Tennessee Second Amendment Sanctuary Act

[Gerthquake0107]

Tennessee HB0928 | 2021-2022 | 112th General Assembly

Summary (2021-06-02) AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 38 and Title 39, relative to the Tennessee Second Amendment Sanctuary Act. [Comp. became Pub. Ch. 553]

legiscan.com

 

[FLAK]

Now we talkin.

 

[blackdawg]

My local state representative introduced this, Bruce is fighting for our rights like he’s the third monkey on the ramp to board Noah’s ark!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

Nice

 

[AKBorn]

Just one reason I decided to make Tennessee my home this year, after many years in Maryland.

 

[TBO_Jason]

Initially, it sounds great. In some weird way, reading it almost makes me feel proud.
But why?
The more I think about it, this proposal is nothing more than unhealthy politics. It gets people worked up over a nonexistent threat. It's fear mongering, and it doesn't change a darn thing. It makes voters think that only evil awaits without this valiant, brave legislation; thank goodness we have this bill to keep the boogey man from taking our guns. Truth is, it does little more than get folks riled up, which is what politicians do to get their name in the paper and solicit more money.

This bill is both moot, and a waste of time and resources. If the federal gov't does something that violates the 2nd Amendment, which is unconstitutional by definition, then it's already unlawful in TN, and every other state in the union. Therefore, it's unenforceable, so no need for a new, virtue signaling, law that only makes us feel proud to be gun owners from TN. It's just more unhealthy politics.

Dollars to donuts, there will soon be a link for us to make a financial contribution. I'm not taking the bait. I'm keeping both my guns and my money.

 

[dieselchessy]

I think you missed the point. Its a statement that the state is steadfast in their support of 2A.

I'd say your pretty trusting to think its a "nonexistent threat". The Constitution is just some words on paper without folks there to make sure its upheld as the law of the land.

 

[z987k]

Initially, it sounds great. In some weird way, reading it almost makes me feel proud.
But why?
The more I think about it, this proposal is nothing more than unhealthy politics. It gets people worked up over a nonexistent threat. It's fear mongering, and it doesn't change a darn thing. It makes voters think that only evil awaits without this valiant, brave legislation; thank goodness we have this bill to keep the boogey man from taking our guns. Truth is, it does little more than get folks riled up, which is what politicians do to get their name in the paper and solicit more money.

This bill is both moot, and a waste of time and resources. If the federal gov't does something that violates the 2nd Amendment, which is unconstitutional by definition, then it's already unlawful in TN, and every other state in the union. Therefore, it's unenforceable, so no need for a new, virtue signaling, law that only makes us feel proud to be gun owners from TN. It's just more unhealthy politics.

Dollars to donuts, there will soon be a link for us to make a financial contribution. I'm not taking the bait. I'm keeping both my guns and my money.

I mean you're right because all federal laws trump state laws. So if somehow the federal government passed a all encompassing AWB tomorrow, AND it survived the courts, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what Tennessee thinks about that.
Other than they're not going to use state resources to enforce it. Similar to how a bunch of states said they would not use state resources to round up illegal immigrants or prosecute pot crimes.
In other words it'll be the ATF that's going to come kill all the dogs in TN and not the state troopers. Dogs are still dead either way.

 

[Desk Jockey]

I need to study the particulars of this one a bit. Seems interesting on its face. Perhaps there are some parallels to marijuana legalization efforts where some states decriminalize it but it remains federally illegal. I wonder if in part it is a bid to get gun makers to locate their businesses in Tennessee.

 

[roadrunner]

I mean you're right because all federal laws trump state laws. So if somehow the federal government passed a all encompassing AWB tomorrow, AND it survived the courts, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what Tennessee thinks about that.
Other than they're not going to use state resources to enforce it. Similar to how a bunch of states said they would not use state resources to round up illegal immigrants or prosecute pot crimes.
In other words it'll be the ATF that's going to come kill all the dogs in TN and not the state troopers. Dogs are still dead either way.

Except there are fewer ATF agents than state troopers...

