Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: Can Tennessee deny a HCP to someone with a C&R FFL ?

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

    Can Tennessee deny a HCP to someone with a C&R FFL ?

    I've applied for a curio and relic federal firearms license and meet the requirements. When approved what excuse will the State use to continue to deny my handgun carry permit?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Are they connected in law, does one effect the other in law? C&R is a federal license, while a TN HCP is a state permit. I-ANAL

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Are they connected in law, does one effect the other in law? C&R is a federal license, while a TN HCP is a state permit. I-ANAL
    Considering that the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, I am curious to know how a State may deny the right to carry a firearm to someone who has a federal firearms collector license.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Considering that the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, I am curious to know how a State may deny the right to carry a firearm to someone who has a federal firearms collector license.
    QFT


    Doug,

    As you can see, he wasn't interested in an actual answer. He was asking a rhetorical question. It was sorta evident in the tone of the first post. The reply I quoted confirmed it.

    Think about this thread's rhetorical question in light of his recent postings. Lemme know if you see a pattern.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    QFT


    Doug,

    As you can see, he wasn't interested in an actual answer. He was asking a rhetorical question. It was sorta evident in the tone of the first post. The reply I quoted confirmed it.

    Think about this thread's rhetorical question in light of his recent postings. Lemme know if you see a pattern.
    I'm soliciting a discussion. Tennessee criminalized the carry of loaded handguns in 1989. In 1997 they went to a shall issue system. However, if the State sees fit they may suspend or revoke the permit of anyone they wish. So really it is a shall issue and may revoke State. The question is what is the legal basis of denying someone a handgun carry permit if they possess a federal firearms license? The federal licensee has been checked out. Will States be allowed to regulate firearms carry based upon DUI, failure to pay child support, failure to attend a State mandated training class, failure to be fingerprinted, or any number of other reasons?
    The Supreme Court has already suggested that long standing prohibitions will apply, but what about these little requirements which differ State to State? I know my State AG has recently said that the State can regulate and that the US Supreme Court says they can.

  6. #6
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    State vs. Fed. Fed law has different requirements. In addition, it is unclear if Tennessee reports your loss of permit to the Feds. If they do, it may impact your C&R.

    Also, the C&R deals more with ownership than carry... Tennessee denied you the privilege to carry, but did not take away your right to own...

    But then, I thought you said you werent posting here anymore...

    How is the lawsuit going?
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-17-2010 at 02:09 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    SNIP I'm soliciting a discussion.
    Jeezus, Kwik. Can you even go three posts without twisting something?

    Your attempts at evasion and twisting your previous context rise to insult--we are not that stupid.

    Your second post was not an invitation to discussion. It shut down discussion. You made it plain right in that second post that you were just tossing out a comment against the government.

    In your first post, the denial has not yet occurred. Yet, you ask readers in your third post what the justification is/would be. What? Do you think we're mind readers? Of course you don't think that. The reason you got contorted in the third post was twisting in order to justify the first and second posts.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Jeezus, Kwik. Can you even go three posts without twisting something?

    Your attempts at evasion and twisting your previous context rise to insult--we are not that stupid.

    Your second post was not an invitation to discussion. It shut down discussion. You made it plain right in that second post that you were just tossing out a comment against the government.

    In your first post, the denial has not yet occurred. Yet, you ask readers in your third post what the justification is/would be. What? Do you think we're mind readers? Of course you don't think that. The reason you got contorted in the third post was twisting in order to justify the first and second posts.
    If States may regulate the bearing of arms under what conditions may the regulate? Will they be allowed to regulate further than what we currently see on 4473's?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    State vs. Fed. Fed law has different requirements. In addition, it is unclear if Tennessee reports your loss of permit to the Feds. If they do, it may impact your C&R.

    Also, the C&R deals more with ownership than carry... Tennessee denied you the privilege to carry, but did not take away your right to own...

    But then, I thought you said you werent posting here anymore...

    How is the lawsuit going?
    If Tennessee reported anything what did they report? That a resident of Tennessee who broke no law had his permit to carry a gun suspended and there no court hearing and no evidence presented?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I've applied for a curio and relic federal firearms license and meet the requirements. When approved what excuse will the State use to continue to deny my handgun carry permit?

