Belle Meade Open Carry-Kwikrnu Drama

imported post

Please indulge me here.

Can someone learned in the law please explain "in hand". I simply cannot believe that it means what it seems to say. It is simply not credible that authorities at any point in our history intended to mandate the carrying of a sidearm literally in the hand.

What could possibly be the purpose? Under what circumstances could this ever be considered necessary or sensible?

How, for instance, could one be expected to perform any task if his weapon must remain in his hand? Whatever the drafters were thinking it could not have been this.

Considerations of safety aside, a position such as this is indefensible by any stretch of logic or reason. This needs to be dissected coldly. The literal reading has to be wrong!

imported post

old dog wrote:

Please indulge me here.

Can someone learned in the law please explain "in hand". I simply cannot believe that it means what it seems to say. It is simply not credible that authorities at any point in our history intended to mandate the carrying of a sidearm literally in the hand.

What could possibly be the purpose? Under what circumstances could this ever be considered necessary or sensible?

How, for instance, could one be expected to perform any task if his weapon must remain in his hand? Whatever the drafters were thinking it could not have been this.

Considerations of safety aside, a position such as this is indefensible by any stretch of logic or reason. This needs to be dissected coldly. The literal reading has to be wrong!

Click to expand...

I have previously explained. In 1870's Tennessee they wanted an easy way to identify armed people. Open carry in the hand was the standard and people who did not open carry in the hand were prosecuted. Look up Andrews v State and you'll see what I am talking about. In 1989 Tn did away with the State law, but many cities have kept the law and the TN Legislature does not preempt these pre April 8, 1986 ordinances.

imported post

Few things in this life are sadder than a nonlawyer expounding on nuances of law and precedent.

Has this ever been adjudicated at any level? Has it ever been written about in any competent professional journal? Has any law school review ever published on it? Is it ever a lecture topic?

With all due respect laymen, however intelligent, do not know law. It takes more than being able to read.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Not even as a joke or sarcasm is this funny.

Don't even pretend to be the enemy within to force an opinion. :X

P.S. - You edit the above out and I will also.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

If the commentary or assaults absolutely mirror, and wholly reflect the ideology of the antis, why wouldn't I? Chances are, they are seeing this commentary and adding it to their files anyways.

People need to think. It's really not that hard!

Some are offering their stern viewpoints, and some are literally demonizing and vilifying kwik with no basis whatsoever.

I can't stand for that. Edit what you like. Report what ya like. I will do the same.

Ignorance is starting to breed ignorance.

imported post

OldDog,

You are right on the money. That is what makes 'the law' so complicated and why lawyers go to college 4 years and another 3 for law school and take the bar exam. It is definately more than just reading a statute. Law is written by lawyers to give other lawyers business. It's kind of like would I self diagnose illnesses? Of course not. I go to the doctor.

Right or wrong, some of Tennessee's weapons laws (like my home state of Arkansas)are gray and require the interpretation of a lawyer (although it is very clear you may carry statewide with a permit).KWIK'smistakehas been misinterpreting a city ordinance and old state law and thinking it FORCES him to openly carry an army or navypistol loaded in certainmunicipalities in Tennessee.This mistake will cost time and money and be a big hassle.

Yes, in days gone by Arkansas and Tennesseehad this law on the books asSTATE LAWS. Some towns still have this bygone state law mirrored in their ordinances. Arkansas did away with the Army and Navy Gun carrying openly in thehand deal in the late 1970's and Tennessee did in the late 1980's. I have asked family in both states if ANYONE did this..and gotten affirmative NO's. People generally concealed (we're talking before permits with this army/navy gunin the hand on the books)in town and the cops knew it and even encouraged it...prosecutors and judges. No one cared.Yeah, it mayhave been 'illegal' to carry a weapon in Arkansas or with 'intent to go armed' in TN, but none of my family had problems doing it. You have to understand that the law was not enforced and never intended to be enforced against non trouble makers when it was put on the books in the late 1800's...and never was up until permits became common. Kind of screwy but that's just the way it was in Arkansas and Tennessee....you kept your nose clean and you wanted to carry a gun....sure go ahead.....but cause trouble you got your gun taken and get fined. That's more free than today where people are having to pay money to carry a gun...I'd rather have it like the old timers could carry but were technically 'illegal'.

imported post

razorback2003 wrote:

...You have to understand that the law was not enforced and never intended to be enforced against non trouble makers when it was put on the books in the late 1800's...and never was up until permits became common. Kind of screwy but that's just the way it was in Arkansas and Tennessee....you kept your nose clean and you wanted to carry a gun....sure go ahead.....but cause trouble you got your gun taken and get fined. That's more free than today where people are having to pay money to carry a gun...I'd rather have it like the old timers could carry but were technically 'illegal'.

