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

kwikrnu · Oct 16, 2010

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.

kwikrnu · Oct 16, 2010

Here is the link to my amended complaint

HvyMtl · Oct 17, 2010

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?

kwikrnu · Oct 17, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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.

HvyMtl · Oct 17, 2010

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.

kwikrnu · Oct 17, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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.

kwikrnu · Oct 17, 2010

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."

HvyMtl · Oct 17, 2010

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...

kwikrnu · Oct 17, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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."

HvyMtl · Oct 17, 2010

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...

kwikrnu · Oct 17, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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.

HvyMtl · Oct 19, 2010

Do you have legal representation?

kwikrnu · Oct 19, 2010

HvyMtl said:
Do you have legal representation?

pro se representation.

HvyMtl · Oct 20, 2010

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...

kwikrnu · Oct 20, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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.

HvyMtl · Oct 20, 2010

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?

kwikrnu · Oct 20, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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

HvyMtl · Oct 21, 2010

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.

kwikrnu · Oct 21, 2010

HvyMtl said:
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.

switchfoot · Oct 21, 2010

kwikrnu said:
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.

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

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

New member