TN Man's Permit Revoked: 1st Fall Out @ Post 110-MERGED

[wmhawth]

This guy's actions could have easily been that of an Anti and y'all would be ripping him on this forum.
.

His actions, although unwittingly, WERE the actions of an anti. Not difficult to understand really. He serves their cause well.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[DeckardBR]

I have an AR pistol, ten-inch barrel and such, registered plumb legal and all. I don't carry it in the car, although I could, or on my person, cause my person ain't big enough to hide it. Figured, why get stopped for some reason and hafta do all that explainin'. Cops see me with that and I'd be down ta the station while they checked with the NSA, Homeland Security, Interpol and all them folks. Ain't worth it frankly. They see a .357, they're fine with it. Suits me too, I guess. All in how ya look at it I spoze.

[Treo]

So , subject to a few common sense restrictions, you support the 2nd amendment.

Seems like I've heard that somewhere before

[1911marine]

Fine....but who gets to define idiot? Nancy Pelosi? We'd all be in trouble.

NO, Boxer, Pelosi and the rest of their comrades can keep their noses out of this. A man that taunts laws and paints his muzzle orange can not, IMO, be trusted. What law abiding citizen feels the need to walk down the street brandishing a pistol or walk around with an AK pistol painted up to be like a toy?

And to the poster who said that the 2A can not be taken away from individuals....well, you are very wrong. Felons may not own firearms, even when they are released from jail. Before posting nonsense, do your homework.

I believe that people who want to flaunt their guns by clearly making us look like idiots is.....an idiot.

[tankdriver]

Just got this emailed to me from the NRA...

"Right-to-Carry Ban Proposed in Belle Meade!Please Stand Up and Make Your Voices Heard! On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits.Not only does this legislation create a victim zone inside Belle Meade by disarming law-abiding citizens, it is also a clear violation of Tennessee’s preemption statutes. The Board of Commissioners will meet at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday at the Belle Meade City Hall located at 4705 Harding Road. Please make plans to attend Wednesday’s hearing and voice your opposition to Ordinance 2010-2. If you are unable to attend, please contact the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Board of Commissioners TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose this illegal and ill-conceived proposal. Contact information can be found below. Telephone: 615-297-6041Fax: 615-297-0255 Gray O. Thornburg, Mayorgray.odwonline@comcast.net James V. Hunt, Sr., Vice-Mayorjhunt@citybellemeade.org Tom Corcorantcorcoran@corcoranmaddox.com Cathy Altenberncaltenbern@citybellemeade.org George W. Crookecrook@comcast.net"


So, looks like the guy walking around Belle Meade with a black powder revolver may have stirred it up for the rest of us.

Thoughts now?

ETA: sorry bout the email links being dead, doing this off my Iphone and am a bit lazy today.

[Will B. Droopy]

Tankdriver: "Right-to-Carry Ban Proposed in Belle Meade! On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits."

I am just SO shocked. Didn't see that one coming; no sirree, that bit of news has taken me COMPLETELY by surprise (NOT!!).

As many of us stated in the below thread on "TN Man has Carry Permit Revoked", such idiotic behavior demonstrated by that armed TN fool causes just this kind of backlash.

PaxMentis: "I personally think that people like youself who are willing to accept the assertion that carrying a gun is a privelege validly subject to bureaucratic whim are far more dangerous to the 2nd Amendment than anyone who carries a gun perceived as "evil" or who points out the foolishness of an archaic law by following it."

And to respond directly to PaxMentis: Sorry, but the courts in the United States have consistently stated that concealed carry is NOT mandated under the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, unlike our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, CCW is NOT a right, but a privilege, which can be taken a way as easily as your driver's license.

PaxMentis, I too sure as heck wish CCW were part of the 2nd amendment, but my -- or even your -- wishing just ain't going to make it so. In the future, you may want to look a little deeper into things that you are so passionate about, instead of simply stating fallacious arguments that are completely and provably untrue. [There is quite enough misinformation out there as it is without bringing up the old "CCW is our RIGHT" chestnut].

-Bill

[MitchellCT]

I, for one, think it's a wonderful wake up call for gun people to learn that the body of law involving firearms does not begin and end with The Bill of Rights to the Federal Constitution, amendment #2.

Regardless of those who say "What part of shall not be infringed do you not get" their are many more considerations at issue than your simplistic interpretation of the constitution.

The sooner people wake up and start being able to inteligently address these issues (and that means reading things outside of other people's posts that you agree with on firearm related internet sites...) the better.

Your thoughts and feelings on the state of law in the USA are insignificant compared to the realities of the law.

I assure you, those who would disarm you are very aware of the law, its interpretations and implications, because while you were talking about how things SHOULD BE, they were implimenting how things ARE.

Think carefully next time you retreat to your retorical soap box and start talking about what should be to the dismissal of what is.

You may be doing a favor for people you'd rather you didn't help.

[Jblack44]

Boy, they sure did put a big BUT in your Constitution!!

Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear
arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law,
to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

[TedBeau]

According to the NRA email included TN does have preemption statues so all that is needed is someone willing to spend the time and money to get charged with a violation and then fight it in court.
I wonder if the NRA would be willing to foot the court cost?

[tankdriver]

I have said this was all he wanted all along, a Lawsuit. If it hurt the rest of us or not. There is no Righteous cause, just a get rich scheme....

On other forums, he has stated that he knows how much damage his lawsuits can do to us, if they don't go the way he wants them to (and he says he will represent himself, due to the high expense for a lawyer). Even knowing the damage that could be done, he's still going on with his plans to try to win the lawsuit lottery.

From his posts to Glocktalk, from last August:

"I have already told my wife if I am arrested for legal carry of my handgun to not bail me out of jail. I'll stay in there and it will add to the money that the city is going to have to pay me after I sue them."

"At some point I will be arrested for legally open carrying. I haven't met the right cop yet. Maybe I need to dress down or get a bigger handgun like a PLR-16."

"I can't wait for a cop to arrest me because I open carried a handgun and someone called 911. It's almost happened twice but no cigar, yet. Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that."

[MitchellCT]

I hope the NRA tells people that if they want to solve this issue, they can foot the bill themselves.

The NRA has better things to do than spend money cleaning up this guy's mess.

[Hopyard]

I hope the NRA tells people that if they want to solve this issue, they can foot the bill themselves.

The NRA has better things to do than spend money cleaning up this guy's mess.

Why? Look, either the state has a pre-emption statute or it doesn't.

If it does and the city is passing an ordinance in violation of the state statute, that rule can be challenged.

It isn't necessary to wait for someone to be charged. Any licence holder ( someone affected by the rule) should have standing to ask for an injunction against it being enforced.

Why isn't that the NRA's (or TN Gun Owner's) business?

This stuff is going exactly as the provoker of the incident wanted it to go. Of course he will seek an injunction--- uh, now that they took his license maybe he will lack standing. Duh, there's the motive for finding an excuse to take it from him. Still an license holder in that city could file for an injunction against the city enforcing its rule because it conflicts with the state pre-emption.

Also, state officials ought to uphold their own statutes and the TN Attny General has a distinct interest in preventing cities from running rough shod over state preemption rules in general. It is their job to uphold TN law.

[razor02097]

[2ndAmend]

Wow this story has been beaten to death. All week long it has been back and forth. We all know this guy is a tool and we knew that the city was going to do some thing. I for one am tired of hearing about it, us sitting here debating whether this guy should have done what he did or if Belle Meade should try and pass an ordinance about CC won’t do any good. Here is an idea; members on here that live in and around TN should stand up for their rights there (not the idiot's that has been making a mess of things) by writing the mayor, congressman, or any other representative that can help. When we start arguing amongst ourselves then we do no good for anybody or our 2ndAmend rights. Just my 2 cents!!

[MitchellCT]

Why isn't that the NRA's (or TN Gun Owner's) business?

To clean up the wreckage of stupid people?

No.

Not the NRA's job.