    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    If States may regulate the bearing of arms under what conditions may the regulate? Will they be allowed to regulate further than what we currently see on 4473's?
    Those two quotes misalign.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Those two quotes misalign.
    State suspends "shall issue" handgun permit. Permit holder has no criminal record and obtains a C&R FFL. Under the Second Amendment what regulations are States allowed to impose on those who wish to carry firearms? The approval for a C&R FFL is nearly identical to that of the 4473. Will States be allowed to regulate based upon DUI, failure to pay child support, "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", will hearings be required before the suspension of carry rights? Will States have to allow those who have clean backgrounds the ability to carry?

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    State suspends "shall issue" handgun permit. Permit holder has no criminal record and obtains a C&R FFL. Under the Second Amendment what regulations are States allowed to impose on those who wish to carry firearms? The approval for a C&R FFL is nearly identical to that of the 4473. Will States be allowed to regulate based upon DUI, failure to pay child support, "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", will hearings be required before the suspension of carry rights? Will States have to allow those who have clean backgrounds the ability to carry?
    Still the wrong alignment. In your first, you were just hacking at the government; now you are trying to pretend some sophisticated interest.

    The OP asked, "what excuse?" Now you are asking readers to play seer.

    Give it up, Kwik. We're on to you.

  13. #13
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Hmm.

    Separate from who is asking, and separate from what they have done, it is a valid question.

    Again, the state reports events which would impact the C&R. For example: Misdemeanors and felonies. I am unsure if they report the revocation of a carry permit, but considering it is within the scope of firearms, they may do so... Kwik, all they would report is the revocation, not the reason behind the revocation, as the Feds would not care about the why it was revoked, but if it was revoked...

    However, it may be a case of apples and oranges. Here is the key difference: Permit is about allowing carry in public. Permit is not related to ownership of firearms in any way. C&R is specifically about ownership, and license to own special types of firearms as a collector, not a seller...

    Odd thing is Kwik, you do not like limits on the 2nd A. The C&R is a license, in effect, a limit on the right of ownership... Which cuts deeper than the carry permit.
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-17-2010 at 03:22 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Under the Second Amendment what regulations are States allowed to impose on those who wish to carry firearms? ... Will States be allowed to regulate based upon DUI, failure to pay child support, "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", will hearings be required before the suspension of carry rights? Will States have to allow those who have clean backgrounds the ability to carry?
    Under the current SCOTUS opinions on the 2A, "reasonable regulations" are allowed. DUI? Yes, SC has just slapped their state LE division over less. They were denying renewals for excessive traffic citations during the renewal period. Due process? Depends on how the restriction is justified made righteous, process is due only in criminal matters (see civil forfeiture). States "have to allow"? No, see "may issue".

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Under the current SCOTUS opinions on the 2A, "reasonable regulations" are allowed. DUI? Yes, SC has just slapped their state LE division over less. They were denying renewals for excessive traffic citations during the renewal period. Due process? Depends on how the restriction is justified made righteous, process is due only in criminal matters (see civil forfeiture). States "have to allow"? No, see "may issue".
    I'm fairly certain reasonable regulatons are not mentioned. They did mention long standing restrictions, but only specifically stated felons and mentally ill. When was "may issue" decided as constitutional?

    Heller specifically mentioned the 1871 TN supreme Court decision where the court found Tennessee's ban on the carry of handguns unconstitutional. In fact the Heller court actually stated that the Tennessee ban on carry was as severe as the DC ban. Tennessee reestablished the ban in 1989 and the law has not since been challenged.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-17-2010 at 03:42 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Hmm.

    Separate from who is asking, and separate from what they have done, it is a valid question.

    Again, the state reports events which would impact the C&R. For example: Misdemeanors and felonies. I am unsure if they report the revocation of a carry permit, but considering it is within the scope of firearms, they may do so... Kwik, all they would report is the revocation, not the reason behind the revocation, as the Feds would not care about the why it was revoked, but if it was revoked...

    However, it may be a case of apples and oranges. Here is the key difference: Permit is about allowing carry in public. Permit is not related to ownership of firearms in any way. C&R is specifically about ownership, and license to own special types of firearms as a collector, not a seller...

    Odd thing is Kwik, you do not like limits on the 2nd A. The C&R is a license, in effect, a limit on the right of ownership... Which cuts deeper than the carry permit.
    The C&R is a restriction which should not exist, I'm only getting it to say that I have a federal firearms license.

  17. #17
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Yeah. Ok. But, I still do not see how it impacts the permit issue, unless the Feds point to your denial of permit to not grant the C&R.

