• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OCer arrested in Smyrna TN

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
And how fortunate for his fellow Tennesseans that they have patriots like him who are willing to stand up for the Constitution and stand against tyranny as they are the true catalysts of change.

the bloke prob doesnt have a cent to his name, so pray tell, how is he going to stand up for or against anything?

sigh,

ipse
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Tenn Constitution:
Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
Tenn. law regulates both open and conceal carry. Until that is challenged nothing in Tenn. will change. However, has the Supreme Court of Tenn. ever addressed the issue? If not then it needs to be challenged. The constitution first recognizes your inalienable right to bear arms and then says the legislature can regulate the wearing of arms. The only way to legally balance the meaning of the constitution is to recognize that open carry is a right, allowing for the regulation of the concealing of arms to prevent crime.

The young man gets no sympathy from me.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...So instead of doing the RIGHT thing and show them his permit...

A permit is not a RIGHT thing. It's a PRIVILEGE thing.

I know, I played on your words of a different point, but I couldn't help it.

I do agree that it appears that TN's unconstitutional law requires proof of a permit to carry, even openly.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I have personally been told by a Lehi City police officer that "the only people who stand up for their Constitutional Rights are criminals". Very sad was I when I heard this!

Interesting how cops' attorneys are the loudest shouters about their clients' rights.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Pardon, but what part of seeing someone carrying a firearm when carrying a firearm with intent to armed doesn't look like a violation of the state law making going armed armed with a firearm a crime?

The law says carrying with intent to go armed is a crime. So how does carrying not look like one?

As for motor vehicle licensing, the way the law in TN is written is that merely observing someone driving Doesn't give reasonable suspicion, unlike seeing someone armed, which does.

I'm not sure why you're so eager to adopt this argument, which I guess is used across a number of states and is in my opinion an incredibly contrived and weak argument. TX law appears similar to TN law in this regard, and I am more than happy to refuse to produce LTC in TX if demanded for no other reason than OCing. There may be key differences between TN and TX law which might make arguing otherwise more difficult there, but even still, I would make whatever argument was reasonable and available as opposed to adopting the anti-liberty prosecution's argument and holding it as truth.

This guy cooked his own goose. Tenn law is clear, if you're asked to produce your license, you have to produce your license.

I don't like their law, but it's the law.

I haven't delved deeply into TN law but I believe this is debatable as hell. I've yet to see anything which indicates "violation" of the directive constitutes any actual offense. If there is nothing (if he can't be charged for the refusal itself), then even if you could successfully argue that the cop had PC for the arrest (PC despite the guy not actually committing the offense - the officer assumes he is in violation without evidence) that doesn't necessarily mean the guy can or will be charged with or convicted of anything.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when an officer might be considered to have PC when no crime is being committed and no harm to anyone done.

The argument that the prosecution uses to contrive PC in situations like this is absurd in my opinion, and indeed if their argument was logical the cops themselves would constantly be in apparent violation of the law themselves and would at practically all times have "PC" to arrest one another. There is not much consistency in their contrived logic, and it doesn't pass the common sense test.

ETA: Additionally, as appears to be the case in TX, if the police did have PC in this situation, and no responsibility to "rule out" exceptions, then they could indeed make an arrest without even asking for the permit in the first place! Again - there is no consistency in this contrived logic, nor does it pass the common sense test. The police having PC without ruling out the exception means the legislature utterly failed to convey their intent in the law, and it means that the law fails to accomplish enacting any permitted carry. My opinion is that prosecutors are attempting to create a responsibility on the OCer which does not actually exist, through manipulative interpretation of the statutes, to create PC which can be used as extortion to enforce the non-existent responsibility. It isn't that PC existing would create a responsibility to show a permit, it's that PC existing would create an excuse to use force if the citizen declines to do what the officer wants.
 
Last edited:

Turbod'1

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
A permit is not a RIGHT thing. It's a PRIVILEGE thing.

That we still have 'pocket knife' rules and 'nun chuck' rules, 'baton' rules (prohibited offensive weapons), etc., al ... I'm more curious to why the 2nd isn't so much applied to "Arms" in general. If it's a baseball bat in your back seat, used under attack, is somehow predictive of 'one looking for a fight'...

Where, when and how did the 2A become ONLY the Right to bear FIREARMS.

This is a serious question that I'd appreciate input on.

That I can legally carry a firearm... but I can't have an ASP baton or a blade bigger than this or that, and so on. :uhoh:
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
the bloke prob doesnt have a cent to his name, so pray tell, how is he going to stand up for or against anything?

sigh,

ipse

The incident could potentially be used to convince the legislature to clean up their mess.

One might say that is a long shot, but, I wouldn't rule it out.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Where, when and how did the 2A become ONLY the Right to bear FIREARMS.

This is a serious question that I'd appreciate input on...

A good question. Probably a good independent thread, in fact.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
That we still have 'pocket knife' rules and 'nun chuck' rules, 'baton' rules (prohibited offensive weapons), etc., al ... I'm more curious to why the 2nd isn't so much applied to "Arms" in general. If it's a baseball bat in your back seat, used under attack, is somehow predictive of 'one looking for a fight'...

Where, when and how did the 2A become ONLY the Right to bear FIREARMS.

This is a serious question that I'd appreciate input on.

That I can legally carry a firearm... but I can't have an ASP baton or a blade bigger than this or that, and so on. :uhoh:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

quote: Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.

Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing."


The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. unquote. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

a discussion of the forum's legal beagles might be interesting to follow.

ipse

added: black's law dictionary: This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154. http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

Law Dictionary: What is ARMS? definition of ARMS (Black's Law Dictionary)
 
Last edited:

TXOC16

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
111
Location
USA
the bloke prob doesnt have a cent to his name, so pray tell, how is he going to stand up for or against anything?

sigh,

ipse

He already has, but I'm not too surprised that you fail to see that. Sigh.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
He already has, but I'm not too surprised that you fail to see that. Sigh.

