Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 216

Thread: Kwikrnu lawsuit against State of Tennessee Unconstitutionality of TCA 39-17-1307

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

    Kwikrnu lawsuit against State of Tennessee Unconstitutionality of TCA 39-17-1307

    I'm going to try this again. I filed in May, but had to transfer the case to Davidson County. Tennessee currently criminalizes carry of loaded firearms. Loaded firearms are those for which ammo is in the vicinity. The permit is a defense to the crime of carrying. I withdrew the hearing for my handgun carry permit. This means that I am forever prohibited from carrying a handgun in the State of Tennessee. As I have stated previously I have never been charged with any crime, have not been indicted for any crime, have never been adjudicated mentally ill or deficient, I do not drink alcohol and have never been DUI. Basically, I am a family man and have been married fourteen years to the same woman and have never cheated. I have two two children and a dog and cat.

    The State's motion to dismiss will be heard in court in early January.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

  3. #3
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Question: Did you carry in the Brentwood Tennessee Public Library?

    IF so, that is what I think they are holding against you...

    The last document, the motion to dismiss is particular to, what?
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-17-2010 at 02:31 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Question: Did you carry in the Brentwood Tennessee Public Library?

    IF so, that is what I think they are holding against you...

    The last document, the motion to dismiss is particular to, what?
    None of this has anything to do with Brentwood. The State's motion to dismiss this case is what is posted, They'll have a new motion to dismiss soon.

  5. #5
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    I think, if you did carry in the Brentwood Public Library, that would be the reason behind the revocation of your permit.

    Thanks for the clarification on the motion.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    I think, if you did carry in the Brentwood Public Library, that would be the reason behind the revocation of your permit.

    Thanks for the clarification on the motion.
    If they had any evidence I actually carried, and if the area was posted, and if I had been charged, and if I had been convicted of carryng where prohibited, it may have been a class A misdemeanor. Only upon conviction of a class A misdemeanor is a permit suspended. The permit is returned after a payment of $25 when the person is parolled.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    This is the key response to my lawsuit and in their motion to dismiss,

    "Recently, the United States Supreme Court overturned a set of local ordinances enacted in and around Chicago, Illinois that banned possession of all handguns. McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). The Supreme Court held that U.S. Const. Amend. II is fully applicable to the states through the U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. Id. at 3026. However, this ruling does not strike down all state firearms regulation. In fact, there is nothing from McDonald to suggest that U.S. Const. Amend. II provides any broader protection than what is already provided in Tenn. Const. Art. 1, S 26. Furthermore, McDonald quotes approvingly from an amicus brief filed by Texas, “state and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.” Id. At 3046."

  8. #8
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Well, the AG has a point. ALL regulation was not struck down, merely the law Heller was pertaining to. I highly doubt we get a SCOTUS ruling all regulation is struck down on any topic of the Bill of Rights... But, hopefully, we do get rulings removing several layers of needless restrictions...
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-17-2010 at 07:17 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Well, the AG has a point. ALL regulation was not struck down, merely the law Heller was pertaining to. I highly doubt we get a SCOTUS ruling all regulation is struck down on any topic of the Bill of Rights... But, hopefully, we do get rulings removing several layers of needless restrictions...
    The AG skipped several important sections in heller.

    The fact that the 1870 TN law prohibiting the carry of handguns was as oppressive as the DC law.
    The fact that McDonald rejects the Second Amendment as a 2nd class right.
    The fact that McDonald limits the ability of States to "devise solutions to social problems."


    I took this from the amicus brief mentioned, pg. 34

    "To be sure, amici States agree that “it is one of the happy incidents of the federal system” that each State may “serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (cited in Nat’l Rifle Assoc., 2009 WL 1515443, at *4). But the discretion of state and local governments to explore legislative and regulatory initiatives does not include “the power to experiment with the fundamental liberties of citizens safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” Pointer, 380 U.S. at 413 (Goldberg, J., concurring). As the Court stated in Heller, “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government . . . the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” 128 S. Ct. at 2821. Just as local governments cannot constitutionally act as “laboratories” for initiatives to abrogate their citizens’ right to free speech or their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, nor can they nullify the fundamental right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.
    State and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment. As noted in Heller, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id. at 2816. Many firearms regulations would plainly survive Second Amendment scrutiny, such as “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 2816-17."


    "As “independent sovereigns in our federal system,” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), the amici States are particularly concerned when the Court engages in constitutional or statutory interpretation that implicates federalism issues. The incorporation of the Second Amendment presents no such concerns. Denying local governments the power to nullify the Amendment will not increase federal power, mandate any state action pursuant to federal directives, or preclude reasonable state and local regulation of firearms. It will simply prevent local governments, like the federal government, from abrogating the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms."
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-17-2010 at 07:58 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Note: Heller is focused on Federal Areas, controlled by Fed law. The ruling was not towards state law.

    McDonald is the case you need to look at and focus on, as it rules the States (and local) have to abide by the 2nd thru the 14th...
    Μολὼν λάβε

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Note: Heller is focused on Federal Areas, controlled by Fed law. The ruling was not towards state law.

    McDonald is the case you need to look at and focus on, as it rules the States (and local) have to abide by the 2nd thru the 14th...
    The Heller ruling applies to everyone now that the court said the right is incorporated.

  12. #12
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Do you have legal representation?
    Μολὼν λάβε

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Do you have legal representation?
    pro se representation.

  14. #14
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Pro se = you are representing yourself.

    Ok. That did not work well in another case, and considering your case goes further than just your rights, it may be wise to be professionally represented...
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-20-2010 at 11:38 AM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Pro se = you are representing yourself.

    Ok. That did not work well in another case, and considering your case goes further than just your rights, it may be wise to be professionally represented...
    Many people purchase representation and lose. In fact, there is usually a loser in court. Having paid an attorney $10,000 to handle the case I lost would have been money out the window.

  16. #16
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Perhaps. Or, just perhaps, the attorney would have known which County to file in, the judge to request, which arguments to make, and which ways to attack...

    If you had won, would it been worth $10k? Oh, that is right, if you had won, the attorney could have dinged the sheriff for his fees...

    Oh, and typically, those who go pro se lose a lot more than those who get a professional involved.

    Wouldn't you rather increase your chances, or are you pushing for the loss?
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-20-2010 at 03:20 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Perhaps. Or, just perhaps, the attorney would have known which County to file in, the judge to request, which arguments to make, and which ways to attack...

    If you had won, would it been worth $10k? Oh, that is right, if you had won, the attorney could have dinged the sheriff for his fees...

    Oh, and typically, those who go pro se lose a lot more than those who get a professional involved.

    Wouldn't you rather increase your chances, or are you pushing for the loss?
    There is no guarantee of a win. I'm not putting up $10,000 to find out.
    Really, I lost $10,000? How much did I lose?
    There is now case law in the 21st district which says the sheriff doesn't have to sign. I would have liked to win, but it is others who mocked me who now have to deal with it.

    Link to order of dismissal
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-20-2010 at 05:38 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    My point is, if you lose, you could negatively impact the rights of those who believe in the 2nd A. Bigger stakes. Bigger than just you.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    My point is, if you lose, you could negatively impact the rights of those who believe in the 2nd A. Bigger stakes. Bigger than just you.
    My rights are as important as anyone else's. I don't care if it affects someone else's right to carry.

  20. #20
    Regular Member switchfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Loudon County, TN
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    My rights are as important as anyone else's. I don't care if it affects someone else's right to carry.
    Nice. I've been reading older posts on the forum from and about you. I have been struggling with giving you the benefit of the doubt. That struggle is over now, thank you.

    Good luck with YOUR unalienable rights.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    My rights are as important as anyone else's. I don't care if it affects someone else's right to carry.
    Yeah, the world is all about you isn't it?

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    Yeah, the world is all about you isn't it?
    I don't have a duty to protect your rights. When I take the government to court over their infringement of my rights and lose don't blame me for losing. I tried and lost, and everyone else loses too.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    LOL - right. Well, maybe someday you'll be getting the crap kicked out of you by some folks and people strolling by will take the same attitude.

    There's standing up for your rights and there's being a self-centered, grandstanding idiot who is determined to justify their actions despite the impact on others.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    LOL - right. Well, maybe someday you'll be getting the crap kicked out of you by some folks and people strolling by will take the same attitude.
    Isn't that what is happening now?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I don't have a duty to protect your rights. When I take the government to court over their infringement of my rights and lose don't blame me for losing. I tried and lost, and everyone else loses too.
    You don't have a legal duty, but I would argue that you have a moral duty. I would not argue it very hard, though, because you would not be swayed and I have no duty to waste my time trying to get you to 'do the right thing'.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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