 

[FLAK]

There's a reason I live in a beautifully RED Southeastern State.
Glory be to God.

 

[5MilesBack]

More states need to do this, we certainly can't rely on the federal government or SCOTUS to uphold our rights. In a similar fashion.....it's the federal government's responsibility to enforce our border protection and immigration laws. But if the Feds aren't going to do that, then the states and the citizens need to do that on their own. And if they have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to make sure that happens, then they should sue the federal government for reimbursement for "DOING the Fed's job for them". Our federal government is failing us in a huge way right now in every regard........intentionally.

 

[dieselchessy]

I mean you're right because all federal laws trump state laws. So if somehow the federal government passed a all encompassing AWB tomorrow, AND it survived the courts, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what Tennessee thinks about that.
Other than they're not going to use state resources to enforce it. Similar to how a bunch of states said they would not use state resources to round up illegal immigrants or prosecute pot crimes.
In other words it'll be the ATF that's going to come kill all the dogs in TN and not the state troopers. Dogs are still dead either way.

That isn’t correct. Fed doesn’t always trump State. States can give or protect rights beyond that of the Fed, but cannot remove or restrict rights more so than the Fed.
AWB is deemed not to deal with constitutional rights. That’s why they are always talking about the Interpretation of what the forefathers meant. If they could get folks to agree “arms” doesn’t mean “guns” they could then ban guns without infringing on 2A. We would be free to “bear arms” as we wished. Just couldn’t have guns.

 

[5MilesBack]

AWB is deemed not to deal with constitutional rights. That’s why they are always talking about the Interpretation of what the forefathers meant.

It's pretty hard to misinterpret "shall not be infringed". Restrictions, outright bannings, tax stamps.......they're all infringements.

 

[FLAK]

Infringe; dont go there.

 

[dieselchessy]

I agree, but unfortunately most folks don't care what I think.

 

[TNHunter]

Glad to call Tennessee my home for 57 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

The Constitution and the BOR's don't "give" the citizenry its rights......they are there just to keep the government from diminishing, restricting, taking away.......and in the case of the 2A......from even infringing on that right. That's why just bringing up the notion of "gun control" in Congress or any other form of government or agency is unconstitutional. You can't constitutionally do it........so don't even bring it up! The sad thing is they won't even enforce the laws we already have on the books, yet they're constantly looking for new ways to "control" the people.

 

[z987k]

That isn’t correct. Fed doesn’t always trump State. States can give or protect rights beyond that of the Fed, but cannot remove or restrict rights more so than the Fed.
AWB is deemed not to deal with constitutional rights. That’s why they are always talking about the Interpretation of what the forefathers meant. If they could get folks to agree “arms” doesn’t mean “guns” they could then ban guns without infringing on 2A. We would be free to “bear arms” as we wished. Just couldn’t have guns.

Yes federal laws always trump state laws. It's the supremacy clause. Article 1 section 8. Plus plenty of supreme court decisions and an entire war.
The states can give rights in their constitution not protected by the federal constitution, but if there's a federal law that is the opposite, the feds can still enforce it all day. What rights you have on your day in court is going to depend on what court you're in. Who charged you. The local police or the FBI/ATF(a grand jury in the case of a federal felony.) Obviously if the state doesn't have that law it won't be a state court.

Weed is a really good example. Just because weed is legal all over the place doesn't mean you can't be charged by the feds. Not a single state with legal weed overrules federal drug laws.

 

[dieselchessy]

Yes federal laws always trump state laws. It's the supremacy clause. Article 1 section 8. Plus plenty of supreme court decisions and an entire war.
The states can give rights in their constitution not protected by the federal constitution, but if there's a federal law that is the opposite, the feds can still enforce it all day. What rights you have on your day in court is going to depend on what court you're in. Who charged you. The local police or the FBI/ATF(a grand jury in the case of a federal felony.) Obviously if the state doesn't have that law it won't be a state court.

Weed is a really good example. Just because weed is legal all over the place doesn't mean you can't be charged by the feds. Not a single state with legal weed overrules federal drug laws.

I think you mean Article 6........