Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Tennessee Passes Anti-Gun Confiscation Law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    Proposal Stopping Confiscation of Guns Now Law


    http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88416&provider=rss

    A person who legally possesses a gun would not have it seized during periods of martial rule under a proposal that has been signed into law by the governor.

    The measure was signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen on Thursday and takes effect immediately.

    Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

    Republican Sen. Jack Johnson of Brentwood, one of the sponsors, has said he doesn't expect such behavior in Tennessee, but believes legislation should be in place just in case.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    YES!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Thumbs Up

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Thumbs Up

  5. #5
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Two Thumbs Up

  6. #6
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    <snobby voice> That my good sir was quite obviously seven thumbs up. Hmpf!</snobby voice>



    :P

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    With the socialists firmly in control at the federal level, we need to focus on the states while they still have sovereignty. Getting this to become a 50 state "law of the land" would give us some important insulation against this ever happening again.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Here's to King Obama....... :P

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Once again, our governor, even though he's a Democrat, has proved to be a stand-up guy. Thank you, sir.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the department of redundancy department. We have a document that gaurantees us the right to keep our arms. The Constitution. Martial law can not trump the Constitution.This new initiativeonly proves how far into the abyss we have gone as a nation.

    Ray Nagin, the New Orleans police chief, National Guard, and every state trooper and law enforcement from other states should have been disciplined and or put on trial.



    I don't know if Tennessee has the right to keep and bare arms in the state's constitution, but if not that should be a priority.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  11. #11
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Let's set the record straight once and for all.
    During the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, governor Kathleen "Babbling" Blank-O did not declare martial rule/law or anything of the sort.
    The gun confiscation which took place was nothing short of outright felonious theft/assault.
    Under Louisiana "law," there is NOTHING which excuses what happened. Has anyone been CRIMINALLY prosecuted?
    No one.
    Right. Government does what it wants, and tells people they can go to court to get their guns back, as in the New Orleans case. If they don't like it, you can go to this prison camp, or get shot.

    How does this new Tennessee law prevent confiscation when there is no punishment provided for the law breakers to begin with? Do we really think FEMA gives a crap about state law during martial law?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Stateman wrote:
    How does this new Tennessee law prevent confiscation when there is no punishment provided for the law breakers to begin with? Do we really think FEMA gives a crap about state law during martial law?
    I'm not sure, but I think Tn Statutes provide for the use of deadly force to protect life AND PROPERTY. If so, any attempt to confiscate firearms under martial law/rule would be an act of thievery of property. I assume that that means violators will be shot on the spot. There's your punishment for violating the "NO Confiscation Act".

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Stateman wrote:
    How does this new Tennessee law prevent confiscation when there is no punishment provided for the law breakers to begin with? Do we really think FEMA gives a crap about state law during martial law?
    I'm not sure, but I think Tn Statutes provide for the use of deadly force to protect life AND PROPERTY. If so, any attempt to confiscate firearms under martial law/rule would be an act of thievery of property. I assume that that means violators will be shot on the spot. There's your punishment for violating the "NO Confiscation Act".
    I doubt any court today would hold up such use of force, unless it is specifically written into the new confiscation law. I'd rather see a provision for 10 year prison sentence for anyone involved in confiscation.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    One bright spot in New Orleans was when a group of out-of-state and/or military thugs encountered an armed citizen's patrol.
    As one of the citizens commented afterward, "they left us alone because we had bigger guns."
    Well said.
    Mark, do you have documentation of this? I would love to read about this encounter.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    I haven't read the Tennessee law, but I like the one Utah passed last year:

    63K-4-405. Prohibition of restrictions on and confiscation of a firearm or ammunition during an emergency.
    (1) As used in this section:
    (a)
    (i) "Confiscate" means for an individual in Utah to intentionally deprive another of a privately owned firearm.
    (ii) "Confiscate" does not include the taking of a firearm from an individual:
    (A) in self-defense;
    (B) possessing a firearm while the individual is committing a felony or misdemeanor; or
    (C) who may not, under state or federal law, possess the firearm.
    (b) "Firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9).
    (2) During a declared state of emergency or local emergency under this chapter:
    (a) neither the governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision of the state may impose restrictions, which were not in force prior to the declared state of emergency, on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of a firearm or ammunition; and
    (b) an individual, while acting or purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political subdivision of the state, may not confiscate a privately owned firearm of another individual.
    (3) A law or regulation passed during a declared state of emergency that does not relate specifically to the lawful possession or use of a firearm and that has attached criminal penalties may not be used to justify the confiscation of a firearm from an individual acting in defense of self, property, or others when on:
    (a) the individual's private property; or
    (b) the private property of another as an invitee.
    (4)
    (a) An individual who has a firearm confiscated in violation of Subsection (2) may bring a civil action in a court having the appropriate jurisdiction:
    (i) for damages, in the maximum amount of $10,000, against a person who violates Subsection (2);
    (ii) for a civil penalty, in the amount of $5,000 per violation, against a person who violates Subsection (2); and
    (iii) for return of the confiscated firearm.
    (b) As used in this Subsection (4), "person" means an individual, the governmental entity on whose behalf the individual is acting or purporting to act, or both the individual and the governmental entity.
    (5)
    (a) A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to confiscate a firearm under this section if:
    (i) ordered or directed to do so by a superior officer; and
    (ii) by obeying the order or direction, the law enforcement officer would be committing a violation of this section.
    (b) For purposes of this Subsection (5), disciplinary action might include:
    (i) dismissal, suspension, or demotion;
    (ii) loss of or decrease in benefits, pay, privileges or conditions of employment; and
    (iii) any type of written or electronic indication, permanent or temporary, on the officer's personnel record of the officer's refusal to obey the unlawful order.
    (6)
    (a) If a law enforcement officer commits a violation of this section, the officer's liability in an action brought under Subsection (4)(a) is limited to 5% of the damages and civil penalty allowed under Subsection (4)(a) if the officer can show by clear and convincing evidence that the officer was obeying a direct and unlawful order from a superior officer or authority.
    (b) The balance of the damages and civil penalty, the remaining 95%, shall be assessed against the superior officer or authority who ordered or directed the confiscation in violation of this section.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •