2nd amendment

More 2nd amendment controversy in TN as judge rules ‘guns in bars’ law unconstitutional

Posted on


A Nashville judge has ruled a law that allows handguns in Tennessee bars and restaurants is unconstitutional.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled Friday that the law, enacted earlier this year over the veto of Gov. Phil Bredesen, is “fraught with ambiguity.”
Critics of the bill — including the plaintiffs in the suit — have said the law was unconstitutionally vague. In Tennessee the law does not distinguish between a restaurant and a bar, making it hard for patrons and restaurant owners to know if they are violating the guns-in-bars law.

In Tennessee, places that serve liquor by the drink are technically classified and licensed as restaurants because they also must serve food as their primary purpose under the law. But audits of their sales sometimes show that establishments appearing to be restaurants actually have sold more alcohol than food, Will Cheek said.

“Who in the world knows, when you walk in the front door, whether it’s a restaurant or a bar?” said Cheek, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys.

He said Sam Sanchez, the owner of Sam’s Sports Bar and Grill, had testified in an affidavit that he didn’t know if his business was a bar or a restaurant.

“It depends on the time of the day, it depends on the time of year, and sometimes it varies from year to year,” Cheek said.

State attorneys countered that a person of “ordinary intelligence” can tell whether food or alcohol is an establishment’s main business.

“What the plaintiffs have basically told the court is that my husband and I aren’t intelligent enough to tell what a restaurant is,” Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Sanders said.

“What really matters is who carries a gun,” State Sen. Doug Jackson said. “Law-abiding citizens are not the problem.”

Plaintiffs in the case “were not able to go into that courtroom and talk about the ill effects of this law … they did not occur,” Jackson said. “We’ve had no problems. It was a non-event.

“All of these scary predictions about what was going to happen have not been realized.” {more}

The Tennesseean throws in this tidbit without saying why it’s relevant.

Of the roughly 218,000 handgun permit holders in Tennessee, 278 had their permits revoked last year, records showed.{more}

It’s illegal to carry a handgun and drink alcohol. Restaurant/bar owners can post signs saying they do not allow guns in their establishments. What’s so hard about that…..


Anti-Defamation League defames by innuendo

Posted on

David Codrea and friends take on two of the most racist hate spewing propaganda groups this country has ever seen, ADL and SPLC.

Photo Courtesy Oleg Volk, A Human Right

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

We’ve seen how the Southern Poverty Law Center has found smearing Oath Keepers a good tactic to exploit and call attention to themselves, and we’ve seen how some in the media jump at the chance to abet them. No doubt feeling left out on an opportunity for some publicity, the Anti-Defamation League has come out with “Oath Keepers and Three Percenters Part of Growing Anti-Government Movement” as their way of jumping on the bandwagon.

Here’s the thing to keep in mind when ADL spouts off with their fraudulent rhetoric and bluster: It’s not people like us who would deny full enfranchisement of all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, to racial and religious minorities.

It’s them. The folks with the Orwellian name, who defame their political opponents while pretending to be against the evil practice…

Read the rest: David Codrea – Gun Rights Examiner 

also see: The War on Guns

Bloomberg and your agenda… you’re not welcome in Tennessee

Posted on

Questioning Bloomberg may get you the label of anti-semitic as this cover art did.

The mayor wants to extend his agenda of ‘gun control for the masses’ by creating media events in other states. Diverting attention away from what is arguably one of the top five corrupt cities in the world is only one part of the plan.

Bloomberg is one of the front men for the ultimate goal of disarmament/gun confiscation of our civilians.

He is a zionist jew billionaire and intimately intertwined with the many aspects of the decline of America. Besides being the current New York City cover-up man for the crimes of 9/11, Bloomberg’s role always includes ‘re-interpretation’ of the 2nd amendment.

It’s not working. We know what you are up to…

NYC investigators expose easy sales in Nashville, Smyrna

The firearms trade at gun shows in Tennessee and two other states took a hit from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Wednesday with an undercover investigation that said it was too easy for felons to buy guns.

One of Tennessee’s leading gun rights advocates questioned the methodology of the investigation and said Bloomberg has been on a crusade to tighten gun laws. John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, said additional laws and regulations are not the solution to illegal gun sales.

“He’s been against guns and private gun owners for a long time,” Harris said. “This is an example of an investigation designed to support an existing prejudice.”Bloomberg’s platform as mayor of the country’s largest city is to draw attention to the issue, gun shows and states like Tennessee.

Investigators using tiny hidden cameras placed in ball caps and purses targeted the gun show industry in Tennessee and across the nation. The report by the city of New York titled “Gun Show Undercover” said loopholes in federal and state law allow violent criminals to easily buy firearms from merchants at more than 2,000 shows each year. {more – Brad Schrade – The Tennessean 10/8/09}

Disarming the population seems to always result in slavery and genocide.

Innocents Betrayed – Gun Control History

170,000,000. That’s the number of civilians that have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. 170,000,000 men, women, and children who were defenseless to protect themselves. 170,000,000 victims of gun control.

Stay out of Tennessee Bloomberg. You and your Wall Street gang of thieves with your divide and conquer social engineering techniques are not welcome.

Gunfire in the Distance…the sound of the 2nd amendment

Posted on Updated on


Sitting out on the back porch this afternoon, instead of the normal sounds of silence or of nature, I heard the sound of gunfire. Someone was practicing, training in the use of firearms.

I’d say about 200 rounds were fired. It sounded like maybe a 22 pistol, then maybe a five shot revolver, a semi-automatic pistol and last, some kind of semi-auto rifle with quick bursts. The echo from the hills increased about 4 times with the rifle.

Call the law? Not me. It’s hard to get in any practice time. Go to a range? Who’s got the money? The ammo is expensive enough.

Having seen the law show up on several occasions in the past to a ‘training session’ in the country and shut it down, I think we should have this right to practice, even if others can hear us as long as it’s done safely. Heck, one time 4 county patrol cars came storming in with pistols drawn and wanted to know what we were doing. This was in sunny weather and on a Saturday afternoon, fairly deep in the hills.

“Just practicing sir, we’re all legal.”

“Well, the neighbors a mile away said you were making too much noise and you can’t continue.”

It gets harder and harder to train in how to effectively handle firearms outside of a controlled environment that has to be paid for. Home schooling makes too much noise for the neighbors.

I like the sound of gunfire in the distance. That person who is practicing could possibly turn out to be an ally…

Tennessee Court Upholds the Law and the 2nd Amendment

Posted on


For once the Tennessee state legislature voted the will of the people and the courts affirmed it.

This is about much more than just the right to defend and protect one’s self and others. It is about confirming the 2nd amendment. Without the 2nd, the 1st amendment is a moot point, as well as the rest of our constitutional rights.

The provocateur injunction filed by a Nashville restaurant owner to keep the ‘guns in bars’ law from going into effect tomorrow has been thrown out.

I’m going to out on a limb again and ask if someone representing some ‘organization’ paid this man to file the suit. Gun control/slavery advocates and those who desire control of the masses often use money and lawsuits to try and get their way.

The opt-out provision in the law allows owners to post that no guns are allowed but I think many of them don’t want to do this in fear of loss of business. There are a significant number of folks around here who would rather frequent an establishment that is not a ‘gun free zone.’

This sign is all the anti-2nd amendment zealots need to ‘protect’ their property.

Judge allows Tennessee guns in bars law to take effect

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A law that allows handgun carry permit holders to carry their weapons into Tennessee bars and restaurants that serve alcohol will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday after a Nashville judge Monday afternoon denied a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed late last month were seeking an injunction, alleging that the so-called “guns in bars” law is a public nuisance and threatens the public’s safety.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled Monday against blocking the law, though she said the case should be explored further in 90 days.

The law retains an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun and restaurant owners can still opt to ban weapons from their establishments.

Critics of the measure have continually said guns and alcohol in close proximity are a dangerous combination. {source}

One media outlet gives the man who filed the lawsuit his say, and it is BS.

“I’m not worried about the 99 percent of gun owners who are permit holders. I’m worried about the 1 or 2 percent of would-be ‘Dirty Harrys’ who are going to carry out their attempts at vigilantly justice in our cities and environments,” Randy Rayburn told NewsChannel 5.

NewsChannel 5 conducted a poll that asked if the judge should stop the guns-in-restaurants bill from becoming law – 38 percent said yes, 62% said no. Nearly 1,200 people participated in the survey.{source}

Not everyone is fooled by those who try to disarm honest citizens.

Mike says:

How much longer must we law-abiding citizens put up with the emasculation of the Constitution of the United States.

I took an oath to uphold and defend, as many have, including all those politicians at the federal level.

I have come to the point of declaring anyone who would infringe or water-down the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a traitor.(This means you Feinstein, Holder, et al.)

If I only had the Legal Authority to charge them as such . . .

No, I wouldn’t shoot ’em – they’re not worth a bullet.

Now each person, in each community, who is tired of the criminal having more rights than the law-abiding, of having local/state/federal politicians lieing out both sides of their mouths just to stay in power; get up off of your butts and take back your towns, cities, states, and Congress. Any judge who displays an activist agenda from the bench gets impeached. – Get the first one, the rest will fall in line.

Vote out the School Board, fire the Principal, tell the mayor to grow some backbone. Tell your Congressman to stop being a traitor to his oath and stop attacking citizens rights to self defense!

It is the way it is because WE let it be so. WE can stop it, and must before we look like Great Britain or Australia. {source}

I’ll add to this and say that if we don’t stop the crimes of government against the constitution, we’ll be looking back at the police states of Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the U.S. as they are today and say that was the ‘good ole days.’

Tennesseans up in arms over new gun laws

Posted on

The Tennessee legislature obviously thinks it is voting for what the public wants regarding 2nd amendment rights. It’s too bad that they, and the US Congress, don’t listen to the people in every law making effort.

Bar owners have the right to ban patrons from carrying in their establishment.

Senate overrides veto of bill allowing guns where alcohol served

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Senate has joined the House in overriding Governor Phil Bredesen’s veto of a bill to allow handgun permit holders to carry their weapons into places that serve alcohol.

Any such establishment still has the authority to forbid permit holders to carry in their weapons by posting a sign that says no guns are allowed.

Currently, 37 states have similar legislation.

In a statement released Wednesday, Governor Bredesen’s press secretary said, “Governor Bredesen said last week when he vetoed this bill that he expected an override. He’s disappointed with this action but that doesn’t change his belief that we can exercise our second amendment rights and common sense at the same time. He believes guns and bars simply don’t mix, and this legislation doesn’t provide the proper safeguards to ensure public safety. Governor Bredesen stands by his decision to veto the bill.” {more}

Handgun permits are up in Tennessee

In July, many Tennesseans will be allowed to carry their guns into restaurants and bars, but numbers show more and more people are already getting gun permits.

The Tennessee Department of Safety says there were 191,000 permitted gun owners in the state by January 2008.

One year later, it rose to 218,000.

The latest number from April of this year, shows 222,000 are allowed to carry guns in the state. {more}

Gov. Bredesen is still sitting on a passed bill that allows any resident who has a valid handgun carry permit to possess a handgun while within the boundaries of any state park.

HB0716 which will allow handgun permit holders in Tennessee to carry in state and federal parks (well as of 2/10) passes the Senate and the House. One HUGE downside to the new law, unless vetoed, is that local governments can vote by RESOLUTION (not an ordinance) to close an entire local park. It will now be up to local citizens to contact their local government officials to demand that the parks stay open.

Tennessee Proposes New Gun Law Similar to Montana New Gun Law

Introduction – Tennessee legislators have started a bill that would exempt all firearms made in Tennessee from federal gun laws if the weapons were intended to remain in Tennessee. This is extremely similar to the new gun law already signed into law in Montana. Utah and other states intend to follow with a similar bill. This is a way to stop the Federal government from doing any more gun control.

Implications – The media is saying this is a challenge for the Federal Supreme Court to get involved. Think this is the media intending to soft peddle it. This type of legislation is intended to severely limit the powers of the Federal government. So the media would have us believe that the Supreme Court will say sorry states you can’t do this and the states will say ok come take our guns away. Childish attempt on the part of the media to deceive us. The states would tell the Supreme Court what powers the constitution allows for the Fed and then go to secession if the court tries to expand these powers contrary to the constitution. The states joined the union many years ago based on the powers the constitution affords to the Fed and all the other powers belong to the states. This was the contract and it had no specific expiration date after which the Fed could do what it wanted. The Fed according to the constitution has no power to regulate firearms; the contrary is the case in that the right to bear arms is guaranteed. The Fed can regulate interstate commerce that crosses state lines but has no power to control commerce within a state. These powers are quite cut and dried and above and beyond some judges twisted deceitful interpretation that meets their goals.{more}


Tennessee prohibits the micro stamping of ammo and weapons from being sold within the state boundary… Senate Bill 1908, the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” sponsored by State Senator Doug Jackson (R- 25), would prohibit the sale of micro-stamped firearms or ammunition in Tennessee.

House Bill 70:

Sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42), would remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection of personal property. It also expands your right to self defense to a business. SIGNED and becomes LAW on JULY 1, 2009.

Here is a law that every state should have:

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen Signed HB1778 Into Law!!! “No Gun or Ammo Confication From Government During Martial Law”

A person who legally possesses a gun would not have it seized during periods of martial rule under a proposal that has been signed into law by the governor.

The measure was signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen on Thursday and takes effect immediately.

Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Republican Sen. Jack Johnson of Brentwood, 1 of the sponsors, has said he doesn’t expect such behavior in Tennessee, but believes legislation should be in place just in case.

Not everyone is a staunch 2nd amendment supporter and the local media has given plenty of coverage to their views.

Gun bill advocates support legislation to keep public in dark.

Nashville councilmem want to thwart Tennessee gun law

One man’s defense is another’s fear

Why Not?…
Now that the state lawmakers have voted to overrule Gov. Bredesen’s veto, let’s move on to the next bill — allowing those with state-issued handgun carry permits to bring their weapons in the state House.

After all, the House members that voted for this bill should be allowed to experience first hand the result of their own laws.

Granted, there are a world of problems to be addressed. The states have little effect on the crimes and wars of the federal government, Congress and the laws that they pass, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street thefts; but they can take steps to attempt to ensure that the states have the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

All states should solidify their rights. It’s unfortunate that it takes legislative time and money to prevent the federal government from increasing their police state ambitions but it needs to be done.

One opinion on states rights vs. the feds:

What About Secession – If the Federal courts try to void out the states right concerning firearms or otherwise, the states will resort to secession. At some point the states may have to grab a gun to enforce their rights. The Federal government is always out there first with guns offering a violent unilateral solution to problems. Try telling them to practice gun control and see how many guns they point at you fast. I would say Montana would be right there armed and ready to stick up for their rights. Obama is not one to stand up to those standing up to him. Montana will win hands down if they as the saying goes “stick to their Guns”. Obama would never do what Lincoln did and attack those states seceding from the Union. The states that secede will probably join together making new nations, eventually.

So the states are finally holding the feet of the federal government to the fire. Either the fed quits and behaves constitutionally (only in your dreams will this ever happen), or they ignore the states and let them do as they please (most probable outcome) or they go nuts like Lincoln and show their war monger nature and attack using police and/or military to force compliance upon the states trying to free themselves. The last alternative is very unlikely. This would let the cat out of the bag and people would see how evil they can get when they want something. The people in the USA would never forgive this and the military would probably never fight such a fight. Very unlikely. Secession is also what the states are relying on the counter martial law. Martial law would basically shut down the state legislatures and government. They do not want to be irrelevant. The states rights legislation allows for them to declare the federal government illegal and irrelevant in the event of martial law. They would then reorganize themselves and/or the other states under the constitution thus seceding. This could be accomplished in a few days unless the feds sent agents to prevent the legislature from meeting. This of course moves the USA into a full illegal dictatorship role, which I doubt they would want to assume. Again look to them to do nothing since they do not have any good options.

Let’s Talk Taxes and Secession – How this would play is interesting. If the states secede for sure they are not going to assume their portion of the debt to the private bankers called the Federal Reserve Bank. This means the Federal Reserve Bank loses face. Their debt would be considered to be illegal gains as a result of their ponzi scheme called the Federal Reserve Bank, which is also a tax haven as well. The states that secede will of course start banks and rest assured there will be bank secrecy and numbered accounts. Further believe they will not share information with the USA who will probably be trying to collect back taxes from their constituents. More fun and games. New secret banking system and of course a new currency. You think that Obama and Hillary can deal with this? Name one thing that they were right about so far? See what I mean.

Other Things to Look For

Money – The states will start to “coin” their own money in Gold and Silver. This is constitutional money. This is another fight the fed will not want because it will illuminate the unconstitutional nature of their money and of course its worthlessness. Obama will look the other way on this. He is a supporter of fiat money and as long as the states do not go to fiat money he will not care.

Drugs – States will begin to legalize drugs. The legalization will vary from state to state. Generally expect personal use of “soft” drugs only. The Fed will not like this. Fights will ensue similar to California and their legal medical marijuana.

Health Care – States will assert their right to alternative health care and begin to license all sorts of alternative health care providers. Much more than what is seen today.

Banks – States will begin to open banks that do not have FDIC and are not subject to any Federal rules and regulations.

Harold Koh’s Transnationalism

Posted on

Meet Harold Koh, another Obama nominee who is well versed in the globalist/banker world ‘vision’ of control of the slaves.

https://i2.wp.com/www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0409/HaroldKohImage8.jpg “International law should be “brought down” into domestic law around the world.”

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens. {source}


A World Drowning in Laws

from the New Ledger

by Ted Bromund

The Administration’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, has come under widespread criticism for his advocacy of legal transnationalism. This is the belief that international law should, in Koh’s words, be “brought down” into domestic law around the world.

The problem today, Koh argues, is that a few states – pre-eminently the U.S. – are obstructing this process. Koh’s favorite way to criticize the U.S. for this is by pointing to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the U.S. should pay “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Koh claims that “decent respect” requires supporting anything concerned with human rights that a majority of the world’s states have endorsed, and even requires U.S. courts to draw on the decisions of foreign courts and on treaties the U.S. has not signed.

As Koh put it in late 2008:

The next President should recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence to pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’ by supporting, not attacking, the institutions and treaties of international human rights law.

Or, in 2002:

[In] an interdependent world, United States courts should not decide cases without paying ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.’

But here, in words that should be familiar to all Americans, is what the Declaration says:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration’s purpose was to tell the world the U.S. had a right to independence. The Founders believed it was necessary to pay “decent respect” by explaining why this was so. To transform this reasoned assertion of self-government and sovereignty into an argument that judgments in foreign courts should guide American judges, or that the U.S. should sign treaties simply because other states have done so is, at best, specious and distorted.

Koh has not been shy about expressing his transnationalist convictions. Indeed, one of the most troubling things about him is his willingness to lump “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” together, as though they should be regarded as inseparable and equally authoritative. In his 2002 Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture at Fordham University, on “A World Drowning in Guns,” he argued that one of the most pressing issues facing the world is the need for, in his words, “the global regulation of small arms.” Koh is not alone in this belief: it is embodied in the long-running campaign for a U.N. treaty on the subject.

This campaign has recently born fruit. On October 31, 2008, the UN General Assembly voted by 145 to 2 against, with 18 abstentions, in favor of a resolution supporting the negotiation of an arms trade treaty. The U.S. cast one of the negative votes. The passage of the resolution resulted in the creation of a working group charged with the eventual drafting of a treaty to create common standards for the international import, export, and transfer of small arms. Koh’s views on global arms regulation therefore bear directly on a question he will be called to advise the State Department upon if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Koh is strongly in favor of building what he describes as a “global gun control regime.” His starting point is that small arms and light weapons – essentially, any weapon that can be carried – are responsible for most of the deaths in the world’s wars. This is entirely correct. Unfortunately, that is where his realism ends.

Koh believes that small arms are responsible for “dramatically fuel[ing] and inflam[ing] armed conflicts.” This theory has been popular among liberals since the 1920s and the campaign against the ‘Merchants of Death’ who supposedly caused the First World War. But the argument has little to recommend it: wars, and the accumulation of arms, are the product of underlying political rivalries, not their cause. As Koh acknowledges, the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes: if the hatreds are there, weapons will be found.

But for Koh, the only relevant question is how to bring global gun control into existence. As throughout his work, he called for aid in 2002 from a “transnational legal process.” This process begins with liberal NGOs who create networks around a problem as they define it, and develop so-called norms of behavior. Governments then create a “law-declaring forum” that embodies these norms and operates at a global level, and a “broader interpretive community” crystallizes to interpret and promote the norms in “a variety of settings.” This “community,” which includes U.S. judges, then draws on the interpretations it has fashioned to remake law and practice in the American setting.

The crucial step in this process is the interpretation of the norms, because it is those interpretations – provided by that supportive “community” – that decide what domestic law means. In this view, international law is not bottom up: it does not reflect what democratic political processes within nations decide to accept. Rather, it is top down: it is born of transnational advocacy, and then “internalized” by “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” to refashion domestic society. From this point of view, international law is a set of norms that exists to be interpreted by liberal law school professors in the U.S. This turns international law into an expression of aspirations, not of democratically-sanctioned practice: build it, Koh implies, and the world will be forced to come along.

This is not a vision that pays “due respect” to the right of self-government. On the contrary, it has no patience with the idea that law should be created solely by the duly-elected representatives of the people and interpreted according to the Constitution. As a result, for example, Koh’s claim that the U.S. could support global gun control “without committing itself to a regime that would affront legitimate Second Amendment concerns” is meaningless. Like the rest of the Constitution, the “legitimate” concerns inherent in the Second Amendment are up for transnational redefinition. But Koh is right about one thing: the process he describes has driven the campaign behind the arms trade treaty.

Yet that campaign, for reasons that reveal the practical fallacies of the transnationalist vision, is a dangerous one. The General Assembly’s resolution calls for the treaty to create “common international standards” for the sale, purchase, and transfer of arms. more