    But, again, it is unclear if the state reports this to the Feds during the application process.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    I still do not see how it impacts the permit issue.
    To what extent may the Federal or State government regulate a fundamental civil right such as the carry of a handgun?

    Will anyone be able to carry w/o checks?
    Will carry be restricted to a those who have "good cause"?
    What regulations will be allowed to stand?
    What will be the standards to suspend or revoke permits?
    Will hearings be required before a suspension or revokation?

    If the federal government authorizes licensees to sell and collect why would those people be prohibited from carry a handgun?


    Under what circumstances shouldn't a FFL be allowed to carry a handgun?

    I know a guy here in TN who had his carry permit suspended for "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public". He has a machine gun accompanied by the appropriate tax stamp.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Under the current SCOTUS opinions on the 2A, "reasonable regulations" are allowed. DUI? Yes, SC has just slapped their state LE division over less. They were denying renewals for excessive traffic citations during the renewal period. Due process? Depends on how the restriction is justified made righteous, process is due only in criminal matters (see civil forfeiture). States "have to allow"? No, see "may issue".
    You seem to agree with my Attorney General. He gave this opinion last month,

    "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."

  20. #20
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Yes, the recent SCOTUS ruling will not repeal, what, at least 140+ years of actively restricting the 2nd A. It will take a lot of time to get the rulings necessary to remove some of the restrictions. Yes, some, as the Court has allowed so called "reasonable" restrictions. And has not defined what is reasonable and what is not...

    This said, the State can merely say, you have a C&R? So? They are not bound by any means to give your permit back even if the Feds grant you a C&R.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    Yes, the recent SCOTUS ruling will not repeal, what, at least 140+ years of actively restricting the 2nd A. It will take a lot of time to get the rulings necessary to remove some of the restrictions. Yes, some, as the Court has allowed so called "reasonable" restrictions. And has not defined what is reasonable and what is not...

    This said, the State can merely say, you have a C&R? So? They are not bound by any means to give your permit back even if the Feds grant you a C&R.
    The Supreme Court never used the term "reasonable restrictions". They said "longstanding" followed by felons, mentally ill and sensitive places.

    The State will not reinstate the permit. The idea behind the license is to show the absurdity of the Tennessee permit law. I won't need a permit if I can win my suit.

  22. #22
    Regular Member HvyMtl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    271
    Oops, seems I am getting Heller and McDonald mixed up...

    Heller dealt with federal areas, McDonald deals with State/Local...

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    Page 39-40 are the pages to read about state and local laws restricting firearms, they do use the "long standing" restrictions given in Heller. They also say,"Despite Municipal Respondent's doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms." (top of page 40.)

    And this points to what the AG was stating. Not all regulation of firearms by the state are barred...sadly, I wish the SCOTUS had been more specific...
    Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-17-2010 at 08:04 PM.
    Μολὼν λάβε

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    There are C&R FFLs in Maryland and Illinois and Wisconsin and Hawaii. They don't get to carry just because they have a license allowing them to buy C&R firearms across state lines.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    There are C&R FFLs in Maryland and Illinois and Wisconsin and Hawaii. They don't get to carry just because they have a license allowing them to buy C&R firearms across state lines.
    This is my point. We have a right to bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the Constitution. It shall not be infringed except for longstanding prohibitions such as those on felons, mentally ill, and carry in sensitive places. The Heller court has said few bans were as restrictive as the DC ban they overturned and one of those was the Tennessee ban on carrying a handgun. The C&R licensee has been checked and cleared by the federal government. The license is not issued to those prohibited from possessing a firearm. They should not be prohibited the ability to carry firearms.

    I am not stating that the c&r license grants one the ability to carry a firearm. I am only stating that it is a right to bear arms and the licensee has been cleared to purchase certain guns w/o background checks across state lines.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HvyMtl View Post
    And this points to what the AG was stating. Not all regulation of firearms by the state are barred...sadly, I wish the SCOTUS had been more specific...
    They will adopt a strict scrutiny and the only people we know for certain who are barred are felons and the mentally ill. The AG deliberately took a quote from the amici brief which was beneficial to him, but failed to quote it in it's entirety. "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.”

    He also missed the part at the end where it states, "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."

    Some people may say there is going to be some "reasonable test" to judge these Second Amendment cases. However, it is my opinion that will not be the case. Reasonable was never mentioned by the majority in Heller or McDonald. In Heller he also states, "Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster." If they were going to apply a "reasonableness standard" he could not have made that statement.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-18-2010 at 08:01 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •