Patriotic Wisdom

The past couple of years have seen the Tennessee Legislature working on a variety of gun related laws. Much of this work is to loosen restrictions created more than a dozen years ago when Tennessee finally passed its Handgun Carry Permit legislation. While these new laws are an improvement, for the most part, they’re creating something of a hodgepodge that will soon become difficult to decipher. To keep this from happening, I propose a new law that will simplify and clarify the current code.

Article 1 Section 26 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee says;

Weapons; right to bear arms

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.

Notice that it says "with a view to prevent crime". The Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) addresses this point by requiring certain steps be taken before being issued an HCP in Tennessee. One of those steps is to establish that the applicant has a good history as a law abiding citizen. Background checks are performed by Federal and State Law Enforcement Agencies and notification is sent to local law enforcement in case they have any additional information. If you successfully pass these checks, and you’ve completed the other requirements, you’re issued an HCP.

The issuance of an HCP in Tennessee shows that you’ve lived a law abiding life and there is no reason to expect that to change. Therefore, the law covering HCP holders should be short, simple and to the point. Here is my suggestion for a gun law for Tennessee:

The holder of a valid and current Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit shall be allowed to bear arms at any time or place within the State of Tennessee with only the following exceptions;

1. On properties owned, leased or under the control of the Federal Government, Federal law shall prevail.

2. On properties owned, leased or under the control of private parties, those parties may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting a sign of not less than eight (8) inches wide and not less than ten (10) inches tall containing only the following wording. THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

3. No person, including those holding a current and valid HCP shall carry on or about the person while inside any room in which judicial proceedings are in progress The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any person who:

(a)  Is in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of official duties as a guard employed by a penal institution, or as a bailiff, marshal or other court officer who has responsibility for protecting persons or property or providing security; or

(b)  Has been directed by a court to bring the firearm for purposes of providing evidence.

4. No person, including those holding a valid and current Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit,  may consume alcohol in public, or be under its influence, while in possession of weapons. Under the influence shall be defined as having a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater.

5. There can be no prohibitions against the holder of a valid and current Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit from storing legal weapons within the confines of any motor vehicle which they own, lease or have legal control over.

That’s all that would be needed for HCP related legislation. Federal law would still be in effect and private property owners would have their rights protected. Criminals would continue to have the same restrictions they already have.

The problem with this suggestion is obvious. Legislators don’t pass laws based on common sense. Those that are opposed to guns would kick, scream and rally against the proposal. The fact that very few HCP holders ever commit even a misdemeanor doesn’t sway them from their insensate arguments that laws such as this lead to Dodge City style shoot-ups and a reign of terror. The truth of the matter is that there are states with fewer restrictions than those I’ve proposed. None of those states have experienced problems with lawlessness, in fact they have lower crime rates than states with more restrictions.

Those opposed to gun rights in Tennessee should honestly look at the available evidence, rather than operating off their feelings. Cities such as Chicago and Washington DC saw a  substantial increase in gun related crime after enacting their gun bans. Both of those laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the past two years. Many countries such as England have likewise experienced similar violent crime increases after enacting their weapons bans. Locales such as Kennesaw, Georgia have seen large decreases in crime after passing laws opening up gun ownership. It’s estimated that armed citizens help stop between 800,000 and 2 million crimes each year in the United States.

I think it’s time to stop sticking our heads in the sand and face the reality. Law abiding citizens, when exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms", reduce crime and make our lives safer. Now if we could only get the Tennessee legislators to figure this out.

The second paragraph to the Declaration of Independence begins;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When the Founding Fathers wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident" they meant that they were so obvious, everyone could understand them. When they wrote of "unalienable rights" they meant no one could take them away. Don’t confuse this concept with the idea that no one could give them up. Although you can’t have these rights taken from you against your will, you can choose to give them away. Sometimes you give them away simply by not protecting them. You may give them away by not being involved politically and electing people to office that think they know what’s best for you. That is entirely of your choosing.

The Constitution of the United States was passed in order to provide us with the legal structure needed to operate this new Country. Without first declaring our independence, our Constitution would not be valid. When considering what is in the Constitution, including the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, we must remain mindful of what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence. These two documents are not mutually exclusive, they work hand in hand.

Within the Bill of Rights there has been much discussion on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many people argue that this Amendment grants Americans the right to own (keep) and carry (bear) guns (arms), while others say it doesn’t allow individuals to keep guns at all. I believe that both sides misconstrue or misrepresent the purpose, and or meaning, of the Amendment. In fact, my contention is that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to grant us the right "to keep and bear arms". I maintain that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges that the right already exists, as it warns the Federal Government not to infringe upon that right. During this period of our history, the term infringe meant to defeat or frustrate. The Founding Fathers were saying that people have the right to protect their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and Congress was to make no laws which would make protecting those rights more difficult or impossible.

At the outset I quoted the part of the Declaration of Independence, where it states that there are "certain unalienable rights" which are bestowed by our Creator. The rights enumerated, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have one very important thread in common. All three require that, in order to enjoy them, people must have the ability to defend them. To demonstrate this we’ll look at "Life", since everyone has life, it is the most obvious to all and the easiest to understand.

For the sake of argument, imagine yourself being stranded on an uncharted island belonging to absolutely no one. One day another creature, whether man or beast, comes along and tries to kill you, for whatever reason. Would you try to protect your right to live, or would you refuse to defend yourself and accept death? Obviously, in that situation, the only way to maintain your right to life would be by self-defense, even if forced to kill that which would seek to end your life. If your Creator did not grant you a right to self-defense, you would have no means by which you could keep your right to life. The same holds true for the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To keep them, you may be required to defend them. The right to "keep and bear arms" is absolutely essential to prevent your rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from being taken. They are not the only means you have to defend yourself and your rights, but there may be times when they’re the only effective choices.

There’s an old saying to the effect of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". There is no inalienable right to infringe upon the rights of another and our laws are supposed to be designed to protect those that are abiding by the law while punishing those that are not. If someone tries to infringe on any of your rights, society may dictate that the guilty party relinquish some of their own rights as punishment. Depending on the crime, a part of that punishment may include losing the right to liberty, through incarceration, restrictions to what you can do and who you can associate with while on probation, "the right to keep and bear arms" and various other restrictions. Unless and until one is found guilty of violating the rights of another, no law should negatively impact a persons right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or their ability to protect those rights.

More than ever, we need representatives, and judges, that understand that the right to keep and bear arms is simply an extension of the right to self-protection, that it is self-evident, and that they only have the right and duty to regulate it regarding criminal activities. Law abiding citizens should not be adversely affected by any such laws, including gun laws. Our representatives seem to have forgotten that all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When we elect representatives that don’t stand up for our rights, as written in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, we have effectively given up those rights. For this we can only blame ourselves and that is another self-evident truth.