The ban had applied to firearms generally—handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Striking it down removed the statewide prohibition on the open carrying of loaded long guns (rifles and shotguns) in public by ordinary, law-abiding adults, subject to remaining location-based restrictions, prohibited-person rules, and other laws (e.g., prohibitions against brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner).

The Florida Attorney General subsequently issued guidance treating the ruling as binding on trial courts statewide and directing non-enforcement of the open-carry ban.

So different from Tennessee, where a three-judge panel ruled the “intent to go armed” statute, § 39-17-1307(a), unconstitutional, void, and without effect. Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti could have done the same with the Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. ruling but chose instead to keep the state’s foot on the neck of the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans, all while the legislature refuses to comply with the instruction of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the text-and-history analysis required by Bruen.

One substantive wording change is particularly important: I changed “refuses to correct the lack of instruction from the Supreme Court” to “refuses to comply with the instruction of the Supreme Court.”

This leaves Tennessee as the only Southeastern state to deny its non criminal citizens the inherited from our ancestors right to arms codified in our Second Amendment. Criminals carry them, the Police carry them, the legislature just does not want the People to be able to do so lawfully.

“Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall before they proceed to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States and also the following oath: I _____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State.”

I must have missed the constitutional amendment striking that requirement—or maybe I did not. Was it an executive order, as though a governor had the power to do such a thing? Possibly it is a directive from Tennessee’s new “CEO.” There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the power of that position because the position does not exist—yet here we sit.

The Tennessee Constitution of 1796 contained a Second Amendment analogue in Article 11 § 26, which read:

“That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence. (sic)”

Five years later, in 1801, the legislature passed one of the state’s first gun-control laws. We now have quite a few of them:

Carrying Weapons — 1801

“An Act for the Restraint of Idle and Disorderly Persons § 6.

Be it enacted, That if any person or persons shall publicly ride or go armed to the terror of the people, or privately carry any dirk, large knife, pistol or any other dangerous weapon, to the fear or terror of any person, it shall be the duty of any judge or justice, on his own view, or upon the information of any other person on oath, to bind such person or persons to their good behavior, and if he or they fail to find securities, commit him or them to jail, and if such person or persons shall continue so to offend, he or they shall not only forfeit their recognizance, but be liable to an indictment, and be punished as for a breach of the peace, or riot at common law.”

Somehow, this has morphed from “going armed to the terror of the people” into simply the “intent to go armed,” which remains on our statute books today, requiring no other action than an attempt to enjoy the black-letter civil right enumerated in the Second Amendment—which is, by the way, part of the Constitution of the United States that legislators swear in their oath to uphold.

Government—be it state, local, or federal—has but one charge: not to infringe upon the God-given rights inherited from our ancestors through their sacrifice of blood and treasure, under the certain knowledge that government, over time, will do its best to overtax the people and take away their rights and property if left unchecked.

Our Founders knew, that for Liberty to prevail, the people must keep the government in awe.

There was never a state prohibition against the carrying of rifles and shotguns until 1989, when the then-Democratic governor, with the assent of the legislature, made it illegal to bear those arms for all lawful purposes.

The Heller Court quoted the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Andrews v. State:

“In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol ‘publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,’ 50 Tenn., at 187 (1871), violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.”—District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008)

I can very well remember keeping my .30-30 rifle and 12-gauge shotgun in the rear window rack of my pickup truck on school grounds in 1971, and it was lawful to do so, a lot of the young men did the same thing.

Sadly, a number of legislators who now hold the Jim Crow-era law denying the right to keep and bear arms over our heads were still in short pants when that was occurring. They have never seen true Liberty, nor, evidently, do they care what it looks like.

In every instance where Judge VanDyke says Ninth Circuit, court, or “our” one could replace those words with the state of Tennessee, Tennessee General Assembly, or the unelected bureaucrat, our Attorney General. In his defense the current holder of that appointed position has told the legislature they need to restore our Second Amendment rights, but to no avail as we still are under the Jim Crow “intent to go armed” statue which makes it a crime to do lawful things like bear firearms for all lawful purposes.

His dissent in this case proves very instructive of the problems we as free men have in Tennessee:

“This case is just the latest chapter in our court’s long and concerning history of refusing to vindicate the Second Amendment. Come hell or high water, our court will find a way to uphold any weapon restriction that a liberal state can dream up. And the Supreme Court’s occasional grant of certiorari and reversal has done nothing, and I mean that literally, to change our court’s behavior.”

Furter he states:

“But since Bruen, we’ve quickly come up with a number of other analytical jukes to continue our resistance to the Second Amendment. For example, we’ve misread Bruen as creating two separate tests. What we’ve called a more nuanced approach, and the straightforward approach…and given our track record with the Second Amendment, you might correctly expect that we would find all sorts of weapon related restrictions not really all that meaningful. The bottom line is that Bruen, like Heller before it, changed nothing here in the Ninth Circuit. We still have plenty of tricks up our sleeve to avoid vindicating the Second Amendment. And we’ll come up with as many more as we need to.”

