• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

kwikrnu lost his lawsuit against State of TN Unconstitutionality of HCP law

Status
Not open for further replies.

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
Judge dismissed the case.

Here is what Leonard said on another forum...

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49440&p=761701#p761701

Order was issued an hour ago in my lawsuit against the State of Tennesee. To recap I sued the State claiming the law which prohibits the carry of a loaded handgun was unconstitutional. There are no exceptions to the law, but there are several defenses which include: handgun carry permit, fishing, hunting, law enforcement, and private property.

The judge only addressed the TN constitution and did not address other violations I stated including; 2nd & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution and the equal rights section of the TN Constitution. I may motion to amend the judgment because he forgot to mention them. He only focused on the right to bear arms of the TN Constitution which is wierd because he mentions my arguments in the first sentence of the second paragraph...

Link to order: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...zctMmM1Yi00NzVlLWIxZDQtZDZlMWMxODdmYWY2&hl=en

Since the TN, FL, and TX constitutions regarding the bearing of arms are almost identicle I imagine that all those States must do to deny the carry of a firearm is deny a permit/license.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
Thanks for the info.

Can't say I'm really surprised.

But....While I disagree with almost all of the ways he's gone about things...I have to admit, on the surface I think 39-17-1307 is unconstitutional myself. Again almost hate to say this, but for the some of the same reasons he cited. It makes possession illegal...period and there are only defenses to the law, not exceptions. Even being on your property is only a defense, not an exception.

However...it would appear the judge doesn't see that way....lol Also that being said, I still don't think even if 39-17-1307 was found unconstitutional it would been carry without a permit in TN. Because the TN constitution does expressly allow the legislature to regulate the wearing of arms.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
Proof of the old saying about those who represent themselves.

Had he put money where his mouth is, perhaps it would have been different.

But, at least it was dismissed, which basically does not create precedent for someone who wants to go after the law in the future.

Again, all I see is a fellow claiming to be for 2nd A rights, and not acting so.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
Can't disagree with ya HvyMtl.

Gone about in a different way there may have been a better chance.

Of course I still think even the most favorable outcome (if was ruled unconstitutional, but the addressed by the legislature) would be simply making some of the defenses in 39-17-1308, exceptions instead...including having a HCP.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
Yes, Fall Guy, I think you may be right, with that allowance in the State Constitution...
 

Oh Shoot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
184
Location
Knoxville
Yes, Fall Guy, I think you may be right, with that allowance in the State Constitution...

TN Constitution states that carry is only regulated for one reason: to prevent crime.
The only crime that comes about from the act of carrying a gun is the one the state has created for the act itself.

Since there is no way that the state can prove that unlicensed carry of firearms increases crime, the HCP process should indeed be ruled unconstitutional.

- OS
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
TN Constitution states that carry is only regulated for one reason: to prevent crime.
The only crime that comes about from the act of carrying a gun is the one the state has created for the act itself.

Since there is no way that the state can prove that unlicensed carry of firearms increases crime, the HCP process should indeed be ruled unconstitutional.

- OS

True....

But of course the anti-'s would argue that requiring a permit prevents the crime of those not qualified to carry from carrying. Or might even say any regulation that restricts carry helps prevent that person/firearm from committing a crime.

I of course don't agree....just saying.....

Of course as anyone with any sense knows....laws do nothing to prevent crime period...if they did...we would not have the need for courts and jails. Laws simply tell you what is unlawful and provide the punishment for violation. I have yet to hear of law that actually "prevented" a crime.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I know RussP was wetting his pants in excitement over this case being thrown out, however, the order has been amended, so the case will now move forward.

I will ask Leonard if it is appropriate, and/or acceptable for me to post the order itself.

:lol:
 
M

McX

Guest
i'm sorry to hear Kwik lost, i miss not having him around on the forum anymore. he's alright in my book.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
i'm sorry to hear Kwik lost, i miss not having him around on the forum anymore. he's alright in my book.

The suit RussP claims he "lost" (The judge refused to let it go to trial - i.e. Not a freaking "loss"), was reversed, and now the case will be heard.

Somebody counted their eggs before they hatched.


Just sayin... :lol:
 
M

McX

Guest
The suit RussP claims he "lost" (The judge refused to let it go to trial - i.e. Not a freaking "loss"), was reversed, and now the case will be heard.

Somebody counted their eggs before they hatched.


