Procarryguy
Banned
Sorry I'm afraid that doesn't even work in the same context. What else do you have? Do you have a rebuttal that's more in line with the rest of the conversation?
-
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.
-
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.
Belle Meade votes to amend city ordinance 11-602 by deleting it proposed ord. 2010-7
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
Sorry I'm afraid that doesn't even work in the same context. What else do you have? Do you have a rebuttal that's more in line with the rest of the conversation?
Superlite27
Regular Member
In later posts you go on about "responsibly carrying a firearm", but up until now, it has previously been illegal to openly carry a firearm in Belle Meade unless it was a Army or Navy pistol carried openly in the hand.
You state that you've been OC'ing in Belle Meade for years. Please explain how breaking the law fits into the definition of responsibility you are castigating Leonard for not fitting into.
Between the two of you, which one hasn't intentionally broken the law?
Who's the responsible one?
Well?........
kwikrnu
Banned
I'd like to point out that Belle Meade's law has been enforced at a State level many times. Cases of people carrying a pocket pistols, army pistols in holsters, concealed pistols, etc have all been prosecuted. Many have made it to the State Supreme Court which has always decided that the law is valid and enforceable.
Look up the following cases:
wilburn v state
coffee v state
maupin v state
porter v state
andrews v state
robinson v state
dycus v state
heaton v state
barton v state
kendall v state
thomas v state
It is clear that the army navy laws were enforceable in the past and could be enforced upon people now. There are many communities across the State with these laws on the books. Nashville has an army navy law, but the law allows for other carry options as well. Knoxville has an army navy law. In fact, Knoxville uses the preemption exception law, TCA 39-17-1314(a), to prohibit guns in parks. These are enforcable laws, period.
Look up the following cases:
wilburn v state
coffee v state
maupin v state
porter v state
andrews v state
robinson v state
dycus v state
heaton v state
barton v state
kendall v state
thomas v state
It is clear that the army navy laws were enforceable in the past and could be enforced upon people now. There are many communities across the State with these laws on the books. Nashville has an army navy law, but the law allows for other carry options as well. Knoxville has an army navy law. In fact, Knoxville uses the preemption exception law, TCA 39-17-1314(a), to prohibit guns in parks. These are enforcable laws, period.
Procarryguy
Banned
You mean like Leonard carrying in Library where it's illegal to carry? Is that what you're talking about?
I hate to break it to you friend but it's been totally legal to carry in Belle Meade since the state of TN started issuing handgun carry permits. If I was breaking the law you would have thought I would have been stopped by now in all the years I've open carried there. I wonder how my friends get away with open carrying there since they live there and all. Hmm really makes you think huh?
Procarryguy
Banned
So um, which one of those have anything to do with Belle Meade? You'll have to point it out to me cause I couldn't find it. Does it only apply to outsiders cause my friends have their carry permit and have so since TN started issuing them. I wonder if they know it's illegal. :shocker:
RussP
Regular Member
Leonard, what about since 1914?
What about cases in Belle Meade?
How about cases in Davidson County?
Based on this case, Leonard indeed violated the law as the pistol he carried was not such as is used in the army or navy of the United States
Procarryguy
Banned
Yeah I'm curious myself Leonard. Can you supply a list of people who have been arrested in Belle Meade since the state of TN started issuing handgun carry permits?
I'm not really interested in cases in other states 100 years ago. Those aren't relevant to what we're talking about now with the laws in Belle Meade being enforced on recent open carry.
I appreciate you taking the time to get the current list together and post it. Thank you.
I'm not really interested in cases in other states 100 years ago. Those aren't relevant to what we're talking about now with the laws in Belle Meade being enforced on recent open carry.
I appreciate you taking the time to get the current list together and post it. Thank you.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Yes. By my way of thinking, that is precisely what I am saying.
I believe you have this down pat.
This is going to be hard for you to believe, but frankly, if you wish to own a howitzer, I believe that is your right.
I do likewise believe you should be able to carry an NFA item as well.
Carry, what you wish.
He who finds himself closer to the term "liberty", or the statement, "Shall not be infringed".