Click to expand...

WOW.

So you would like law enforcement to be able to ignore laws when they feel it is acceptable, but apply them to people they do not like, or approve the actions of (i.e. "Troublemaker")?

Holy crap dude.....are you serious?

:banghead:

imported post

Weapons charges until recently were used as add on offenses in both states. 1950 you did not have a guy minding his own business carrying a 38 under his jacket who happened to be stopped in Little Rock for speeding get a weapons charge......UNLESS he was possibly drunk, a criminal, felon, wanted, hauling drugs...something of that nature. You also have to understand how the law is written in say Arkansas and Tennessee....in Arkansas in say 1950 you had to be carrying a handgun as a weapon to be breaking the law....but what does that exactly mean...it has never been defined in the statutes....thus lots of latitude given for enforcement...and why it was used as an ad on. Tennessee...same thing...what does 'intent to go armed mean'.......that can mean different things to didfferent people...thus giving enforcement wide latitude...same as Arkansas....this is why most ordinary people in the past thought nothing of strapping on a gun and carrying because they didn't get in trouble for it. Theydidn't have to pay money to the govt, get fingerprinted, and carried where they wanted to...there was no such thing as gun free schools or gun free areas....that's a lot more free than today with these dumb licenses and permits from the govt.

imported post

If I am wrong on Belle Meade law please tell me how:

1. proper interpretation of Belle Meade ordinance 11-602 as it relates to the army navy pistol it being carried openly in the hand.

2. proper interpretation of TCA 39-17-1314(a). Is state law preempted by any firearms regulationlaw enforced before April 8, 1986?



I want some legal reasoning behind it not just a yes or no.

I have provided one legal opinion from a city in the county where belle meade is located that supports my position on TCA 39-17-1314(a).

I have provided case law for the army navy open carry in the hand law.

imported post

razorback2003 wrote:

Weapons charges until recently were used as add on offenses in both states. 1950 you did not have a guy minding his own business carrying a 38 under his jacket who happened to be stopped in Little Rock for speeding get a weapons charge......UNLESS he was possibly drunk, a criminal, felon, wanted, hauling drugs...something of that nature. You also have to understand how the law is written in say Arkansas and Tennessee....in Arkansas in say 1950 you had to be carrying a handgun as a weapon to be breaking the law....but what does that exactly mean...it has never been defined in the statutes....thus lots of latitude given for enforcement...and why it was used as an ad on. Tennessee...same thing...what does 'intent to go armed mean'.......that can mean different things to didfferent people...thus giving enforcement wide latitude...same as Arkansas....this is why most ordinary people in the past thought nothing of strapping on a gun and carrying because they didn't get in trouble for it. Theydidn't have to pay money to the govt, get fingerprinted, and carried where they wanted to...there was no such thing as gun free schools or gun free areas....that's a lot more free than today with these dumb licenses and permits from the govt.

Click to expand...

So you are for ominous interpretation of the law by law enforcement officers to use as they see fit?

That is entirely what I am getting from your statement here...

Is that correct?

imported post

Leotard,

Get over it. You're an idiot and attracting negative attention towards everyone in this state that has worked hard to keep a clean slate. You wonder why its "so hard" to get things changed.

You rant and rave like a two year old who just had a sucker taken from them. Find something else to do on your spare time. Or heck, join your wife again in filming buses.

Either way, you're a joke.

imported post

Spanky wrote:

Leotard,

Get over it. You're an idiot and attracting negative attention towards everyone in this state that has worked hard to keep a clean slate. You wonder why its "so hard" to get things changed.

You rant and rave like a two year old who just had a sucker taken from them. Find something else to do on your spare time. Or heck, join your wife again in filming buses.

Either way, you're a joke.

Click to expand...

Personal Insult directed towards other party scoreboard:

Leonard - 0
Spanky - 10

imported post

Are you sure I'm only at 10? I figured it was at least 12.:celebrate

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

razorback2003 wrote:

Weapons charges until recently were used as add on offenses in both states. 1950 you did not have a guy minding his own business carrying a 38 under his jacket who happened to be stopped in Little Rock for speeding get a weapons charge......UNLESS he was possibly drunk, a criminal, felon, wanted, hauling drugs...something of that nature. You also have to understand how the law is written in say Arkansas and Tennessee....in Arkansas in say 1950 you had to be carrying a handgun as a weapon to be breaking the law....but what does that exactly mean...it has never been defined in the statutes....thus lots of latitude given for enforcement...and why it was used as an ad on. Tennessee...same thing...what does 'intent to go armed mean'.......that can mean different things to didfferent people...thus giving enforcement wide latitude...same as Arkansas....this is why most ordinary people in the past thought nothing of strapping on a gun and carrying because they didn't get in trouble for it. Theydidn't have to pay money to the govt, get fingerprinted, and carried where they wanted to...there was no such thing as gun free schools or gun free areas....that's a lot more free than today with these dumb licenses and permits from the govt.