Reminiscent of applying the Salerno maxim of “no set of circumstance” needed to be proven by a citizen which might allow the state to prosecute a crime, as offered by the Attorney General in the Hughes et al. v. Lee et all case, even though the mere possession of a firearm is not the crime itself, but rather some other added act, like murder or assault.

VanDyke relating to this very situation by saying:

“So, initially the test labeled intermediate scrutiny imposed effectively no scrutiny. Under it, a state’s regulatory concerns always trump the individual plaintiff’s right to keep and bear arms. I’m not exaggerating…Between Heller in 2008 and Bruin in 2022, we considered at least 50 Second Amendment challenges, (Tennessee has had nearly as many piece of legislation to correct the failure of the General Assembly to recognize the Second Amendment as a civil right) significantly more than any other circuit and ultimately denied all of them. But as the analytical tools changed by instruction from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit did not change with it”.

His answer to the intentional infringement by the Nineth Circuit; to have the “Boss” take action, as the Supreme Court of the United Sates IS the arbiter:

“The Supreme Court should consider summarily reversing some of our wayward second amendment decisions. To put it more colloquially, it’s time for some bench slaps. Nothing less will give this court any pause before ultimately blessing every arms restriction it reviews.”

Is that Justice VanDyke coming up with some made up new maxim? Actually, no. You can find the term described in Black’s Law Dictionary.

“Bench slap is a judge’s sharp rebuke of counsel, a litigant, or perhaps another judge.”
Blacks Law Dictionary (12^th Ed. 2024

Going on he says:

“But in the courts of this country’s most populous federal court, the right to keep and bear arms, the palladium of liberty is effectively a dead letter. It is important that the Supreme Court justices understand this reality. In the Ninth Circuit, things are no different after Heller and Bruen than they were before. No different.”

His suggestion of summary reversals is furthered by this statement:

“When the Supreme Court summarily reverses, it’s essentially sending a clear, if harsh message to a lower court. Dear lower court, your decision sucks. And it sucks so badly it isn’t even worth a closer look. Kindly redo it. Regards, the Supreme Court. By summarily reversing, the Supreme Court will not have to develop new doctrine or waste time repeating holdings it has already made. It can just cite Bruen and force our court to gain some much needed practice faithfully applying the proper Second Amendment framework. Most of my colleagues can’t fathom writing of pro-second amendment opinion. They need to get some reps in.”

Here is where he really likens the Nineth Circuit to Tennessee:

“The truth is that a majority of my colleagues treat every arms restriction as presumptively constitutional and then have to work really hard to confirm that presumption.”

How far we have fallen from the days of the Overmountain Men who sought no permission from government to exercise their preexisting right to arms…

Sadly, our collective Tennessee Legislature has no moral compass and seeks only to bolster its power through the police state, using your tax dollars to do so. (See Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. for clarity on that issue.) They refuse to follow the orders of the Supreme Court of the United States, setting themselves up as gods to decide what permissions, as Attorney General Skrmetti has suggested, we as the People should be allowed to enjoy.

In determining whether a law infringes the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, you must begin with the plain text of the Second Amendment. The analysis of that plain text is fundamentally a linguistic analysis. You take the words as they were written in 1791 and interpret them using Founding-era dictionaries and other contemporary sources to determine what the ordinary American understood those words to mean. Not some fabricated interpretation from lawyers funded by today’s Chamber of Commerce.

What would the ordinary American have understood the Second Amendment to protect in 1791? The ordinary American who survived the Revolution against the government of the day, or who survived the loss of a father, son, brother, or husband? That is why the courts refer to “text as informed by history.” It explains how the constitutional text must be interpreted according to its original public meaning at the relevant historical period. Of course, that period is 1791, because that is when the terms must be defined.

That is all the Heller decision says. It has since been reaffirmed for eighteen years by courts whose membership extended well beyond that of the so-called “activist judge,” Scalia. McDonald, Caetano, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and now Wolford all require that courts first look to the plain text to determine whether conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s protection. Only then does history become relevant to determine whether the government can justify an infringement.

Not infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms—including, if necessary, resisting a tyrannical government—is a fairly plain concept. Everybody who had just come through the Insurrection against Great Britain, and who possessed one eye and the sense of a two-year-old jackass understood it.

The analysis is straightforward.

First, does the law apply to “the People,” meaning all members of the political community?

Second, does it concern “arms,” that is, weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes?

Third, does the law place any restriction upon either the keeping (possession) or the bearing (carrying) of those arms?

If the challenged law falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, it is presumptively unconstitutional, meaning it infringes the preexisting right that the Amendment codified.

If we engage in that required analysis—which is spelled out in remarkably plain English—then cases such as Wolford become relatively simple. Even ordinary men and women should understand the analysis, unless, of course, they are instructed by their political bosses to disregard plain English. That appears to be precisely what is happening in Tennessee.

Poke your elected employees. They are about to be handed their heads. The only remaining question is this: just how tyrannical do they want history to remember them?

Fans who have just discovered the league are furious at the treatment of Clark, but the problem lies not in the attempts to beat her down. It falls squarely on the establishment of the WNBA and the failure of the referees (judges, if you will) to enforce the rules of the game evenly across the board. They themselves have failed to heed old saws such as, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

The parallel to the situation in Tennessee with respect to our legislature’s failure to honor the demands of the Constitutions, and its control over the branch of government that makes the laws, is striking. Just like those blind referees in the WNBA, they know what they should do. It is written down, with no equivocation allowed. Failure to observe the stated rules is willful, not happenstance; it comes from the very top of the organization.

If the Speaker of any legislative chamber—state, federal, or local—will not or cannot abide by what we all know to be the oath of office and protect the civil rights enumerated in the Constitutions, then We the People must replace them. (Thune’s failure to pass the SAVE Act is one demonstration of this.)

This last session, the TN legislature, by fiat, removed the understood right of the People to seek justice and accountability for heinous acts by elected officials by removing the right of the People to ask the courts to determine whether enacted laws are constitutional (SB 1958). That is the sole purpose of the judiciary: to rule on those issues, as described by the separation of powers in our state Constitution. This flies in the face of Article 1, Section 17 of that document:

That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.

The legislature can determine where and how suits may be brought, but nowhere does our rule book say that it can deny the People that ability, as it attempts to do in the language of SB 1958:

(a) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, a cause of action does not exist under this section:

(1) To seek damages; or

(2) To challenge the validity or constitutionality of any state statute.

(b) This section does not authorize a cause of action against, or waive the sovereign immunity and privileges of, the state, state entities, or state officials.

In 1803, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled:

“It is a settled and invariable principle, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 147 (1803).

This law must be rescinded. Raise your voice. The referees we have are treating us the same way they are treating Caitlin Clark.

I think it is appalling that the State of Tennessee uses my tax money to, with malice aforethought, deny my black-letter-law right to bear all arms for all lawful purposes. Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that text and history are the measures to be used, when approaching that preexisting the founding right, and that later-day legislation that was not generally accepted as a permissible infringement at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is void and without force.

It is accepted (vouchsafed in the Fourteenth Amendment and McDonald v. City of Chicago case through incorporation, and the recent Wolford case saying the Second Amendment extends to all states) that the states must offer at least as much liberty as the federal government on any issue, be it free speech, the ability to worship as each of our conscience dictates, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. You know, these truths we hold to be self-evident.

These pusillanimous, weak-willed, bought-and-paid-for violators of their oaths, who occupy the seats of the legislature and refuse to comply with the requirement of Article 10, § 1:

“Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and an oath of office.”

must be excised from public office before they have us groveling on our knees.

More government is not the answer; it most often is the problem. The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the Union. State legislatures are not delegated the power to deny its enjoyment by the sovereigns of the State (the People), regardless of their “feelings” or the dollars shoved into their campaigns by lobbyists who hate your liberty.

State Supreme Court decisions have meaning and should be applied to the rights of the People. Our General Assembly is either ignorant of Second Amendment precedent or is willfully refusing to recognize what is plainly before it in the binding decisions of our own Tennessee Supreme Court.

From Andrews v. State (1871):

“No enactment of a Legislature can, in the nature of things, reach back, and control or give direction to an act already accomplished. It was complete from the moment of its birth, so to speak, and can not be influenced or affected by another act, subsequent in time.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).

Continuing with the instructions to the Legislature from our state’s highest court in that same case:

“What rights are guaranteed by the first clause of this Art. 26, ‘that the citizens have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense?’ We may well look at any other clause of the same Constitution, or of the Constitution of the United States, that will serve to throw any light on the meaning of this clause. The first clause of section 24 says, ‘that the sure defense of a free people is a well-regulated militia.’ We then turn to Art. 2, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, where we find the same principle laid down in this language: ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’ We find that, necessarily, the same rights, and for similar reasons, were being provided for and protected in both the Federal and State Constitutions; in the one, as we have shown, against infringement by the Federal Legislature, and in the other, by the Legislature of the State.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).

Further—and this is a final nail in the coffin of the proposition that the Legislative and Executive branches of our state government are either clueless or lawless, one or the other—the Court held:

“What, then, is he protected in the right to keep and thus use? Not every thing that may be useful for offense or defense; but what may properly be included or understood under the title of arms, taken in connection with the fact that the citizen is to keep them, as a citizen. Such, then, as are found to make up the usual arms of the citizen of the country, and the use of which will properly train and render him efficient in defense of his own liberties, as well as of the State. Under this head, with a knowledge of the habits of our people, and of the arms in the use of which a soldier should be trained, we would hold that the rifle of all descriptions, the shotgun, the musket, and the repeater are such arms; and that, under the Constitution, the right to keep such arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871).