OH, GOODIE...this singular video has already changed the silly arse TN statutes...WOW...when did the governor sign the legislative statute?


the actor in the video was jailed, if a bored DA did nothing, the actor has a blotch on his record and just enjoyed the ride and comradeship w/nice LEs. no statutes changed!!


if this isn't the first incident, the DA might be wanting to make a point of the actor and prosecute...judge goes along and minimal fine or jail time. again, no statutes changed!!


so pray tell TXOC16, how has an actor, in a video, mouthing off to nice LE changed a bloody thing?


to quote a fellow member: quote:...but I'm not too surprised that you fail to see that. Sigh. unquote.

ipse
 
Last edited:

TXOC16

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
111
Location
USA
OH, GOODIE...this singular video has already changed the silly arse TN statutes...WOW...when did the governor sign the legislative statute?

I see, so unless every act of resistance to tyranny results in an immediate modification of statutes, it has accomplished nothing and has no value whatsoever. That's a pretty high bar you're setting there, "bloke."
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
That we still have 'pocket knife' rules and 'nun chuck' rules, 'baton' rules (prohibited offensive weapons), etc., al ... I'm more curious to why the 2nd isn't so much applied to "Arms" in general. If it's a baseball bat in your back seat, used under attack, is somehow predictive of 'one looking for a fight'...

Where, when and how did the 2A become ONLY the Right to bear FIREARMS.

This is a serious question that I'd appreciate input on.

That I can legally carry a firearm... but I can't have an ASP baton or a blade bigger than this or that, and so on. :uhoh:

I'd be interested in knowing that as well. It is State specific legislative history, I'm sure. But it would be interesting to know that history. I wonder if the specific call outs for various weapons were part of Jim Crow laws to disarm freed slaves. In "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" Cramer points to an old statute that banned slaves from owning dogs or even owning lead weights (too easy to convert to bullets, I suspect).

FWIW, in Utah, our "Concealed Carry Permit" is really just a "Carry Permit" that allows carrying fully loaded firearms (open or concealed) and most any other concealed weapon legally, including into schools. Full auto and short barreled long guns are not covered by the permit. But most everything else considered a "concealed weapon" is covered.

I don't think this was by design nearly so much as just an artifact of how our concealed weapons laws were written and the most direct path to having the permit enable lawful concealed carry of a loaded firearm. So far as I know, we've never had a ban on knives (or switchblades), swords, martial arts weapons, etc. Just a ban on carrying concealed weapons. The permit exempts one from that ban.

Obviously, anyone trusted to carry a loaded gun in public ought to be trusted to carry a baton, knife, stun gun, or other defensive weapon if he chooses. We do have a lot of work left to do on RKBA, in every State. But I remain optimistic since we've made as much progress as we have in the last 30 years.

Best regards.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I see, so unless every act of resistance to tyranny results in an immediate modification of statutes, it has accomplished nothing and has no value whatsoever. That's a pretty high bar you're setting there, "bloke."

hummm...
pray tell how well did the videos of those Texans work who were carrying LGs for 'the cause' except to cause a ripple effect across the country where numerous commercial entities publicly stated firearms are not welcome? oh ya...and how is the profit center permit needed to OC working out?

pray tell how the hundreds of videos of firearm carrying citizens and their police encounters work to save the lives of numerous of other gun carriers, two immediately come to mind.

pray tell TXOC16, after you do your homework/research, tell me the path ~ including timeframes, legal fees, punishments served, judicial waits, etc., involved, where a singular video has changed something!

i'll wait...

better yet...tell me, what THIS individual changed from his short lived, 3min claim to fame, got out of defying the NICE LEs when he refused to proffer his ID as mandated by statute.

i'll wait, yet again...

ipse
 

TXOC16

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
111
Location
USA
better yet...tell me, what THIS individual changed from his short lived, 3min claim to fame, got out of defying the NICE LEs when he refused to proffer his ID as mandated by statute?

Well, he obviously got this discussion started, which has you worked up into another of your frothing lathers. That has to have some value, doesn't it?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Well, he obviously got this discussion started, which has you worked up into another of your frothing lathers. That has to have some value, doesn't it?

roflmao...as i presumed...you got nuthn'

sad part you have shown more about your character than you might have wished ..

ipse
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Pardon, but what part of seeing someone driving a motor vehicle when driving said vehicle without a license doesn't look like a violation of state law makes driving said vehicle with a license a crime?
A good question and it shows you're paying attention.
The answer is that in Tennessee it's not a crime to operate a vehicle and that having a license is a defense. The way the law reads is that one must have a license to legally operate a vehicle on roads. To have RAS one would have to reasonably suspect that a person was unlicensed (being obviously under-aged, waving a white cane out the window, would both be perfect reasons to detain a motorist on mere sight of one driving.) Absent that, a motorist must be assumed to be licensed as there is no indication that he does not possess a license.


The firearms law, on the other hand, makes it an illegal act to go about with the intent to be armed and an officer's knowledge that someone is armed presents a reasonable suspicion that someone is performing the aforementioned illegal act. At that point it is up to the citizen to present an affirmative defense. (The citizen doesn't have to of course, but it's not up to the officer to investigate every exception when he already has PC.



To reduce it no near absurdity - -
Carrying firearm is illegal
Officer having knowledge of firearm gives RAS of illegal act unless the citizen has a defense against the charge.

Driving without a license is illegal
Officer cannot suspect by mere sight, smell, hearing, touch, or taste that a driver does not have a license, so no RAS is present.
 
Last edited:
Top