Click to expand...

So you are for ominous interpretation of the law by law enforcement officers to use as they see fit?

That is entirely what I am getting from your statement here...

Is that correct?

Click to expand...

It reminds me of many people who often give the advice "concealed is concealed." Yes, concealed is concealed, but concealed and carrying contrary to law is illegal.

imported post

So, what was the outcome of the town meeting, or whatever you call it in TN?

imported post

I went down there yesterday and the lady who I spoke with said the vote was defered until April 21st.

imported post

If they substantially modify this Blue Law, as New Englanders know it, by materially changing a key tenet, it would seem that they lose the grandfathered aspect under state preemption. If that is the case, the whole local ordinance is rendered moot and this hick town falls under TN statutes only. Or am I missing something here? The outcome you want is exactly this: OC/CC then is under the much more liberal state law and you can OC anyway you choose.

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

AND THE DRAMA CONTINUES......

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/03/16/belle-meade-to-outlaw-carrying-handguns/

On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits.

Not only does this legislation create a victim zone inside Belle Meade by disarming law-abiding citizens, it is also a clear violation of Tennessee’s preemption statutes.

The Board of Commissioners will meet at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday at the Belle Meade City Hall located at 4705 Harding Road.



Talk about adding to the anti-fire......I wonder why they came up with that proposed bill?

Click to expand...

He can't create a new ordinance. That violates TN state preemption. Per my previous post, I also don't think they can substantially change the existing Jim Crow law without rendering it moot.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1314(a) prohibits a local government from occupying “any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof.” The statute is prospective only; by its terms, it does not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986.

In 1999, the Tennessee General Assembly amended section 39-17-1314 to reserve to the state the exclusive "authority to bring suit and right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer by or on behalf of any" state entity or local government for damages, abatement or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition unless based on a breach of contract or warranty in connection with firearms purchased by that entity. Section 39-17-1314(c)(1), (2). See the Tennessee Immunity Statutes/Manufacturer Litigation section for further information on the immunity provisions in section 39-17-1314.

Local governments may prohibit the possession of weapons, including possession by any person with a Tennessee handgun carry permit, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, managed or under the control of the government entity. Section 39-17-1359(a). See the Tennessee Carrying Firearms section, Concealed Weapons Licensing Requirements subsection, for further information.

While there are no cases construing the provisions of sections 39-17-1314 or 39-17-1359, the Tennessee Attorney General has addressed whether local governments may prohibit the possession of handguns or long guns on publicly-owned property. 2004 Tenn. AG LEXIS 20; Opinion No. 04-020 (February 9, 2004). Reviewing the provisions of both Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 39-17-1314(a) and 39-17-1359, the Attorney General opined that although section 39-17-1314(a) precludes local government entities from regulating firearm possession, localities do have the authority to regulate the possession of firearms – both handguns and long guns – on property owned or controlled by the local government per section 39-17-1359. Opinion No. 04-020, at *1-*2, *6.

Please see the Preemption section of the Master List of Firearms Policies for a general discussion of this issue, as well as the Federal Preemption section of the Federal Law Summary page.

imported post

Spanky wrote:

Leotard,

Get over it. You're an idiot and attracting negative attention towards everyone in this state that has worked hard to keep a clean slate. You wonder why its "so hard" to get things changed.

You rant and rave like a two year old who just had a sucker taken from them. Find something else to do on your spare time. Or heck, join your wife again in filming buses.

Either way, you're a joke.

Click to expand...

Can this troll be banned yet for all the personal insults?

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Spanky wrote:

Leotard,

Get over it. You're an idiot and attracting negative attention towards everyone in this state that has worked hard to keep a clean slate. You wonder why its "so hard" to get things changed.

You rant and rave like a two year old who just had a sucker taken from them. Find something else to do on your spare time. Or heck, join your wife again in filming buses.

Either way, you're a joke.

Click to expand...

Can this troll be banned yet for all the personal insults?

Click to expand...

Possibly. Bring it to the attention of Mike and jpierce.


Looks like it was possible. :celebrate

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Spanky wrote:

Leotard,

Get over it. You're an idiot and attracting negative attention towards everyone in this state that has worked hard to keep a clean slate. You wonder why its "so hard" to get things changed.

You rant and rave like a two year old who just had a sucker taken from them. Find something else to do on your spare time. Or heck, join your wife again in filming buses.

Either way, you're a joke.

Click to expand...

Can this troll be banned yet for all the personal insults?

Click to expand...

That would be kind of hypocritical wouldn't it? Aren't you the same person who wrote : "Idiot Letter to Editor in Tennessean"? Just sayin...