Supreme Court (SCOTUS) holdings are binding precedent on lower courts and provide controlling guidance for state legislatures on matters of federal law and the United States Constitution.

The trilogy of landmark cases—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, that the right is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as a fundamental civil right, and that, once an individual’s conduct implicates the Second Amendment, the burden immediately shifts to the government to prove that its infringement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

From Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The State is employing methods more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes than with a constitutional republic to achieve its desired goal of infringing upon our natural, God-given right to bear arms—a right that preexisted the Founding of this Republic. Tear down the statutes and erase the historical tradition supporting the People’s right to keep and bear arms, and government can manufacture a “New Order.”

They will succeed only if the People remain lazy and ignorant.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The latest in that list of cases, Hemani, states plainly that the ONLY basis in American law for disarming a person consistent with the historical tradition associated with firearms laws in America, going back to the founding in 1791 and the Second Amendment is if you have been found by a court or some other judicial process, to be a violent danger to yourself or to others.

For the kids in Romper Room:
1. Heller decided the Second Amendment is an individual right (backed by Andres v. State “Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier.” (emphasis mine) Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).) and established the “text, then history” metric as the “sweep” for adjudicating Second Amendment issues.

2. McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment against the states in 2010, effectively rendering the Jim Crow “intent to go armed” statue inoperative, but Tennessee’s government in all it iterations refuses to honor those instructions.

3. The Caetano case (2016) was a 9-0 butt kicking of the state of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that stun guns were illegal, found that the 200,000 in use satisfied the Heller “in common use” metric and, they were useful in armed self-defense.
4. New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen furthered the “text, then history” rule for issues concerning the Second Amendment, “ …reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text-especially text meant to codify a pre-existing right-is, in our view, more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. Id., at 790-791 (plurality opinion).- New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 22 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) I would further that the General Assembly of Tennessee is clueless when it comes to the protections offered the People by the constitution, like grandma used to say, “they don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground”.
“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 14 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)
5. In Rahimi, the SCOTUS once again found that there MUST be a clearly articulable threat of violence to take away the natural right of a person covered by the Second Amendment. Section 922(g)(8) restricts gun use to check demonstrated threats of physical violence, just as the surety and going armed laws do. Unlike the regulation struck down in Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) does not broadly restrict arms use by the public generally. 1307(a) and 1311(a) does that very thing without even looking at individuals, but burdens an entire class and in truth every person in the state, no mater their location…
6. Hemani, just decided last week invokes Heller and Bruen, literally tightened up the standards that the government (remember it applies to ALL governments) must meet to show a historical tradition of firearms regulation to justify a modern-day gun control law. The only basis in American law for disarming a person consistent with the historical tradition associated with firearms laws in America going back to the founding in 1791 and the second amendment is if you have been found by a court or some other process, to be a violent danger to yourself or to others. End of line.

In none of those cases did the government present, not did the argument prevail, that ANY application of a crime that COULD be prosecuted would cause SCOTUS to find the sweep of the second amendment to be upset by a single ridiculous circumstance such as carrying a hand grenade or stick of dynamite (the work done here is in another statue in Tennessee, not 39-17-1307 (a) which by state fiat make you a criminal for carrying a firearm or a club if you are breathing) when the plaintiffs simply wanted to exercise their preexisting, inherited from their Founders right to arms.

The oath of a legislator in Tennessee, pursuant to the Tennessee Constitution, Article X, Section 2, requires each member to swear or affirm:

“That as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State.”

Quit being mean, C. Richard.

Several of my friends who occupy seats at Cordell Hull get angry when I accuse the General Assembly of failing to do its job. The ping-pong game of one chamber blaming the other has been going on for decades, with no movement to restore the preexisting right of the People to arms.

Article XI, Section 16 of that same document states:

“The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that every thing in the bill of rights contained is excepted out of the General powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”

This language survives from the original 1796 Constitution, in which Tennessee’s analogue to the Second Amendment required the General Assembly to keep its grubby paws off the individual right of the People to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes. Yet it has become the purpose and practice of the General Assembly to place its collective foot squarely on that right.

Article II, Section 27 notes:

“Any member of either House of the General Assembly shall have liberty to dissent from and protest against any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the Public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.”

I have found no journal entries from ANY member calling out the failure of his or her fellow legislators to restore the God-given right to keep and bear arms, as recognized in the original State Constitution. That right was effectively stolen by statute beginning in 1801, and since then the General Assembly has continued to apply the whip to the horse, keeping its foot on the accelerator of restriction and on the brake of restoring rights.

