Wednesday, October 26, 2016

TN: Standing for Lawsuit to Protect Carry Rights Confirmed

The restoration of the right to bear arms continues in Tennessee.  Laws originally intended to keep slaves disarmed were altered after the Civil War, to keep freed slaves disarmed.  Those laws ran up against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and had to be altered to apply to everyone.  Except they didn't.  The authorities routinely used the law to disarm black people, but did not apply to laws to the vast majority of white people.

That started changing with the change in the power structure from the 1960's on. More and more places began applying the gun bans to most people. That enforcement change sparked a reform movement to restore carry rights.

By the late 1980's, the reform movement to restore carry rights had started sweeping the nation, with "shall issue" concealed carry laws, so that any non-felon could obtain a permit to carry.  The reforms often left a sprinkling of localized carry bans in place.  Gradually those bans are being removed.  In Tennessee, in 2015, the legislature removed the ability of local governments to enforce most of the local gun bans.

Liston Matthews has a good history of these reforms, and details on the current lawsuit.

In Knoxville, a local ban has persisted at Chilhowee park, where the state fair is held.  That ban is being challenged in court.  The challenge has just passed one of the first hurdles in striking down the ban.  The Court ruled that one of the plaintiffs has standing to proceed with the lawsuit. From
A lawsuit contesting the city of Knoxville's ban on guns at Chilhowee Park has withstood a challenge for dismissal and will live to face another hearing.

Knox County Chancellor John Weaver on Oct. 3 found merit in the city's argument that one of the two people who challenged the gun ban did not have standing to file the lawsuit. But Weaver ruled the second person involved in the action had standing.
This is how activists incrementally restore the right to bear arms.  It is happening all over the country.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

Has any one read the first amendment lately? If I remember right is says we have a right to redress of grievance. Law suits are a method to address grievances. How can any court say a sovereign citizen does not have standing to bring suit?

Anonymous said...

The carry advocacy movement is real and is succeeding, but like Obama's "change", it is important to ask and answer the question of "What does success actually entail?' The carry movement is being usurped and absorbed just like the Tea Party movement was - and being used for the same collectivist ends. Just as it was when "they" were busted and nailed to the wall for disarming Freedmen and the response was to "apply those laws to everyone" only to see the law selectively applied anyway, today we see carry rights organizations being tricked into solidifying the power of conning people into the idea that carry permits are a good thing, that they are the "right" way to adhere to the second amendment.

However, the real truth is that permits are just a rebranding, a re-labeling, of the same old tired violations of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Oh, they are a step forward alright, a step forward for government retaining and strengthening the power of permission.

On its face and in practice, carry (and owning) permit structures themselves are crystal clear violations of not only the second itself, but also the tenth and the fourteenth (and we can leave set aside for now other rights regarding privacy, takings and even silence). The FACT is that states can not make or enforce laws that abridge the rights of the people. Permit structures are themselves abridgments, they are roadblocks placed between the people and their rights. Period. There is no way to dispute this reality, there is no way to make it not true. It is indeed shameful to try to disregard this when championing the permit structures and the permission power needlessly conceded to state government in violation of the Constitution itself. It is especially shameful when supposed Second Amendment defenders advocate for rather than stand against those structures and their formation.

That might be harsh for some to hear, but the truth it is none the less. Either the Constitution means what it says - or it doesn't. Simply put, the Constitution says that states do not have the power of permission any more than the fed has permission power. This is a right of the people, left to the people themselves, aside form government as a matter of individual right, a privilege that carries with it immunity as well, immunity to government machination including claims on the power of permission. Either than holds, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then how can ANY of the rest of it hold? See, it MUST hold, or none of it will.

Anonymous said...

The second amendment is the power block incorporated in the constitution for the people to hold government at bay. How does government diminish that block , they ignore that specified limitation. the constitution was written to prevent government from increasing its power over what the people allow it to have. what it boils down to is the individual must defend their rights on an individual basis. when more people understand what their sovereign authority is they will band together as sovereign citizens and put a stop to government intrusions on our rights. The day is coming because of groups like the NRA that compromise their mission. in the name of working hard to make a difference. If the NRA and other so called gun rights croups would argue the basic concept of mandated shall not infringe and win the day, they would be out of business. No more free ride on our dime. Point in fact that I have stated before. the NRA backed a law passage in Arizona for the right of a woman to carry a loaded gun in her purse. Every one applauded their efforts. the problem here is that was written into the Arizona constitution at the time of state hood. an absolute waste of resources and time. Since Arizona became a state women have had the right to carry a loaded gun in their purse. it was not considered lady like for a woman to wear a gun belt and pants. in fact if you were convicted of a crime and had or owned a gun when you went to jail, that gun was returned to you when you got out of jail/prison at that time it was recognized that everyone had the right to self protection/self defense. Just because you get out of jail and start over does not mean you do not have enemies waiting for you. example Jesse James shot in the back of his head by someone he called a friend. the dirty little coward that shot mister Howard. it makes no difference who you are every person is entitled to self defense. very few people can prevent being shot in the back. but if they miss and you are armed they may have to realize their mistake. ever ask your self why so many people run for office? answer they get tired of working for a living. there has not been any patriots elected to office for many decades. it is almost always professional people that leave the rate race and live and get elected on other people money and they can go to a bribe party nearly every night. excuse me social function. where the lobbyists with bulging pockets are. I would like to have the concession on money carrying size envelops in DC.

Anonymous said...

Another related issue. have you ever understood why the fines imposed in court are what they are. I went to the trouble of filing a suit, I was made whole under the law when I won. I collected the money I was actually owed by careful documentation I collected about 7k$ the court collected 500k as a fine. where is my share of the fine I did all the work. why are some fines so much? because a percentage of the fine goes into the judicial officers retirement fund.

Dean Weingarten said...

10 states have gone from requiring permits to not requiring permits in the last 11 years.

We made zero progress toward Constitutional carry from 1925 to 1985. In that period, the statists completely took over the schools.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to look at the location of those state Dean, regarding which Circuits and Districts they are in. Here in Illinois, Constitutional Carry was won judicially, and then the NRA partnered with Democrats to destroy it and create a permission slip structure that did not exist. The NRA lobbyist openly argued AGAINST Constitutional Carry. It was quite pathetic.

What is happening is not advancement as it is being marketed. What is happening is the controllers playing prevent defense trying to avoid big plays - splits that would send the important questions right to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, legislators are playing as well, trying their best to cement the permission power at the state level. Permits marketed as these wonderful advancements. Unfortunately, this is just a con, intent upon fooling people into willingly conceding their inherent rights. It is sad to see so many people fooled so easily and such a shame to see supposedly "pro gun rights" groups support it going on. Truly a undeniable example of wolves in sheep's clothing.