My way of thinking here certainly does not "fail". The "reason" you imply is so simple. It is because instead of the commonality of the firearm in our everyday lives, we are segregated by a line that is mostly drawn by liars, thieves, and would be tyrants.
Remember, the specific purpose for ratification of the 2nd Amendment could very well be specified as, "ensuring equality across the board". When government makes limitations it is not empowered to make, it can cause far more harm than good.
In this case, instead of embracing the lessons our forefathers spent their entire lives studying, our government has made a clear, and divisible line.
All government agents want power.
One of the best ways to ensure power, is to influence the people to hand it over freely.
One way to do this is to use media outlets, or as a legislator, ensure "safety" with your firearms ban.
The outcome may be D.C. or Chicago, but the feeling some people get is all warm and fuzzy inside.
None of this makes it real. None of this absolves it.
The reason people freak out from seeing a gun, as opposed to a dinner fork, a fire extinguisher, or a set of car keys, is all based on this lie.
The reason people freak out over a gun, is typically because people are living a lie.
So we should all roll over, play dead, and give up?
The interesting thing about this concept, is it CAN work. It CAN be reached.
It's just people who make statements like yours, won't ever help it get there.
Neither is a man riding down the street on a motorcycle with a 1911 on his hip.
Neither is a man sitting in a theater with his favorite wheelgun strapped to his side.
It is the perfect parallel you either refuse to, or simply cannot see.
I am perfectly fine with a person NOT wanting to carry a firearm. However, it would be nice for people to see that it is indeed a right, and that it is in fact, "the norm".
I don't see a dog urinating on a fire hydrant every day either, but this became socially normal.
You will be gauged by your response. Are you a law abiding gun owner who supports the base meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or someone who wants to freak out and support the antis by screaming about how unusual a given act is because its outside your scope of acceptance?
Reality sir is that people freak out over the mere sight of a firearm, and this perception of blood, death, and murdered nuns will not change until it is DEMONSTRATED to be false.
Rosa, get back to the back of the bus.
No sir. I'm gonna sit right here...
WOW!
Wouldn't you like to change that perception?
Leonard has displayed that you CAN in fact perform said act without killing anyone.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that personal safety is up to the individual anyways? If you are armed as well, and ready to defend you and yours, how much more do you need to do than observe?
No no no. Stop and back up.
You specified that he played with the firearm as a "toy", and then completely avoided commenting on it in this response. Leonard was VERY safe and purposeful in his carry. In fact, he was more safe than the officer who took the firearm from him, and pointed it at Bell Meade country club for approximately a minute.
Here is "what is".
Bell Meade law specifies the carry in the hand, of the Army or Navy Colt pistol, as the ONLY LAWFUL WAY to carry in Bell Meade.
Tell me I'm wrong, and you're just being silly. Use your carry in the city before as evidence, and you do nothing but clarify you broke the law, and got away with it.
THAT is "What Is"!
What "should be" is that you should be able to carry any form of protection you wish in the city of Bell Meade, or the state of Tennessee.
Now this is the cold hard reality, despite any adamance that you carried holstered therefore it must have been ok...
Brace yourself for it...
You have Leonard to thank, for the unlawful, racially derived law, depriving law abiding citizens the right to carry in accordance with Tennessee law, being wiped off the books.
Just the facts.
The stills are my work.
The stills clearly show it being perfectly horizontal many, many times.
Here are some cold, hard factual photographs:
(Please note the cruisers timestamps for each photo)
The median in question:
Photos showing horizontal handling of the firearm -
Clearly Horizontal:
Clearly Horizontal:
Clearly Horizontal:
I do not have to try and justify anything.
The law is the law.
Said law is gone due to Leonards efforts. I am sure he would appreciate a simple "Thanks". Now you can go to Bell Meade and be completely legal, without a "back door" to usurp your lawful carry if the officer feels like it.
AH yes. This sounds like a "Living Breathing Constitution" argument.
People are different, but the core of the BoR is the same. This means the 2nd Amendment too.
You can't change something without challenging it. Sometimes the easiest way to do so is to simply wade out there.
Like carrying loaded firearms in proximity to other people on a daily basis?
Eventually, the lies die down. Eventually, peoples eyes begin to open.
This is merely "OpenCarry.org's" limitation, to adhere to the "properly holstered *normal* handgun" bit. To be blunt, CC advocates were adamant that open carriers were idiots who were going to end up targets for criminals, or worse (to them anyways), getting their precious permission slips revoked.
Since then there has been a slowly forming bond of unity. You think the NRA would have touched this in 2003?
Not on your life bud.
It take some brave dudes going out there and doing it to garner support. Being the martyrs. Being the targets of irrational flock bleating.
Hey man. Leonard has carried in a park, and it has turned out safe. He has carried with a pistol in the hand, in Bell Meade, according to law, just as they would have to do back in the 1800's. Guess what? That was safe too.
A rational thought I am sure. Based on your positioning and world view, it is clearly safer to hide, than to change that image. Yes?
Don't you wish people would embrace, or otherwise not look at your hobby with chagrin?
Sure it is. Just like an open carrier getting police response wherein said officers prepare for a firefight by drawing their AR's and ripping said OC'er away from a news report of all things.
Look man. I wear a TON of camo. Love it.
I am also an AR guy, through and through.
I'm not going to live my life based on what you, or anybody else thinks. If I want to cruise through the Olympics up here for example, in Camo, with my AR slung, welp. That's what I'm well within my rights to do.
If you have watched one too many movies, that is truly not my problem.
You infer by the presence of the firearm, that a person would be well within their rights to compensation based on an emotive reaction. Therein lies the inference.
The social acceptance change, does not change the reality. The social acceptance change likewise does not validate unlawful carry of a firearm in Bell Meade.
Like the accusations directed towards kwik in regard to Brentwood, you have admitted to breaking the law repeatedly, and for years.
For this, kwik must pay.
But you. You must not.
Correct?
Pretty disturbed actually.
Most gun owners I know of, and especially CC and OC'ers, are well aware that the Federal GFSZ is still in full effect. Therefore this guy is likely a criminal.
What's worse is, me being the law abiding sport I am, I am now disarmed, and there is clearly a criminal proceeding towards the school.
I agree though. The GFSZ should be repealed.
Why would I leave my child in the presence of an armed criminal?
I'd be ready to meatshield since I am again, unarmed, due to federal regulations.
Better tell this to the OC guys. They have been presenting their "scary guns" on the hips for years now. It's interesting.
Did you know that people still regularly "run up" to said OC'ers to tell them how uncomfortable or scared they are of their guns?
Did you know that the police commonly are called for open carriers doing the ultimate dirty deed, and sipping a cup of latte? (You bad, bad people you)
Did you know that their efforts have caused illegitimate responses to be quelled a bit?
Did you know that the carry of the firearms on their hips has caused more open acceptance on that proscribed method of carry?
Wait wait wait!
This is all because in your world, the open carriers are "just fine", right? You do not believe carrying a gun around on the hip, some of them quite big, is any big deal?
Maybe you could spend some more time talking to the CC derelicts who still think OC is going to ruin "their rights".
Like having a permission slip to hide your liberty has ever been an appropriate description of a "Right".
Might as well talk about how hunting is a "right".
What would lead you to believe this?
What if all you could see was the protruding end of the firearm through the holster or other retention device as he walked up holding it in his hand because it snapped or broke off of his belt?
Would you shoot him?
Your logic demands that you would.
Reality may not be so kind to your logic.
What about a airsoft player who scraped the orange off the end of their pistol/AEG?
This is actually QUITE common to see at night. An airsoft player darting out of a bush or over a wall with a pretty realistic pistol in their hand.
You say "shoot".
I say, "Was he brandishing?".
Huge difference bud.
Sounds like you live in drunkard alley.
There are other observations you can use to gauge intent. Mere presence of a firearm in the hand does not equate to immediate danger. Threat assessment must be invoked.
Is the individual brandishing? No.
Is his gait normal? Yup.
Have you observed him for a period of time? Yup.
Does he have a reflective vest on in accordance with local law? Yup.
Perceived potential threat safe. Observe if still uneasy.
In your scenario it isn't too hard to shoot an OC'er for example, then take his firearm out, give it a quick wipe, and stick it firmly in his/her hand.
Same terrible tragedy. Same lack of integrity.
Hope you have fun trying to sleep at night.
So long as you can live with your story, then whatever right?
Just respond to everything with "BANG".
Shoot first and answer questions later right?
Any good tactician will deploy any and all means possible to diffuse a situation. Most honest people can't live with uncertainty. If its a crook, then he is gonna lie anyways.
C'est la vie.
Man, you really like to think about shooting people first...
http://cbs5.com/local/police.shoot.unarmed.2.1810445.html (No gun present. Who knows what was said.)
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-...ficers-narcotics-activity-officer-holly-joshi (Same)
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/05/police_shoot_man_outside_belve.html
http://www.copblock.org/601/rookie-miami-police-officer-killed-man-in-cold-blood/
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/when-police-shoot-unarmed-man-oscar-grant-verdict-Mehserle
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/dc.capitol.shooting/index.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/06/police-kill-man-in-mistake.html
Let me know if you need more.
Please try to pay attention to the conversation. Your comment here proved exactly what I was saying.
A blind man with a G20 pulling the trigger rapidly in a room full of people can kill many innocents without aiming, could he not?
The first shot of any firearm is typically "well placed" if executed properly, by somebody with experience firing under life threatening duress.
You just tried to equate surroundings to outcome of specific weapon type. This is a tactical failure.
A person aware of their surroundings has less of a chance of collateral damage with ANY firearm.
So your assessment is one should not protect themselves with a scalpel if they dont have an UZI?
Ah yes. Character denigration when you run out of meaningful conversation points. Immediately assign me to a specific group.
Oh by the way.
I am not repub.
Thanks for the assumption though.
I would say that a well aimed weapon is more deadly, not less.
Also, it's a good thing Leonard is not a gang banger.
I wonder if his Army marksmanship training may have any bearing on his ability to engage a target. For having "over 24" AK variations, you sure have a minimal amount of faith in them from the common ranges in which personal protection by firearm occurs.
Your argument is sadly the one flawed sir.
You are assuming that more death and destruction will be caused by an "irrational psychopath" hell bent on killing people with an AK, than same said psychopath with a Glock 20 and a couple of magazines.
This is an enormous fail.
So. VT massacre was done mostly with 9mm.
More people died there than soldiers in my unit who had probably 10's of thousands of rounds (7.62x39) fired at them.
The LA bank robberies we performed almost exclusively by the barrel of an AK.
3 Dead.
Yeah I guess my point is "false".
You're kidding right? The Bradys would never post that kind of stuff. They WANT you to believe that ONLY officers are qualified to handle firearms.
Geez if you are going to make errant accusations at least know your facts :/
Well.
When you join the Army you get a LOT of range time. I mean a TON.
Maybe he is confident that his skills have not degraded?
I do indeed have military training. I was the battalion trainer for:
--MK19 Mod 3 (Primary)
--M16A2 (Primary)
--M203 (Primary)
--M249 (Secondary)
I have qualified expert on all listed platforms and lead training sessions and debriefs (AAR's).
The best way to put your comment, would be to say:
"You should know that all calibers are lethal. Some just have better range or kinetic transfer".
Never seen a man not fall from a .50 round within 100m.
Seen 9mm go through a man and a solid wall, hitting someone behind.
Seen 00 not penetrate a door.
Witnessed .45 rounds hit someone from 30 feet and they kept coming.
Getting the point yet?
DO Acorns usually ask, "Is that airsoft or real?". Never heard one say this before...
Hell. I've never heard one speak.
...several minutes down the trail after being totally compliant and polite to the ranger.
Oh did I mention he handed him his HCP for review?
What an obviously psychopathic monstrosity yes?
I love these new compliant models of criminal that are polite and kind and non-threatening to LEO's and civilians.
..correctly? Oh...OHHHH
You mean what YOU believe is "correctly" gotcha!
You're right, law abiding open carriers carrying "properly holstered normal handguns in every day life" never have that happen to them...
St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety
A win in New Mexico. Guy was carrying openly at the movies, lawful in NM. Someone calls the cops and they came and disarmed him. And:
The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.
The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.
The officers can be sued for violating someone’s civil rights.The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.
Posted in Guns on September 17th, 2009 by SayUncle
They PHYSICALLY came in and removed him from his chair, for the record.
This never happens though when carried in the manner you proscribe.
LOL...
You made the claim that the guy who called was IN FACT somebody Leonard knew, despite no proof.
Burden of proof is on you as the claimant bud. Not me.
Now. Do you have any information? That would be the sweetest proof all of these anti-kwik guys ever saw.
I am?
You do know most pistols don't come with holsters right?
You do know most holsters are pretty useless without a pistol, right?
You need to reassess your tactical frame of mind. Simply shooting somebody for holding a pistol is not rational.
Yeah likely true.
I could also be picked off by a sniper with a blowdart gun from a neighborhood rosebush, and I'd never know.
Yes Yes. All people are equal if they're in the holster.
Except not at all.
I gotcha though.
Gun in hand, pointed straight down = kill a man.
Good call bud.
You mean like stating that somebody was in fact Leonards accomplice, and then citing no proof whatsoever?
Hey can you reach the window from here?
Your arms are significantly longer than mine. Must be all that "reaching".
kwikrnu
Banned
I have no affiliation with the guy who called the cops. I don't know him and have never contacted him.
I don't believe training should be a requirement to keep or bear arms.
I believe I should be allowed to carry any handgun, in any manner I see fit.
I didn't change the law in Belle Meade. Legal open carry did influence their decision. It is still to be seen if the commisioners will vote a second time to repeal the weapons ordinance. I think they will. Would they have changed the law if I had written a letter? Probably not. They ignored my letter after the incident. Their police retaliated against me. The city of Brentwood ignored two of my letters. These government bureaucrats will not act unless forced. Do I expect a thank you? No. Do I want one? No. Others may benefit, but I do this for me. I post the account so others know what they are up against and have hope. One person, without an attorney, can fight the State, anti-gunners, anti-gun republican politicians, and even the admin on this site who seem to disapprove. It a pita, but it can be done. I expect more victories soon, including the State conceeding they had no authority to suspend my permit.
I don't believe training should be a requirement to keep or bear arms.
I believe I should be allowed to carry any handgun, in any manner I see fit.
I didn't change the law in Belle Meade. Legal open carry did influence their decision. It is still to be seen if the commisioners will vote a second time to repeal the weapons ordinance. I think they will. Would they have changed the law if I had written a letter? Probably not. They ignored my letter after the incident. Their police retaliated against me. The city of Brentwood ignored two of my letters. These government bureaucrats will not act unless forced. Do I expect a thank you? No. Do I want one? No. Others may benefit, but I do this for me. I post the account so others know what they are up against and have hope. One person, without an attorney, can fight the State, anti-gunners, anti-gun republican politicians, and even the admin on this site who seem to disapprove. It a pita, but it can be done. I expect more victories soon, including the State conceeding they had no authority to suspend my permit.
RussP
Regular Member
Why not?
Can you post that letter again, please. Whether they responded is probably dependent on the letter's content.
I believe other agencies contributed to the retaliation. The letter just went out on Belle Meade letterhead.
Again, what did the letters say?
What chance did you give them? How much effort did you make before first planning and initiating physical confrontations? How many requests for face to face meetings did you make? How many letters did you ask an attorney to write, or at least sign on your behalf? How many City Council meetings did you attend asking for time to address the firearms ordinance prior to planning and executing the confrontation with police?
All the above steps have worked for others.
You say others may benefit. If they offer you your permit back in settlement with you dropping the constitutional challenge, will you refuse your permit and continue the challenge? Or, will you take your permit?
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Please show the specific case where a person elected to carry a Navy or Army pistol in the hand, other than Leonard, who was specifically found to be guilty of violating said law.
Otherwise, you are reaching.
"Such as" is not indicitive of specific type, and may refer to generalization of the model.
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
procarry see post #17 said:
The fact is that open carry does not in and of itself does not convey a threat. Most courts recognize this. Absent any action which would show the carrier meant to attack it is not an act of self-defense to shoot someone because they have a gun.
I took this from a TN court of appeals case, State v Williams M2007-01385-CCA-R3-CD March 5 2009. The appeal comes from a man who is appealing his criminal conviction. His claim is that the jury was not instructed to consider self-defense. The court of appeals denies his appeal.
"In this case, the trial court declined to instruct the jury on self-defense because it found that
the evidence did not suggest that the Defendant feared the victim would harm anyone. The trial
court explained that, although the victim may have emerged from the apartment with a shotgun, no
evidence was presented that the victim either pointed it or threatened anyone with it:
I don’t have any proof whatsoever that the Defendant . . . was acting in defense of
anybody else. At best, all I have is the fact that the [victim] walked out the door with
a shotgun. That’s the best proof I have. I don’t have any proof he ever raised it, he
ever pointed it at anybody, I don’t have anything. He walked out the door with a
shotgun.
Therefore, the trial court found that the Defendant failed to present evidence that fairly raised an
issue as to whether the Defendant acted in defense of either self or others when he killed the victim.
We conclude, as did the trial court, that, without evidence either that the victim used the
shotgun in a manner causing the Defendant to believe that the victim presented an “imminent danger
of death or serious bodily injury,” the record contains no evidence that the Defendant’s force was
“immediately necessary to protect against” the victim. T.C.A. § 39-11-611(a). Thus, there is no
basis for this Court to conclude that the evidence fairly raised an issue as to whether the Defendant
acted in defense of either self or others. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s refusal to instruct
the jury on self-defense was not error."
The lesson is don't shoot people who have not threatened you. The fact that someone carries or possess a firearm is not threatening.
Last edited:
RussP
Regular Member
Is the pistol Leonard carried the pistol as is carried in the army or navy?
Is it like the pistols you carried in the Army?
Last edited:
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
What a blatant TROLL
So now you are going to argue that the 1860 Colt single action ARMY or Colt single action NAVY or even the Remington 1858 United States ARMY New Model were not service weapons? Why do you persist in making an ass of yourself?
So now you are going to argue that the 1860 Colt single action ARMY or Colt single action NAVY or even the Remington 1858 United States ARMY New Model were not service weapons? Why do you persist in making an ass of yourself?
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Seems to be that the inference is meaning specifically the Colt Navy or Army pistol "such as" is carried in the Army or Navy.
I would believe, a replica of the same specific build and functionality would be sufficient to the "such as" criteria.
Just my opinion.
Research into the definition of "such as" when used in legalese would be worthwhile.
RussP
Regular Member
Never said they were not, past tense, service weapons.
RussP
Regular Member
Your comments are not relevant to my questions.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
My answer is relevant to the question.
One of the focused purposes of this law was specifying a make or model available and commonly in use at the time.
It is not like the pistol I carried in the Army.
It IS like the pistol used in the Army or Navy at the time of this laws ratification.
Important difference.
RussP
Regular Member
Well, doesn't make any difference. They've already eliminated that part of the law.
Ponch
Regular Member
He didn't say they were not service weapons; he said they are not service weapons. They were a hundred years ago; they are not today.
Important indeed. Russ is reaching a little, but his point is that the law could be interpreted either way. In United States v Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment particularly protected military small arms, based on the clarification that it was expressly given because "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." They might have concluded that this referred to flintlocks and muskets, but they did not--instead they held that a modern rifle is protected by the 2A, but a sawed-off shotgun, not being a military weapon, is not:
United States v Miller said:
Similarly, it could be argued that the intent of the Belle Meade ordinance was not to restrict carry to a certain style of black-powder revolver, but rather to specify that the handgun must be of the type issued by the military at the time of the incident. They stand a solid chance of winning if they take that approach. They won't, mostly because it didn't occur to them, but also because attempting to enforce the letter of this particular statute would make them a laughingstock.