Breyer in his dissenting opinion in MacDonald v. Chicago quotes 1879 Tenn Public Acts ch 186 section 1, uses this as an example of reasonable post 14th A ban, which banned carying, except the army/navy pistol in the hand.
I wonder if he even cares that this was a Jim Crow law?
Props to you KWIK, you were spot on with the Belle Meade thing!!!!!!
This isn't about kwik, it never was. It is about the absurdity of some gun laws and Kwik's willingness to demonstrate that absurdity.
It is now a very big issue because the dissenting opinion in MacDonald used it.
If you fail to see the ramifications, of Kwiks gun in hand - hand gun, then perhaps a review is necessary.
1. Kwik follows law and carries Army-Navy handgun in hand in Belle Meade, Tn.
2. Tennessee revokes Kwik's permit for following the law (ArmyNavy handgun in hand.)
3. Supreme Court dissenting opinion cites Tenn. Army NAvy handgun in hand as an example of a reasonable state law at time of 14A.
You see, even when the anti gun judge uses a Jim Crow law to justify the regulation (dispicable though it is), it backfires on them, as Kwik follows that law and has his right to bear arms removed by the state. That, my friends, is irony.
Again Mega props to you Kwik.
Live Free or Die,
The right to bear arms is a civil right and always has been. The problem is it is not recognized as such. This is why I have a lawsuit challeging the constitutionality of my permit being revoked being reviewed as I type. I sued the State Attorney General and the Department of Safety last Month.
My permit revokation had everything to do with retaliation, official oppression, official misconduct, ethics violations, and violations of my Federal and State civil rights. It had nothing to do with breaking any law.
He went looking for trouble. He went looking for confrontations with law enforcement. It is well documented by his own words.
There is an interesting thread in the Michigan Forum about getting illegal local ordinances changed before an incident occurs... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...cal-ordinances.... What a novel concept...
You don't like the methods of the activist, but look at the results. It is a very beautiful thing.
This thread was about the mention in the SCOTUS opinions of Army/NAVY revolvers carried in the hand in Tennessee. You turn it into Kwik bashing. Quite a shame. It won't be long before we have another locked thread, though I am interested to see how that will work with the new provider.
RussP - maybe you should do something FOR gun rights instead of bashing gun rights activists. Just a thought.
YIPPEEE No more gun laws in TN...Everyone shred your permits (well, those that still have them anyway)...WOOHOO
You do realize that the Kwik cases will have no impact on anything as he will take the first settlement offered right? None of his self caused "civil rights" cases will go anywhere.
Okaaaaay...I suppose he put the words in Breyers hand as well?What results might that be?You don't like the methods of the activist, but look at the results. It is a very beautiful thing.You interjected Leonard into the thread...This thread was about the mention in the SCOTUS opinions of Army/NAVY revolvers carried in the hand in Tennessee. You turn it into Kwik bashing. Quite a shame. It won't be long before we have another locked thread, though I am interested to see how that will work with the new provider.Thank you, I do my share promoting gun rights.RussP - maybe you should do something FOR gun rights instead of bashing gun rights activists. Just a thought.
Last edited by RussP; 06-29-2010 at 01:30 PM.
I went to the Tennessee Legislative history Library and copied a bunch of the old laws for everyone's enjoyment.
Last edited by kwikrnu; 06-29-2010 at 02:41 PM.
I'd also like to point out that at the time the Second Amendment was thought to apply to the Federal Government and not the States. Therefore, Tennessee changed its Constitution to add that the Legislature could regulate with a view to prevent crime. These words are absent the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment also declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now that the Second Amendment is incorporated is the Tennessee Constitution relating to firearms valid? It seems to me it is more restrictive than the Second Amendment.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdfPage 205 of the pdf file...page 26 of the dissenting opinion.Moreover, four States largely banned the possession of all nonmilitary handguns during this period. See 1879 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 186, §1 (prohibiting citizens from carrying “publicly or privately, any . . . belt or pocket pistol, revolver, or any kind of pistol, except the army or navy pistol, usually used in warfare, which shall be car-ried openly in the hand”)
There is an interesting part here, "...the army or navy pistol, usually used in warfare..." Now, at the time of the writting in the law, that would have been the cap & ball revolver, the firearm usually used in warfare. Is that still the pistol usually used in warfare by the army or navy? Isn't that the Beretta M9, or a Sig? To comply with the law, would one not be required to carry the comparable modern pistol used in warfare. Was Leonard actually violating the law by carrying an antique replica?
How exactly does taking the first settlement offered and agreeing to no fault admission make Kwik a 2A hero? It will just make him a little money (which is all he was after from the start.)
Now, what does this all have to do with the carrying of a PROPERLY HOLSTERED handgun in DAILY LIFE? (See forum rules)