A Crossville Gun Ban

I've been given permission to post the following, about a proposed municipal gun ban in Tennessee. It is presented unedited except for deleting email addresses and boilerplate, the thread running from newest to oldest. There is also a file attachment from the Crossville City Manager that you can download from here.

re: Crossville Proposal to Ban Concealed Carry‏
Wed 2/11/09 11:46 PM

Councilman Kerley,

Thank you for the reply, and for your efforts to stand against this bill.

I find it curious that members of government always seem to be for restrictions of rights for members of the public, most often 2d Amendment rights, even when FBI reports and many other research projects prove, repeatedly, that gun control laws do not work and have never worked. In America, anyway; I confess that such laws worked well for Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and the Nazi Party, Krushchev, and the like.

Ask the council if they are aware of how many have been killed as a result of government-mandated gun control ( http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart ) and ask the council if they are assuming liability for the personal safety of each and every citizen when the police are not available (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/dial911anddie.htm ). Ask them if they are capable of providing individual bodyguards for me at no cost if and when I visit the area, and if not, ask who the hell they think they are to place the value of their lives above mine and my family. Ask them just how much liability insurance they are willing to carry, both business and personal. And then, ask them what they are so afraid of.

I wonder about their reasons; it always seems that government wants to restrict our 2A right in government - owned by the public - areas, and one might speculate as to why they feel it necessary to disarm the public – perhaps they have some nefarious plans in mind?

As you requested, I am passing this on to several prominent forums, church leaders, multiple business contacts, potential visitors from elsewhere, and to many other residents, including a large group of former, active, and retired service personnel. If the ordnance passes, Crossville will lose my money, and will suffer the impact of whatever bad advertising I can generate. I for one am determined that any encroachment on my rights will result in a lessened cash flow for Crossville’s economy and a negative effect on the city’s reputation, if these invidious assaults on my / our rights continue.

Thank you again!

William Shires

From: jesse kerley RE: Crossville Proposal to Ban Concealed Carry
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:22 PM

thanks for your email. i made a motion last night in the City Council meeting to abolish the ordinance and it did not receive a second. you need to inform every that JH Graham, Carl Duer, and Earl Dean are for passing a gun ordinance.

Subject: Crossville Proposal to Ban Concealed Carry
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:29:54 -0600

Mayor Graham

Crossville, Tennessee

February 09, 2009

Sir:

I’m writing to voice my concerns over Crossville’s proposed ban on concealed carry on city-owned property.

My first question is “Where does this stop?” After all, the streets and sidewalks are “city-owned”, are they not?

On average, I visit Crossville twice a month for one reason or another, sometimes more often, and while there, I spend money. I’ve been doing this for 15 years. During all that time, I’ve carried a concealed weapon for protection, and to date, not once have I yielded to justified anger at government any of the many violations of my inalienable rights, nor have I gone berserk and attempted to rob, threaten, or otherwise forcibly mandate what other people should do. Sad to say, but that is exactly what your city government is attempting to do; forcibly, at uniformed gunpoint, strip law-abiding citizens of their rights.

I am of the generation where kids carried rifles back and forth to school on bikes, and as they grew older, in cars and trucks. You know, that generation where kids grew up understanding firearms, and where we did not have school shootings? I’ve been using firearms since I was 8 years old, and have been carrying a personal weapon for nigh on 40 years. In all that time, I recall few cases of law-abiding citizens using firearms inappropriately, yet I am aware of many cases where law enforcement officers have and continue to do just that. You probably aren’t aware of this salient trait, which is why I bring it to your attention. I don’t mean to imply that the Crossville Police Department is less than professional, but historical records show that one never knows. Yet you wish to abrogate my rights?

If your staff advises you that my assertions are incorrect, may I suggest you review The Only Ones files? After the first 10 or so pages, you may see my point.

Please remember that I have a choice as to where I invest and spend money. If I can not visit Crossville without fear of harassment or arrest for exercising my inalienable rights, then I won’t. Visit or invest / spend money.

You may have seen the quotes I’ve included below. Perhaps not. I find in many cases that advice given by staff is only what they think you want to ( or should ) hear.

You propose to ban concealed carry? You are aware that state law does not mandate concealed carry? The so-called license ( see 4 below ) not only allows for open carry, but specifically prohibits any requirement of concealment. So a ban would probably have the opposite of its’ intended effect. And, keep in mind that subordinate governments can not supersede state law.

By the way, since Crossville’s web site does not provide emails for Dr. Duer, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Wyatt, please make copies available to them for their perusal.

Thank you for your consideration.

William Shires
US Army (Ret.)
Cookeville

--------------------------

1. Most citizens just assume the police will protect them. That assumption is false. The police cannot protect everyone -- in fact the police usually have no legal duty to protect anyone. Dial 911 and Die, the book available now, proves this fact. For nearly every American state and territory, this book shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect individuals from crime. The police in most places do not even have to come when you call.

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership

2. Police Officers carry a sidearm for the protection of themselves and others. You should have a firearm for the same reason. That is what this right is all about. No one I know of has a police officer right with them all the time. I can tell you right now that when you need that officer, chances are he or she will not be able to get to you in time to help.

Sheriff Michael E. Cook, Texas, November 2002

3. It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.

McCullough v.Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)

4. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Aa person cannot be compelled to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)

5. It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

6. When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.

US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406 (1980)

Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821)


/end/