A legislative bench-consisting of three judges in the Gibson County Chancery Court of Tennessee-made an impactful ruling, that two currently established laws violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of Tennessee’s Constitution. These laws pertain to the ‘intent to go armed’ and prohibition of weapons in state parks. The cause behind this lawsuit originated with the Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Stephen L. Hughes, Duncan O’Mara, and Elaine Kehel, who collectively filed against Governor Bill Lee. The joining plaintiffs initiated the claim on the basis that the laws infringe upon Tennessean’s constitutional rights to bear arms.
The main point of contention was ‘intent to go armed,’ a statute known for its prevalence in Tennessee. This law makes it an offence to carry any deadly weapon, not only with illicit purposes in mind but also to inspire fear. The only line that separates lawful carrying of a weapon from being considered a legal offense is ‘intent.’ Given the ambiguity of this term, the law authorizes officers to question and inquire about every individual sporting a firearm. The legal right for permitless carry or possessing an enhanced firearms permit granted by the state does not exempt citizens from these checks.
More so, if the law enforcement officer suspects malintent, including crime committing or intimidation, they have the authority under the law to arrest the individual. According to the court’s ruling, such a law essentially declares the state as ‘gun-free.’ From this perspective, the judge panel’s decision was a reaffirmation of second amendment rights.
The Attorney General’s office attempted to uphold the ‘intent to go armed’ law, arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t safeguard the right to carry particularly dangerous weapons, exemplifying with a hand grenade. However, this argument was received unfavorably as the analogy was deemed flawed, and moreover, the very Second Amendment purported to preclude, does actually grant the right to carry a hand grenade.
The plaintiffs expressed specific concern about their rights to arm themselves for self-defence, particularly with regards to areas which are ideally ‘safe spaces.’ They voiced fears about their memberships of the Gun Owners Association being under threat if they chose to exercise their right to bear arms in state parks. These concerns extended to their fear of prosecution should they decide to carry their weapons to locations such as civic centers, playgrounds or any local government or state-owned properties.
In considering the state’s defense against these claims, the panel of three judges reaffirmed the importance of preserving constitutional rights. They found the state’s argument unsatisfactory and lacking, particularly failing to address ‘the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms,’ a key issue inherent in the challenged statute that warranted deliberation, prompting their ruling against it.
Undoubtedly, this decision leads us to ponder on a few impending complex issues. The ruling effectively nullifies the legislations, stripping them of their enforceability. However, the panel also acknowledged their lack of authority to issue an injunction on these laws.
The situation thereby leaves several questions lingering. What does this ruling fundamentally imply? When a judicial authority deems a law unconstitutional, does the state retain its power to enforce the law? If a statute is indeed considered unconstitutional, any attempt to enforce it should warrant a punishable offence and invite civil punitive responsibility.
Political entities have seemingly welcomed the judgment, requesting the attorney general’s office to contest the ruling for additional clarity. However, others have expressed concern that this decision could potentially endanger the public, by limiting law enforcement’s purview over those carrying arms.
Detractors of the ruling have pointed out that it restricts the ability of police officers to proactively investigate individuals expressing intent to bear arms, thereby potentially endangering public safety. This predicament places officers in a reactive role where they can only intervene after a crime has been committed.
Moreover, critics argue, laws or no laws, those with criminal intent will defy the rules and continue carrying arms to commit crimes. They argue that allocating law enforcement resources to surveil and harass citizens lawfully carrying arms is a needless waste of time and counterproductive.
They also express concerns regarding the ‘wait-for-crime’ stance stemming from this ruling, invoking implications on civil liberties and questioning the long-standing principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the ongoing discourse continues to surround the balance between constitutional rights and public safety.
It is imperative to note that while we strive to guarantee every citizen’s constitutional rights, the safety and well-being of the collective society deserve equal consideration. Debating the ruling’s implications can serve as a platform to discuss and reform the existing laws that shape the societal norms and legal system.
In conclusion, it’s an unprecedented time for Tennesseans and Americans at large, who are caught in the crossfires of the ongoing debate over gun control and constitutional rights. Resolution of these matters will substantially shape the future policy discourse influencing the delicate balance between citizens’ rights and public safety.
The post Revolutionary Judgment: Two Tennessean Laws Declared Unconstitutional Under the Second Amendment appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