Just sayin... :lol:

i'm glad to hear that, kwik deserves some modicum of justice.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
slow, you are so predictable. It's never if you'll begin insulting someone who holds different viewpoints than yours, it's only when.

If doing that gets you to your warm and fuzzy place, so be it.

Now that Leonard has stripped all the personal issues from his action and is pursuing a pure challenge to the constitutionality of the HCP law, I support the action. The good citizens of Tennessee should be able to carry without asking permission from their State. If this case achieves that goal, it will establish useful precedence for others' battles for the same. I believe everyone on OCDO agrees that will be very, very good.

What bothers me is this. Why will Leonard not seek legal counsel with Constitutional law experience? This is, potentially, a landmark case. I told him on another forum that I really wished he'd lawyer up on this. His reply, "Yet, I won't."

So, slow, you communicate with him. Would you try convincing him this is important to not only Tennessee, but other States with similarly structured laws, that at this level an attorney might be useful?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
So, slow, you communicate with him. Would you try convincing him this is important to not only Tennessee, but other States with similarly structured laws, that at this level an attorney might be useful?
I highly doubt that it will help. He has stated multiple times that it is only about him, and not about others.

He seems to want to be "that guy" that fixes it; for himself. And if he can't, he will do his best to "fix" it so no one else will have it either.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
slow, you are so predictable. It's never if you'll begin insulting someone who holds different viewpoints than yours, it's only when.

RussP, you are so predictable.

Not only did I call that you wouldn't hang out after Leonard stopped posting and/or was banned, I also stated you weren't truly for open carry, and, alas, I was completely correct on both counts.

My issue is not with differing viewpoints, but instead with attempting to hide said viewpoints under a cloak of deceit.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If doing that gets you to your warm and fuzzy place, so be it.

My "warm and fuzzy place" would certainly be where you are open, completely straightforward, and honest in all activities, so that we may have a meaningful discussion.

You let me know when/where you and your cohorts are willing to get there, and you will notice a polar shift in my responses, much as have been observed in other areas of this forum over the past few years.

A mere peek at my signature limelights your true nature.

If only the people on this forum had the capability, or the desire, to actually look at what you talk about, and how you talk about it, in the JBT section of glocktalk.

Now that Leonard has stripped all the personal issues from his action and is pursuing a pure challenge to the constitutionality of the HCP law, I support the action.

You support the lawful carry of AK derivative pistols now? - That's great!
You support the carry of firearms in parks? - That's great!
You support redress of grievances for the unlawful siezure and termination of Leonards HCP for no purpose, and with no substantiation? - That's great!

All of these patently lawful activities being violated have steered the ship to where it is sailing now. Not that you are likely to agree with that.


The good citizens of Tennessee should be able to carry without asking permission from their State. If this case achieves that goal, it will establish useful precedence for others' battles for the same. I believe everyone on OCDO agrees that will be very, very good.

Constitutional carry in the state of Tennessee would be fantastic.

Not that I would expect you to extend any gratitude towards Leonard, were he to win his case, and the outcome be precisely that.

What bothers me is this. Why will Leonard not seek legal counsel with Constitutional law experience?

I have listened to you groan about Leonard finding legal counsel for quite some time now, and once he does, it is now "not good enough".

The sliding scale of standards you use as a metric to gauge "acceptability" is either broken, or bipolar.


This is, potentially, a landmark case. I told him on another forum that I really wished he'd lawyer up on this. His reply, "Yet, I won't."

Have you not seen that he has retained counsel?

Might it be that he is tired of RussP, his adoring, stalking admirer, following him around for years, and denigrating his efforts at every last turn?

Might it be the compelling difference in your demeanor between here and the JBT's on GT, that belies your true intentions?

Maybe you should have been polite with him from the get go, and less inflammatory in accusation.

So, slow, you communicate with him. Would you try convincing him this is important to not only Tennessee, but other States with similarly structured laws, that at this level an attorney might be useful?


I will, and have.

Patience.

Leonard is more insightful than you think.


You need to work on minimizing your chest thumping, and giddiness, in posting that Leonard "lost a case", when the case was:

A.) Never heard in the first place (Which is what actually occurred, and is not a "loss")

and

B.) Has the potential to be re-opened. (Which did happen.)
 
Last edited:

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
I highly doubt that it will help. He has stated multiple times that it is only about him, and not about others.

He seems to want to be "that guy" that fixes it; for himself. And if he can't, he will do his best to "fix" it so no one else will have it either.

If this is true, wouldn't it mean that supporting him is the only intelligent and logical reaction?

After all, if it really means a win for him would mean a win for all of us, and a loss would mean a loss for all of us, what does wishing for his failure say about a person?

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw

Ever read any Ayn Rand?
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
slow, ...It's never if you'll begin insulting someone who holds different viewpoints than yours, it's only when.
Oh, why not...
RussP, you are so predictable.

Not only did I call that you wouldn't hang out after Leonard stopped posting and/or was banned,
Yes, slow, I guess I am. I log into OCDO everyday. I browse multiple sub-forums several times a day. They are a great source for information and opinions.
I also stated you weren't truly for open carry...
I truly am for and advocate responsible open carry when and where appropriate. What is good and right for me may not be appropriate for others who open carry. There are many personal decisions involved with carrying a firearm for self defense. I've made mine, but understand others will make different ones.
My issue is not with differing viewpoints, but instead with attempting to hide said viewpoints under a cloak of deceit.

Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, don't know what that means.
My "warm and fuzzy place" would certainly be where you are open, completely straightforward, and honest in all activities, so that we may have a meaningful discussion.

You let me know when/where you and your cohorts are willing to get there, and you will notice a polar shift in my responses, much as have been observed in other areas of this forum over the past few years.

A mere peek at my signature limelights your true nature.

If only the people on this forum had the capability, or the desire, to actually look at what you talk about, and how you talk about it, in the JBT section of glocktalk.
Well, that forum is a members only forum, so I can't discuss what is posted there. I will say you and Leonard have been topics. You seem to be proud of my comment about you.

I have been open, completely straightforward, and honest. You just don't like what I have to say.
You support the lawful carry of AK derivative pistols now? - That's great!
You support the carry of firearms in parks? - That's great!
You support redress of grievances for the unlawful siezure and termination of Leonards HCP for no purpose, and with no substantiation? - That's great!

All of these patently lawful activities being violated have steered the ship to where it is sailing now. Not that you are likely to agree with that.
Oh, there is no disagreement that Leonard's behavior gave rise to several situations which have, or will have, an impact on firearm laws in Tennessee and, probably, other States.

As far as your questions, I do not remember saying I do not support the lawful carry of an AK derivative pistol. Doing so is protected by the Constitution and Tennessee law in Leonard's case.

Carry of firearms in parks - that is allowed by Tennessee law. The allowed part is what needs changing.

I certainly do support redress of grievances for a suspended permit. The appeal process is part of the law. Leonard is the one who waved his right to appeal. I believe that was unwise.
Constitutional carry in the state of Tennessee would be fantastic.

Not that I would expect you to extend any gratitude towards Leonard, were he to win his case, and the outcome be precisely that.
Why not wait for the outcome, slow?
I have listened to you groan about Leonard finding legal counsel for quite some time now, and once he does, it is now "not good enough".

The sliding scale of standards you use as a metric to gauge "acceptability" is either broken, or bipolar.

Have you not seen that he has retained counsel?
slow, what are you talking about? The only attorney Leonard has posted about is for the Radnor Lake case. He predicts there his attorney, former military and former LEO, is going to wipe the floor with the Rangers and officers from Metro PD. I look forward to reading about that.

I believe someone with a Constitutional law background, real, successful courtroom experience would be an advantage in his challenge case.

Just last night he said he would not get an attorney for the challenge and will represent represent himself because he can.

Did you talk to him this morning?
Might it be that he is tired of RussP, his adoring, stalking admirer, following him around for years, and denigrating his efforts at every last turn?

Might it be the compelling difference in your demeanor between here and the JBT's on GT, that belies your true intentions?

Maybe you should have been polite with him from the get go, and less inflammatory in accusation.
Could be... :D
I will, and have.

Patience.

Leonard is more insightful than you think.


You need to work on minimizing your chest thumping, and giddiness, in posting that Leonard "lost a case", when the case was:

A.) Never heard in the first place (Which is what actually occurred, and is not a "loss")

and

B.) Has the potential to be re-opened. (Which did happen.)
Chest thumping and giddiness? Let me go back to that post... Okay, I'm back...
kwikrnu lost his lawsuit against State of TN Unconstitutionality of HCP law

Judge dismissed the case.

Here is what Leonard said on another forum...
I just can't find all that in those words.

Now, let's get back on topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top