Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: What does equal protection mean for the 2A?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    What does equal protection mean for the 2A?

    We all know what happened in McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd to states via the equal protection clause, not the P&I clause.

    Alan Gura has some pretty good cases to develop the scrutiny level for equal protection, including the standard for issuing permits in Md and the predicted snow storm gun ban in North Carolina.

    These cases will be fun to watch, but there are many other areas which should be litigated.

    One of the most interesting is the CLEO sign off needed to purchase an AOW. Federal law requires a discretionary action by local police. IMHO we need to search for the right set of circumstances to show that there is not equal protection.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We all know what happened in McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd to states via the equal protection clause, not the P&I clause.
    Just a quick correction. In McDonald, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment via the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment NOT via Equal Protection.


    John

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We all know what happened in McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd to states via the equal protection clause, not the P&I clause.

    Alan Gura has some pretty good cases to develop the scrutiny level for equal protection, including the standard for issuing permits in Md and the predicted snow storm gun ban in North Carolina.

    These cases will be fun to watch, but there are many other areas which should be litigated.

    One of the most interesting is the CLEO sign off needed to purchase an AOW. Federal law requires a discretionary action by local police. IMHO we need to search for the right set of circumstances to show that there is not equal protection.
    I bought a title II weapon. The Sheriff failed to properly execute the form. I sent it in anyway. The ATF denied my application.

    There is nothing in Federal law which seems to require a Sheriff or CLEO to sign. We have the Tenth Amendment and a State could require a Sheriff or CLEO to sign. Tennessee has a law requiring CLEO's to sign BATFE NFA paperwork.

    PUBLIC ACTS, 2003 1
    CHAPTER NO. 275
    SENATE BILL NO. 1658
    By Norris, Curtis S. Person, Jr.
    Substituted for: House Bill No. 1624
    By West, Phillip Johnson, Crider, Black, Lynn, Eldridge, Todd, Kent, Hargett, Sargent,
    Montgomery, McDonald, Coleman, Litz, Bittle, Sharp, Vincent, Wood, Clem, Stanley,
    Bone, Harmon, Cobb
    AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, relative to weapons.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
    SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by
    adding a new section thereto:
    § 39-17-1361. The sheriff or chief of police of the city of residence of a person
    purchasing any firearm, defined by the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845 et seq.,
    shall execute within fifteen (15) business days of any request all documents required to
    be submitted by the purchaser if the purchaser is not prohibited from possessing
    firearms pursuant to § 39-17-1316.

    SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2003, the public welfare requiring it.
    PASSED: May 21, 2003





  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956


    I sent the following letter to both my local DA and the AG on May 19, 2010.

    District Attorney General
    Kim Helper
    P.O. Box 937
    Franklin TN 37065-0937
    615-794-7275
    615-794-7299

    RE: Williamson County TN sheriff malfeasance ouster

    Dear Sirs,
    On February 9, 2010 I delivered a National Firearms Act document, ATF form 4, to the Williamson County Sheriff’s department for Sheriff Jeff Long to sign. According to TCA 39-17-1361 the sheriff shall execute the document in 15 business days if the purchaser is not prohibited from purchasing firearms pursuant to TCA 39-17-1316. On March 2, 2010 I was informed by phone call that the document was ready to be picked up. The document was altered by sheriff Long by crossing out wordage on the document and then signed. My request was that the sheriff execute the National Firearms Act document, not an altered version. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives denied my application due to sheriff Long on May 17, 2010. I am a good lawful citizen and there is no reason the document should not have been signed. The execution of these NFA documents is a duty set forth to the Sheriff by the Tennessee legislature in TCA 39-17-1361. In 2003 Public chapter 275 passed 91-0. It is the will and intent of the legislature and Governor of the State of Tennessee that the law be obeyed.
    The Tennessee Legislature has empowered the District Attorney General under TCA 8-47-103 to investigate any malfeasance by public officers of the State. TCA 8-47-101 states that a public official who knowingly or willfully neglects to perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by the law of the State shall be ousted from office. TCA 39-17-1361 is clear and unambiguous. The sheriff shall sign, upon request, all documents submitted by the purchaser of a NFA firearm within 15 business days.
    August 7,2000 the Attorney General issued opinion 00-126. This opinion states it is the duty of the Attorney General to investigate written complaints of violations of TCA 8-47-101. “Ouster actions are governed by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-47-101, et seq. An ouster action may be brought by the Attorney General and Reporter, District Attorney General, county attorney, or city attorney within their respective jurisdictions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-47-102. These officers must investigate any written complaint that an officer is guilty of the acts justifying ouster. Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-47-103.”
    I humbly request that the District Attorney investigate Jeff Long, the Sheriff of Williamson County Tennessee, for his willful neglect of duty as required by TCA 39-17-1361.



    The sheriff signed my form, but crossed out some lines. The ATF denied based upon the crossed out lines.

    In Lomont v ONeil the feds cannot tell a sheriff or CLEO what to do. The States frequently tell their Sheriffs what they must do.


    Anyway, the State AG is investigating my Sheriff for failure to perform his duty. The remedy for failure to perform your duty in Tennessee is an ouster action, required by tca 8-47-101 and 103.


    I have emails back and forth from the Department of safety and law enforcement talking about me and this title I weapon request and my handgun permit. I think the application for the suppressor (silencer, can) is partially what led to the illegal suspension of my handgun carry permit.

    The application for the weapon and the tax would probably be constitutional. I don't think locals should decide if certain wepons should be legal in their jurisdiction. I don't like the fact that sheriffs and others who are able to sign the forms can make up their rules. There should be set standards and not an arbitrary process. Something similar to the 4473 (I'm not saying I agree with all the prohibitions on the 4473).
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 08-08-2010 at 07:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We all know what happened in McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd to states via the equal protection clause, not the P&I clause...
    Thundar, does John's post change your position?
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    Just a quick correction. In McDonald, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment via the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment NOT via Equal Protection.


    John
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  6. #6
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    ...The sheriff signed my form, but crossed out some lines. The ATF denied based upon the crossed out lines...
    Have you asked the Sheriff directly by any communication method, have you asked anyone, what facts he has that caused him to write, "I cannot in good conscience certify I have no information indicating that this particular transferee will use the device for other than lawful purposes"?
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

Posting Permissions

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