Which means the General Assembly is perfectly comfortable taking away your rights under the guise of “fixing” society’s ills, while blaming inanimate objects (firearms) for the criminal actions of individuals.

The Second Amendment does not permit the core individual right to keep and bear arms to be fully “abrogated” (i.e., abolished or suspended) simply because of societal problems like crime rates, gun violence, or public safety concerns as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. TCA 39-17-1307 (a) does that very thing and the General Assembly knows it.

I just call them as I see them.

The hard use of my body over the course of nearly seventy-two (72) years resulted in the total degradation of the disc in the region and fractures of the vertebrae themselves, resulting in constant, pervasive pain of the sciatic nerve in my left leg.

One of the results of that was a symptom called “drop toe,” which negated the ability to walk heel-first on my left side and presented a tripping hazard, as the toe descended first instead. This I can promise you can do well without. Seasoned individuals do not fare well as a result of hanging that toe, stumbling, and falling forward.

L4 and L5 were both fractured and canted, calcified and knurled, providing pinch points and aggravation to the nerves in the area—another situation that should be avoided if possible. The disc between them had long ago degenerated until there was just bone-on-bone contact, not a thing to make the occupant happy with every step.

To say the situation necessitated an intervention would be an understatement. It truly made me the “Angry Man” I have been accused of being lo these many years (the fact that I do not suffer fools or traitors gladly, and being forced to hobble amongst them daily with an increasing amount of pain, was problematic...).

Enter Dr. Colin G. Crosby and the team at Elite Sports Medicine and Orthopedics out of Nashville (they do their magic at TriStar Centennial Medical Center). Their intercession resulted in instant relief of the sciatic nerve pain on the left side. If nothing else is achieved, the surgery was worth it.

I was aware of that change upon waking in recovery on the second day. It was a two-part surgery: the first day involved anterior access through the lower stomach to rearrange the innards and provide access to the spine for processing arthritic areas and insertion of new disc material. The second day involved posterior access to run in screws and rods, resulting in an X-ray that looks akin to having fallen backward onto a roll of chicken wire that became lodged there. It is an interesting addition to the accumulation of metal in the knees and left shoulder; few have as many interesting scars to point to as I do.

When I came out from under sedation, Dr. Crosby checked my “foot pump,” and I was able to produce actual pressure with the left foot at that time, which was an improvement from pre-surgery, with no pain in doing so.

Staff had me up and walking that day, albeit under a haze of narcotics, but walk I did. The target was halfway down the hall; I made a circle of the floor.

I spent two more days at Centennial, but the cost of hotel rooms for personal caregivers proved unaffordable ($213.59 per night, even with the hospital discount—and that ain’t the Marriott). Plus, valet parking in Nashville sucks big green ones. They charge exorbitant prices and provide little to no service, one result of Marxists being in charge.

Transfer to West Tennessee Rehabilitation Hospital was a plus for a number of reasons, most notably the quality of focused rehabilitative care and the excellent personnel in attendance. The physical and occupational therapists are well-trained and professional, and I even had audiences with the CEO. To wit, issues I had (like the coffee on the breakfast tray—they mean well, but no cigar) were attenuated.

One of the therapists was so kind as to bring me a thermos each day of the “real” stuff, and the CEO stopped by my room with a cup of good bean juice from time to time.

I was prompted to state my goals upon admittance, and I responded, “To once again go to the bathroom and provide sanitation for such activity by myself” (the BLT order with this surgery—no bending, lifting, or twisting—proves difficult in the extreme), “and to make my own coffee. I am a simple man.”

Nine days later I had achieved those goals, slipping out of the room with my walker to the cafeteria to make my own coffee on my schedule and being self-sufficient in the bathroom, shower and all. I came in like a baby in a wheelchair and walked out under my own power.

There were minor issues related to the timing of certain things, patience not being something I possess in huge quantities, but overall the experience there was first-class, and I highly recommend that establishment if the need arises.

All that being said, I am recouping in my recliner, facing a few issues such as a compromised lymphatic system resulting in fluid retention in my legs and ankles, but am working through that, hoping time, walking, and rehabilitation will resolve the issue.

The paucity of articles will soon be corrected. One observer wanted to know if the surgeon removed my filter in the offing, and that is possible. As I have seen many more sunrises than I will from this point forward, Dr. Crosby telling me prior to surgery that I “was as young today as I ever would be” made a point in my mind.

There are issues with the Second Amendment in Tennessee that I must deal with. One is a recalcitrant General Assembly failing to honor its oath with respect to the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights that must be addressed.

If not now, when?

All Glory to God for this new lease on life and gratitude to the Dr.s and staff of the institutions that have helped me regain my feet!

Stand by—it is about to get spicy!

Someone (who knows which member of the Establishment Republicans) authored an amendment that guts the bill, (says Farmer on the amendment, which would be SOP, he seems never to have met a restorative rights to the People bill to he liked). https://capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Amend/HA1054.pdf

These things appear magically behind a stone wall of non-sunlight (the General Assembly voted itself exclusion from the People’s view of its actions years ago), so that there is no single person to fault for such shenanigans. Rather, they maintain plausible deniability on the part of all, appears to be the watchword of the day, week, or session .

The amendment reverts to the old standard of “having to be in fear of serious bodily injury or death” and adds that one must live on the property to avail themselves of this poorly written attempt—effectively rendering the sponsor’s bill irrelevant and of no consequence.

Our Tennessee legislature at work: denying you the ability to protect your property, having self-granted “qualified immunity” from being responsible for that product. Just as they want no part of being lawfully responsible for protecting your life, they also refuse to allow your Second Amendment right to bear all arms commonly used by the people for all lawful purposes.

Call your Senators and demand they hold the line and make this legislation go to Conference Committee, the original intent of the House Sponsor needs to be maintained.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” - Samuel Adams

Senator John Steven, commenting on a firearms bill in Senate Judiciary Committee from March 8, 2023 on a bill by Senator Joey Hensley that ultimately was killed by that committee (it is easy to act like you support a bill when the clock room discussions let you know how you vote will not matter…):

Testifying that the rights of the people as they stood in 2023 allowed they to challenge the statutes and infringements of the legislature if they failed to heed the order from SCOTUS in Buren, I guess they had to figure a way to stop the People for achieving that level of Liberty he talks about and to so so, they fomented a plan to deny those rights guaranteed under Article 1 § 17 of our Tennessee Declaration of Rights:

”That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.”

This is the method chosen to deny the People their access to the Courts:

From this bill offered to restrict the ability of Tennesseans to challenge future denial of a federally protected constitutional right, from SB 1958:

(a) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, a cause of action exists under this section for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action of only a political subdivision of this state. A cause of action does not exist under this section:
(1) To seek damages; or
(2) To challenge the validity or constitutionality of any state statute.
(b) This section does not authorize a cause of action against, or waive the
sovereign immunity and privileges of, the state, state entities, or state officials.

This is how the legislature strives to control the very fiber of your being and deny inconvenient “black letter law” rights that are understood by all to belong to the People, where all power is supposed to be couched.

Your elected employees are striving to keep you in line with their wishes; not to keep you lined up with the promises factually stated in our Bill of Rights, purchased in blood and by sacrifice of treasure by your ancestors.

What a difference a few years can make…

MOTION TO RECONSIDER. A motion to reconsider any committee action and to have the motion entered on the Journal (or records of the committee) shall not operate to give the mover possession or control of any measure for any ensuing period of time. It shall be treated as a simple motion to reconsider, and its effect shall be the same.

Kerry Roberts, Brent Taylor, Dawn White, Bobby Harshbarger, Paul Rose, Sara Kyle, London Lamar, and the Knight in Shining Armor for the Second Amendment John Stevens could (any one of them) bring up a motion to reconsider for SB 2467, that Chairman Gardenhire killed of his own personal volition.

This is not a rule for the floor, but rather in committee, (seems to me I remember that the People are the sovereigns and that elected employees are supposed to be their servants) so in essence it means the aforementioned do not care that we keep a Jim Crow law on the books to burden the People and deny them their federally guaranteed rights.

Shame on the whole outfit.

From their publication on the issue:

I find myself asking: why does the State of Tennessee not classify the most commonly used means of physically threatening or harming an intimate partner as prohibited?

Surely, if the state is truly interested in promoting safety and preventing this type of assault, the most frequently used instrument should be subject to the same type of regulation as other weapons.

Patrick “Bulldog” Ferguson warned them to “desist from their opposition to British arms,” or he would “march over the mountains, hang their leaders, and lay their country to waste with fire and sword.” They answered that threat at King’s Mountain.

Today, one must ask: If similar edicts were issued declaring government beyond challenge, how many would respond?

From that bloody struggle came a state. Its constitution—praised by Thomas Jefferson as the least imperfect of its kind—was ordained by the People themselves:

“We the People…ordain and establish a Constitution… and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free and independent State by the name of the State of Tennessee…”

Yet almost immediately, government began testing its limits. By 1801, just five years after statehood, laws were enacted infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. The pattern was established early: power presses outward unless restrained.

The framers understood this. In Article XI § 17 of our original Constitution, they guaranteed access to the courts:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct: Provided, The right of bringing suit be limited to the citizens of this State.”

That protection survives today in Article I § 17 of our current Constitution:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct”

Notably, the word used is “direct,” not “deny.” To substitute one for the other is not interpretation — it is usurpation.

Our Declaration of Rights is even clearer. Article I § 2 declares:

“The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

The right to challenge government action in court is not a legislative courtesy. It is a constitutional guarantee. Removing it by statute would be among the boldest acts of official overreach in our state’s history.

