Should we sue over 13-17-1359?

[redbarron06]

[benburke]

Good points, good clarification, and good questions. I hope John Harris will answer this one.

[johnharris]

Using the language of the Nashville court's ruling, it would be possible to file a similar lawsuit. I would give serious thought to challenging most of the TN weapons laws. Why stop with posting? Let's argue the entire statutory scheme if too complex re: courts, "prohibited weapons", public carry and the presumption that any carry is "with intent", local parks option, posting, etc.

Think about it, let's not attack just one - let's advance the arguments that the entire legal framework on citizens with firearms is too vague and complex to be reasonably comprehended so that a person is comfortable in comprehending what is and is not illegal.

[macville]

Here's something to think about. The TN Constitution says the only power granted to regulate wearing of arms is with a "view to prevent crime." How does -1359 prevent crime? Shouldn't -1359 be struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds that it doesn't prevent crime? Shouldn't carrying a gun onto someone's "public", but private property be the same as regular trespassing? IE: the property is open to the public, but you can be asked to leave at any time, and if you do, there are no charges/fines.

Property owners should be able to put up any signs they want, but should no hold legal weight. If someone is asked to leave for any reason and refuses, then that's the ONLY time the cops should be able to do anything.

John, am I wrong in my thinking about this? Seems like -1359 is in direct violation of -1359 as there is no way to prove that it prevents crime. Plus, if this was proven to be correct, you might start down a slippery slope that showed places like parks/schools/etc. also couldn't be proven to prevent crime.

Matthew