• 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.

Carrying Army/Navy Pistol in Hand...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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!!!!!!
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
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!!!!!!
Props? For what?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Props? For what?

For getting out ahead of this issue. Breyer's argument falls when Kwik wins.

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,

Thundar
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
This isn't about kwik, it never was.
Nope, it's all about money.


2. Tennessee revokes Kwik's permit for following the law (ArmyNavy handgun in hand.)
The permit revocation had little to do with this. Totality of circumstances sir, totality of circumstances.

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.
There is no "right" to bear arms in TN. It is a state granted privilage...An easily revocable one.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
Nope, it's all about money.



The permit revocation had little to do with this. Totality of circumstances sir, totality of circumstances.


There is no "right" to bear arms in TN. It is a state granted privilage...An easily revocable one.


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.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
...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...

Thundar

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.
Sorry, it is all about Leonard - Leonard getting a payday through settlement of his nuisance lawsuits.

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/showthread.php?76359-Changing-local-ordinances.... What a novel concept...
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Nope, it's all about money.



The permit revocation had little to do with this. Totality of circumstances sir, totality of circumstances.


There is no "right" to bear arms in TN. It is a state granted privilage...An easily revocable one.

Actually that is now incorrect. It is a RIGHT as of yesterday. But you see you will only have use of that right as long as patriots like kwik assert that right.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Sorry, it is all about Leonard - Leonard getting a payday through settlement of his nuisance lawsuits.

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/showthread.php?76359-Changing-local-ordinances.... What a novel concept...

It seems Kwik is real good at that Russ. I suppose he put the words in Breyers hand as well?
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.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Actually that is now incorrect. It is a RIGHT as of yesterday. But you see you will only have use of that right as long as patriots like kwik assert that right.

Wow, awesome. I must have read the wrong decision. The one I read sent back a gun ban case (handguns in the home) to the lower court to be reconsidered. Can you link the correct one please? I missed the part where they addressed TN carry permits.


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.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
Actually that is now incorrect. It is a RIGHT as of yesterday. But you see you will only have use of that right as long as patriots like kwik assert that right.
What happened yesterday that changed Leonard's motivations, his planning, his history of behavior, his stated goals?
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
It seems Kwik is real good at that Russ.
Which "that" is he good at?
I suppose he put the words in Breyers hand as well?
Okaaaaay...
You don't like the methods of the activist, but look at the results. It is a very beautiful thing.
What results might that be?
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.
You interjected Leonard into the thread...
RussP - maybe you should do something FOR gun rights instead of bashing gun rights activists. Just a thought.
Thank you, I do my share promoting gun rights.
 
Last edited:

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
I went to the Tennessee Legislative history Library and copied a bunch of the old laws for everyone's enjoyment.

armynavylaw1869-18701.jpg

armynavylaw1869-18702.jpg

armynavylaw1869-18703.jpg
 
Last edited:

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
What happened yesterday that changed Leonard's motivations, his planning, his history of behavior, his stated goals?

The dissenting opinion in MacDonald v. Chicago cited the Tennesee law about carrying an army/navy pistol in the hand. Quite an ironic moment. Would be great to see Brennan's response if Kwik's case got to that level.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
The dissenting opinion in MacDonald v. Chicago cited the Tennesee law about carrying an army/navy pistol in the hand. Quite an ironic moment. Would be great to see Brennan's response if Kwik's case got to that level.
I believe this may be the part you reference...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
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”)
Page 205 of the pdf file...page 26 of the dissenting opinion.

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top