• 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.

OCer arrested in Smyrna TN

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I guess it depends on a person's priorities, but yeah.

(I personally don't criticize a person for taking a course of action that results in inconvenience or worse, oppression, when that course of action involves taking a stand against some injustice, even if it is not foreseeable that their stand will effect change.)
+1

Lets break down the legal analysis of Oh Shoot.

The legislature may regulate wearing arms with a view to preventing crime. Oh, really? Howwww are they going to do that? How are they going to distinguish a criminal intent from wearing a gun from the legitimate intent to be able to defend against grave bodily injury or death. Or, political activism? How exactly are they going to make that distinction when exercising their power "with a view to preventing crime?"

They can't. Plain and simple. There is no way to distinguish between the criminal wearing a gun and a good-guy wearing a gun until after he uses the gun. Or, maybe demonstrates very clear indicators of contemplating a crime, e.g., walking back and forth to take repeated peeks into a jewelry store window, giving rise to a suspicion that he is "casing the joint" for an armed robbery (See Terry v Ohio.) Outside of that, there is no way to regulate gun carry "with a view to preventing crime".

So, immediately, we know the constitutional provision is bogus outside of a very narrow range of circumstances that cannot be sorted out until after the crime is committed or high suspicion justified. Well, that just knocked out almost every possible regulation and penalty. About all that is left is sentencing enhancements after conviction. And, even that would not be preventing crime, only dissuading crime.

So, with an eye--a bogus eye--to preventing crime, the legislature penalizes refusing to show a cop your permission slip? Really? You wouldn't have the damned permission slip if you were a criminal!! The fact you bothered to obtain one argues massively that you are not a criminal.

Do these people think I was born yesterday?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,021
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
+1

Lets break down the legal analysis of Oh Shoot.

The legislature may regulate wearing arms with a view to preventing crime. Oh, really? Howwww are they going to do that? How are they going to distinguish a criminal intent from wearing a gun from the legitimate intent to be able to defend against grave bodily injury or death. Or, political activism? How exactly are they going to make that distinction when exercising their power "with a view to preventing crime?"

They can't. Plain and simple. There is no way to distinguish between the criminal wearing a gun and a good-guy wearing a gun until after he uses the gun. Or, maybe demonstrates very clear indicators of contemplating a crime, e.g., walking back and forth to take repeated peeks into a jewelry store window, giving rise to a suspicion that he is "casing the joint" for an armed robbery (See Terry v Ohio.) Outside of that, there is no way to regulate gun carry "with a view to preventing crime". ...
Well said.
 

Oh Shoot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
184
Location
Knoxville
+1

Lets break down the legal analysis of Oh Shoot.

The legislature may regulate wearing arms with a view to preventing crime. Oh, really? Howwww are they going to do that? How are they going to distinguish a criminal intent from wearing a gun from the legitimate intent to be able to defend against grave bodily injury or death. Or, political activism? How exactly are they going to make that distinction when exercising their power "with a view to preventing crime?"

They can't. Plain and simple. There is no way to distinguish between the criminal wearing a gun and a good-guy wearing a gun until after he uses the gun. Or, maybe demonstrates very clear indicators of contemplating a crime, e.g., walking back and forth to take repeated peeks into a jewelry store window, giving rise to a suspicion that he is "casing the joint" for an armed robbery (See Terry v Ohio.) Outside of that, there is no way to regulate gun carry "with a view to preventing crime".

So, immediately, we know the constitutional provision is bogus outside of a very narrow range of circumstances that cannot be sorted out until after the crime is committed or high suspicion justified. Well, that just knocked out almost every possible regulation and penalty. About all that is left is sentencing enhancements after conviction. And, even that would not be preventing crime, only dissuading crime.

So, with an eye--a bogus eye--to preventing crime, the legislature penalizes refusing to show a cop your permission slip? Really? You wouldn't have the damned permission slip if you were a criminal!! The fact you bothered to obtain one argues massively that you are not a criminal.

Do these people think I was born yesterday?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. Just citing the existing justification for all this that's "on the books".

In fact, since there is no empirically provable correlation between the permit system and crime prevention, the only irrefutable logical conclusion is actually the opposite -- that indeed it creates criminals (those who carry without a permit) who would not be criminals if there were no laws against carry at all. "When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them" comes to mind.

However, there are only two ways to change the TN Constitution, and these individual acts of civil disobedience will not likely ever lead to either of them. And unless the entire phrase is struck, doesn't matter if the "crime" part as justification is there or not.

- OS
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,371
Location
White Oak Plantation
Then Tn does not have legal open, or conceal carry. A citizen is just taking their chances by carrying, their status and an OC state needs to be changed. But if they are like most states that have laws making carry illegal like NC, but exceptions excusing the law the implication by the courts in most states that the person is legal, unless there is RAS of a crime.
TN does not recognize our right to keep and bear arms. Any TN politician that invokes his support for the 2A to gain your vote is a liar and a fraud. All the good citizens of TN need to ask their reps to explain this disconnect.

What remedy is there? None other than we hoping a cop has not had a bad day. Any cop who claims to support the 2A is also a liar if he ever invokes this prior restraint on a LAC.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Citizen has summed up the problem we have here in TN perfectly. Everyone here seems to be fine with how things are, as ridiculous as they may be, so how does one effect change? One might express his view to his state rep for all the good that would do, although we do have a few sympathetic reps in the state legislature they can only do so much. Bills are introduced to the body every year just to languish and die. I moved here from MI. and enjoyed a very liberal carry environment there and now I need a permission slip to carry although I find LEO and the good people of TN are very accepting of firearms and carry of all types. I OC all over my little burg here and no one bats an eye. Evidently people think that the laws as they are now are fine and there is seemingly no problem with carry as most people experience it then why change things? I don't get it, but that's how it is here.
 

BBJCaptain

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
40
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

quote: The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. unquote. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

a discussion of the forum's legal beagles might be interesting to follow.

ipse
Publius Huldah schools the TN AG on the Supremacy Clause

https://youtu.be/32sOB8XpMM4

And I really like this one too.

All Federal Gun Laws are unconstitutional!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dJlQasG9a-8&sns
 
Last edited:
Top