence at this point. No crime is charged.

They evaluate him and hopefully find what's going on. He's not insane, he has a physical problem (in my example) that is corrected.

And no, it is not on John to prove anything.

So now how's about answering my question, even though I directed it to Greg, who has not replied to me:

What would YOU do in the above situation? How would YOU address the case of a clearly dangerous person who has not yet actually broken the law?

ETA: I am eager to hear a solution to this problem that would eliminate the Red Flag laws- I don't like them either. I just don't see *yet* a workable approach to the police force's job to protect and serve the public that does not involve some level of pre-crime action. Find something better that we can all support and maybe we can eliminate those laws.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Of note: I am fully aware that "John" in my post above, is a straw man. I set that situation up specifically to be able to knock it down. I did so to illustrate a reason why such a law has a use, but also to illustrate our need for "something better". That's my goal. I thought I had "better" when I said, "leave the guns and take the person into custody" because property can be held indefinitely, but there are limitations on holding people. I still think that's the right direction to go, but I'm told that that's part of the Laird law, so maybe something in it needs tweaked. I think we're all in agreement that "John" and people like him represent a threat, through no fault of their own. We need to manage and eliminate that threat to society-at-large in a way that respects the individual citizen. I don't think we're quite there yet, but at the moment, I think we've got an effective means to do so.

I don't want only "effective". I want something that respects individual liberty also.

Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Bill

 

[DadSmith]

I asked about this recently, and was told that the guns AND the person are taken into custody, the guns for safekeeping, and the person for a psych eval.

When John is evaluated and the tumor is found and removed, John returns to his life and his property is returned to him.

So to answer your questions:
There is no guilt or innocence at this point. No crime is charged.

They evaluate him and hopefully find what's going on. He's not insane, he has a physical problem (in my example) that is corrected.

And no, it is not on John to prove anything.

So now how's about answering my question, even though I directed it to Greg, who has not replied to me:


ETA: I am eager to hear a solution to this problem that would eliminate the Red Flag laws- I don't like them either. I just don't see *yet* a workable approach to the police force's job to protect and serve the public that does not involve some level of pre-crime action. Find something better that we can all support and maybe we can eliminate those laws.

Blessings,
Bill

As long as his rights are not deprived and there is due process I have no problem unless it is used in a draconian manner.

 

[gregr]

Of note: I am fully aware that "John" in my post above, is a straw man. I set that situation up specifically to be able to knock it down. I did so to illustrate a reason why such a law has a use, but also to illustrate our need for "something better". That's my goal. I thought I had "better" when I said, "leave the guns and take the person into custody" because property can be held indefinitely, but there are limitations on holding people. I still think that's the right direction to go, but I'm told that that's part of the Laird law, so maybe something in it needs tweaked. I think we're all in agreement that "John" and people like him represent a threat, through no fault of their own. We need to manage and eliminate that threat to society-at-large in a way that respects the individual citizen. I don't think we're quite there yet, but at the moment, I think we've got an effective means to do so.

I don't want only "effective". I want something that respects individual liberty also.

Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Bill

There`s an old adage that says: "Freedom isn`t free"...certainly, that`s in reference to the cost people pay to keep freedom available to us, primarily our military personnel. However, that old adage rings true in another sense as well: "Freedom isn`t free", in the sense that if a people are truly free, there is also then a freedom to misuse, and criminally use those freedoms. That`s what we`ve seen for decades, since the Lord Jesus Christ has not only been driven from our public square, but, we as a people have been shamed, verbally, emotionally, and any other imaginable way, bullied into not even mentioning His Name outside of a church building. This sounds like a cliché, but it`s a truth that in the 1950`s, the most common issues with high-school kids were talking in class, and very minor issues in that vein. Today, anything and everything from rape, sexual contact, drug use, drug sales, firearms, gang activity, murder, etc., aren`t very uncommon even among high-school kids, and in a great many instances, even in elementary school-age kids. America has completely lost it`s moral bearing. That`s a real problem for a free people living in a constitutional republic. John Adams said this:

"But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and insolence: this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Adams, as did most of the other Founders, understood that freedom and individual liberties in the hands of a heathen people, a people who could not be trusted to "love thy neighbor", or in any way be constrained by any of the Lord`s Commandments, were ripe for misuse and abuse, resulting in chaos, and exactly the kind of lawlessness and mayhem we see today. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, depending on your political bent, the United States Constitution IS the law of the land, and the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have exactly zero conditions placed upon them. We do not have the freedom of expression and religious worship, "unless and except if government gives us the "ok"". We do not have the right to keep and bear arms, and have that right completely uninfringed, "unless a mob majority disagree, or government means to disarm us for our own good". When the Second Amendment says shall NOT be infringed, it means exactly that. And of course, we do not enjoy the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, "unless government has passed and enforces an unconstitutional law, that`s of course, for our own good". To be due process, it occurs BEFORE property is taken or someone is locked away, NOT before, while awaiting an overbearing, tyrannical government to then determine if there`s been a crime committed a law broken, or, someone is formally adjudicated. That is NOT how our Constitution works, yet, we`ve allowed these illegal, treasonous breaches of our Constitution to occur.

We are morally bankrupt as a nation, people and culture. The violence and bloodshed happening all around us is only one of the ways this is being played out before us. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution is still the Law of the land, and the so called "red-flag" laws are very, very CLEARLY a constitutional breach, and unacceptable, as are any and all of the other infringements liberals are proposing to foist upon us in the name of "protecting us".

 

[JettaKnight]

There`s an old adage that says: "Freedom isn`t free"...certainly, that`s in reference to the cost people pay to keep freedom available to us, primarily our military personnel. However, that old adage rings true in another sense as well: "Freedom isn`t free", in the sense that if a people are truly free, there is also then a freedom to misuse, and criminally use those freedoms. That`s what we`ve seen for decades, since the Lord Jesus Christ has not only been driven from our public square, but, we as a people have been shamed, verbally, emotionally, and any other imaginable way, bullied into not even mentioning His Name outside of a church building. This sounds like a cliché, but it`s a truth that in the 1950`s, the most common issues with high-school kids were talking in class, and very minor issues in that vein. Today, anything and everything from rape, sexual contact, drug use, drug sales, firearms, gang activity, murder, etc., aren`t very uncommon even among high-school kids, and in a great many instances, even in elementary school-age kids. America has completely lost it`s moral bearing. That`s a real problem for a free people living in a constitutional republic. John Adams said this:

"But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and insolence: this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Adams, as did most of the other Founders, understood that freedom and individual liberties in the hands of a heathen people, a people who could not be trusted to "love thy neighbor", or in any way be constrained by any of the Lord`s Commandments, were ripe for misuse and abuse, resulting in chaos, and exactly the kind of lawlessness and mayhem we see today. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, depending on your political bent, the United States Constitution IS the law of the land, and the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have exactly zero conditions placed upon them. We do not have the freedom of expression and religious worship, "unless and except if government gives us the "ok"". We do not have the right to keep and bear arms, and have that right completely uninfringed, "unless a mob majority disagree, or government means to disarm us for our own good". When the Second Amendment says shall NOT be infringed, it means exactly that. And of course, we do not enjoy the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, "unless government has passed and enforces an unconstitutional law, that`s of course, for our own good". To be due process, it occurs BEFORE property is taken or someone is locked away, NOT before, while awaiting an overbearing, tyrannical government to then determine if there`s been a crime committed a law broken, or, someone is formally adjudicated. That is NOT how our Constitution works, yet, we`ve allowed these illegal, treasonous breaches of our Constitution to occur.

We are morally bankrupt as a nation, people and culture. The violence and bloodshed happening all around us is only one of the ways this is being played out before us. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution is still the Law of the land, and the so called "red-flag" laws are very, very CLEARLY a constitutional breach, and unacceptable, as are any and all of the other infringements liberals are proposing to foist upon us in the name of "protecting us".

Well, that's a great missive about Jesus and Adams, but you never explained why, "the so called "red-flag" laws are very, very CLEARLY a constitutional breach".

Because there is in fact due process, I don't see it as un-constitutional.

 

[Jaybird1980]

As long as his rights are not deprived and there is due process I have no problem unless it is used in a draconian manner.

It has to go before a judge and get approved.
Either beforehand or if an officer seizes the weapon/weapons I believe it has to go in front of a judge within 48hrs, the officer has to articulate his reasoning and those reasoning have to be legit.