It renders the current Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution moot, as the 2nd Amendment is Supreme, the laws of Tennessee notwithstanding. City of Chicago case in 2010, where the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states, invokes Article 6 Section 2, which is the supremacy clause of our Federal Constitution. It is my further belief that the finding of the McDonald v. Regarding the restrictions placed on the People by our General Assembly in 1801, 1821, and 1870, making it a crime for a citizen to carry a firearm with the “intent to go armed,” they are clearly unconstitutional and have been set aside by this later Court! United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ Scalia said of THAT quote in Heller “We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon IS for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.” Quoting Justice Ginsburg in Heller from Muscarello v. When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”. Heller definition of what the 2nd Amendment REALLY PROTECTS. That being the specific definition of the “intent to go armed” in 1880 by our highest court, we find it reversed in 2008, via the District of Columbia et al. The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen…”. Quoting from the actual transcript of the Court’s ruling “…the intent to carry the pistol for evil purposes, or for the purpose of being armed, in the sense of the statute, is clearly negatived, and the motive an innocent one.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |