My letter to the East Tennessee Baptist Association
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:59 amDear Brother Hogan,
As I read the headlines in this morning's Chattanooga Times Free Press, I was saddened by your comments, due to your lack of understanding on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. I am a follower of Christ, but I support House bill 962, totally.
HB 962 was vetoed by Governor Bredesen, after he agreed he would support the legislation to receive the endorsement of the National Rifle Association during his last election. The media has successfully, but inaccurately labeled the legislation as "guns in bars." And a lot of people, including my state senator, Andy Berke, have formed an opinion on this legislation without knowing enough about it. Mixing guns with alcohol is wrong. This is true, but this is NOT what the legislation is all about. Permit holders will risk losing their permits if they carry a handgun and drink even ONE drink.
The Tennessee Constitution was initially written in 1796. At that time it protected the right of “freemen” to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution 1796 provided: “That the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.” In 1834, Tennessee amended Article I, Section 26 of its Constitution to read: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.” The 1834 amendment had the effect of precluding non-whites from claiming the “right” to keep and bear arms in Tennessee. Oddly, it could be argued that the 1796 Constitution recognized a “right” that existed independent of Constitution but then somehow the 1834 Constitution decided an error had been made and that the rights which were recognized in 1796 were not as uniformly shared by all men (and women) as had initially been the case. In 1870, the Tennessee Constitution was amended to remove the “white men” restriction. Unfortunately the legislature at that time added a provision regarding the Legislature’s power to regulate the wearing of arms. The regulatory clause may be viewed as a either a grant of power and/or a restriction on a perceived power of the legislature. In either event, the 1870 amendment took the format that the state constitutional provision holds today: “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.” Note that the Tennessee Constitution does not mention the “militia” when it speaks of the right to keep, bear, and wear arms. It speaks of the individual rights of the citizens of this state to keep, bear and wear arms. The authority of the Tennessee Legislature to regulate the constitutionally protected right to “wear” weapons has been restricted to those instances where the legislature’s regulation has a “well defined relation to the prevention of crime” according to the Tennessee Supreme Court. One could easily argue that any number of the statutes which the Tennessee Legislature has enacted since 1870, predominately those enacted since the 1970’s, on the issue of firearms and other weapons exceed the 1870 constitutional restriction upon the Legislature’s regulatory power. If the 1834 constitution was wrong, could it not be feasible the 1870 constitution is still wrong?
You see, the legislation was meant to broaden our right to bear arms as the original state constitution afforded. I don't believe I should be restricted from the ability to defend myself, my family, or any innocent bystander, period.
As a follower of Christ, I don't drink, because I want to "abstain from all appearance of evil," but when I go to O'Charley's or Logan's with my family, to eat a meal, I want to have a right to protect my family in the unlikely event that some nutcase shows up. God gave me that desire and right, not the Tennessee legislature.
Please take time to read Bob Weir's commentary from last year.
Sincerely,
Ben Burke
As I read the headlines in this morning's Chattanooga Times Free Press, I was saddened by your comments, due to your lack of understanding on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. I am a follower of Christ, but I support House bill 962, totally.
HB 962 was vetoed by Governor Bredesen, after he agreed he would support the legislation to receive the endorsement of the National Rifle Association during his last election. The media has successfully, but inaccurately labeled the legislation as "guns in bars." And a lot of people, including my state senator, Andy Berke, have formed an opinion on this legislation without knowing enough about it. Mixing guns with alcohol is wrong. This is true, but this is NOT what the legislation is all about. Permit holders will risk losing their permits if they carry a handgun and drink even ONE drink.
The Tennessee Constitution was initially written in 1796. At that time it protected the right of “freemen” to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution 1796 provided: “That the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.” In 1834, Tennessee amended Article I, Section 26 of its Constitution to read: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.” The 1834 amendment had the effect of precluding non-whites from claiming the “right” to keep and bear arms in Tennessee. Oddly, it could be argued that the 1796 Constitution recognized a “right” that existed independent of Constitution but then somehow the 1834 Constitution decided an error had been made and that the rights which were recognized in 1796 were not as uniformly shared by all men (and women) as had initially been the case. In 1870, the Tennessee Constitution was amended to remove the “white men” restriction. Unfortunately the legislature at that time added a provision regarding the Legislature’s power to regulate the wearing of arms. The regulatory clause may be viewed as a either a grant of power and/or a restriction on a perceived power of the legislature. In either event, the 1870 amendment took the format that the state constitutional provision holds today: “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.” Note that the Tennessee Constitution does not mention the “militia” when it speaks of the right to keep, bear, and wear arms. It speaks of the individual rights of the citizens of this state to keep, bear and wear arms. The authority of the Tennessee Legislature to regulate the constitutionally protected right to “wear” weapons has been restricted to those instances where the legislature’s regulation has a “well defined relation to the prevention of crime” according to the Tennessee Supreme Court. One could easily argue that any number of the statutes which the Tennessee Legislature has enacted since 1870, predominately those enacted since the 1970’s, on the issue of firearms and other weapons exceed the 1870 constitutional restriction upon the Legislature’s regulatory power. If the 1834 constitution was wrong, could it not be feasible the 1870 constitution is still wrong?
You see, the legislation was meant to broaden our right to bear arms as the original state constitution afforded. I don't believe I should be restricted from the ability to defend myself, my family, or any innocent bystander, period.
As a follower of Christ, I don't drink, because I want to "abstain from all appearance of evil," but when I go to O'Charley's or Logan's with my family, to eat a meal, I want to have a right to protect my family in the unlikely event that some nutcase shows up. God gave me that desire and right, not the Tennessee legislature.
Please take time to read Bob Weir's commentary from last year.
Sincerely,
Ben Burke