I am not marching over the Blue Ridge Mountains as Sevier did. But I am driving to Nashville to speak against this measure.

If you value liberty, contact your elected representatives. Remind them that “direct” does not mean “deny.” Remind them that constitutional limits are not suggestions. And remind them that the People can still read.

Liberty survives only when it is defended.

1. Tennessee’s Courts Have Been Open for 222 Years but did not allow the People to sue the State until 2018.

Statement by legislator: It is difficult to fathom how Tennessee’s constitutional framework could suddenly be considered problematic after 222 years.

From the beginning, the Tennessee Constitution guaranteed that courts would remain open to the People. Article XI, §17 of the Declaration of Rights states:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct: Provided, The right of bringing suit be limited to the citizens of this State.”

The proposed statute—if passed—would effectively disenfranchise “every man” from seeking recourse in the courts when the legislature passes unconstitutional or illegal laws. Such a restriction stands in direct conflict with the constitutional guarantee that the courts “shall be open.”

2. The 2018 Law Surrendered State Sovereignty Immunity.

Supporters now claim that the 2018 law created a crisis for state sovereignty. Yet these same voices were largely silent when the bill was introduced and passed.

Why? Because everyone understood at the time that no sovereignty was being surrendered.

The legislature remains free to pass whatever legislation it chooses and send it to the governor. If the governor signs it—or if a veto is overridden—it becomes law. Nothing about the 2018 statute prevents legislators from carrying out their delegated duty to enact laws.

What the statute did do was clarify the rights of citizens to challenge unconstitutional actions.

Ironically, the language in the current proposal makes the issue unmistakably clear. The bill states:

A cause of action does not exist under this section:
(1) To seek damages; or
(2) To challenge the validity or constitutionality of any state statute.

The phrase “does not exist” cannot be reconciled with the constitutional guarantee that courts “shall be open.”

In legal language, “shall” is mandatory. Declaring that a cause of action “does not exist” directly contradicts that constitutional command.

3. Courts are not the Proper Venue to Adjudicate Constitutionality of Statutes.

Recent events demonstrate why judicial review remains necessary.

Two statutes passed by the General Assembly have already been deemed unconstitutional by Tennessee’s Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, who declined to defend them in court.

First, the Knox County religious charter school statute. The Attorney General refused to defend the law because it does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Second, a lawsuit brought by several Metro Nashville City Council members regarding Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 7-68-103(b) and 7-68-104(e). The case concluded with taxpayer funds being used to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees after the state again declined to defend the legislation.

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are real examples of laws passed by the legislature that could not survive constitutional review.

4. There should be no Injunctions Against Unconstitutional Actions of the General Assembly.

Supporters of HB 1971 also criticize injunctions issued against state actions involving abortion restrictions, redistricting, hemp regulations, voter restoration, and other issues.

But injunctions are a normal part of constitutional governance. They exist precisely because courts must sometimes halt unconstitutional actions—whether those actions originate from legislation or administrative rulemaking.

If legislators believe judges are repeatedly ruling incorrectly, the Tennessee Constitution provides a remedy: the General Assembly holds the power of impeachment.

If the problem truly lies with judges, why has that remedy not been pursued?

Legislators Should Read the Constitutions They Swear to Uphold

Tennessee’s history includes centuries of legislation that conflicted with constitutional rights.

Consider Tennessee’s first anti-gun statute in 1801, which criminalized carrying a handgun despite the state constitution’s recognition in 1796 that free people possess the right to bear arms. The Tennessee Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Andrews v. State (1871):

“[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country…”

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional standard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022):

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct… Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”

These rulings illustrate a fundamental truth: courts exist to ensure that governments remain within constitutional limits.

A Simple Principle

Perhaps legislators should spend more time reading the constitutions they swear to uphold—and the rights of the People enumerated within them.

Because two principles remain clear:

A state may provide more liberty than the federal Constitution guarantees.
But it may never provide less.

Secondly, Justice Clarence Thomas lays out this accepted premise:

“We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change... Aside from an amendment adopted pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article V, the Constitution’s meaning cannot be updated, or changed, or altered by the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President.”

Or the General Assembly of Tennessee.

Let’s consider one of many such cases --- Guns in Bars.

A collective challenge from primarily restaurant industry figures, restaurant workers, and some permit holders challenged the constitutionality of a recently passed law that sought to allow permit holders to carry in restaurants so long as at least fifty percent of the establishment’s sales were non-alcoholic. The plaintiffs opposed the law which was an exception to Tennessee’s ban on possession of firearms in places that served beer or alcohol. They claimed the law was unconstitutional because it was too vague under constitutional due process standards. No “harm” had been proven at the time of the filing of the suit, but it was allowed to proceed as the courts had long allowed constitutional challenges to seek redress for “perceived harm”.

In November 2009, Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled the law (Public Chapter 339, amending Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1305 and related statutes, effective 7/14/2009) allowed handgun permit holders to carry firearms in restaurants and bars that served alcohol, with certain conditions (e.g., the establishment derived it principal revenue from food sales, though the exact threshold and definitions were at issue) unconstitutionally vague (described as “fraught with ambiguity”), striking it down. The vagueness stemmed from unclear definitions in the statute which was attempting to distinguish between “restaurants” (where permit holders would be allowed to carry) and “bars” (where it remained prohibited), creating confusion for permit holders, business owners, and enforcers about where carrying was legal. Part of the problem was that existing Tennessee law did not distinguish between “restaurants” and “bars” based on the percentages of sales of alcohol or beer.

Chancellor Bonnyman initially denied an injunction to block the law from taking effect in July of 2009, but scheduled hearings on vagueness claims. She ruled the law unconstitutionally vague in November of that year (describing it as “fraught with ambiguity”), striking it down.

The General Assembly in the next year repealed the statute entirely but made it an offense for a person to consume any alcoholic beverage or beer which in such locations.

Prior to 2018, standing and procedural barriers (e.g., sovereign immunity doctrines) often made it harder in some circumstances and before some trial courts to sue the state for declaratory/injunctive relief against statutes. In 2018 the Legislature enacting Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-121, allowing “any affected person” to seek declaratory or injunctive relief regarding the legality or constitutionality of governmental actions (including statutes). The change was supported by members of both parties. Many felt that the statute merely eliminated inconsistent trial court rulings on standing issues. But, it was obvious that there was a long line of cases prior to 2018 that has clearly established the right of citizens to challenge the constitutionality of statutes before the statutes were enforced against them.

One such case was Baker v. Carr (1962), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case originating in Tennessee. Voters challenged the state’s 1901 apportionment statute (Tenn. Code Ann. provisions based on outdated 1901 lines) as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment due to malapportionment of the General Assembly districts. The Court ruled it justiciable, leading to redistricting reforms and establishing the “one person, one vote” principle.

Another case, Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas (pre-2018 origins, decided 2019 but challenging earlier law) took on Tennessee’s residency requirements for alcohol retailer licenses (Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-3-204(b)(2)(A), a 2-year in-state residency rule). Ultimately the statute was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 as violating the Commerce Clause.

Another example were challenges to the criminal gang offense statute (e.g., State v. Bonds, around 2017-2018). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals declared parts of the criminal gang enhancement statute unconstitutional (vagueness or other grounds), affecting prosecutions under statutes enacted well before 2018.

The assertion by the Attorney General, the House and Senate sponsors with their push to ram HB1971/SB1958 under the claim that prior to 2018 there was no ability to bring a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute is verifiably false as proven by the above referenced cases.

It pays the People to be aware of the truth. The People must not simply take the word of elected or appointed employees who may have interests that preclude them faithfully abiding by their oaths of office. In the case of legislators they swear to:

“…solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State.”

If that be their charge, then it would be incumbent for them to re-read Article 1 § 17 of our Declaration of Rights:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.”

The legislature can direct the manner and where the People can challenge the statutes of the state, but they cannot deny it. HB1971/SB1958 does just that. See the language of the bill from Section 3 (a):

“A cause of action does not exist under this section:
(1) To seek damages; or
(2) To challenge the validity or constitutionality of any state statute.”

It is our right to do so under the divisions of as We the People are in fact the only true sovereigns and the government works for us.

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government and determine whether those actions comply with a higher legal authority…most commonly a constitution. If a law, statute, executive action, or regulation violates the constitution, the court can and it has a duty to declare it unconstitutional and invalid (null and void).

The People are the authors of the constitution. They are the only body with authority to alter, amend or repeal it. They have the absolute authority to challenge whether any government body has violated it.

The distribution of governmental power delegated under our constitution demands that the people have access to the courts; because the People delegated to the judicial branch the authority to determine whether other government actors have violated the constitution. The wishes of the Legislators, the Attorney General, the Governor or other state actors notwithstanding, it is their duty to act within the boundaries of the authority vested in the constitution but they lack the authority to deny the people the right or the judiciary the authority to rule on constitutional questions.

Our ancestors did not take that kindly…in fact it was why the colonies revolted and threw off the yoke of tyranny in a bloody insurrection. Aren’t you glad they did, or would you prefer to be arrested for Social Media post that disagree with the sitting government like is occurring in Great Brittan now, while their country sinks a little lower in the tubes every stinking day?

HB 1971/SB 1958 takes away a centuries old right of the People to challenge unconstitutional issues within our state, fostered on us by a state legislature that fails to understand their role, or abide by their oath of office.

The original state constitution enumerated this basic right in Article 11 § 17:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct: Provided, The right of bringing suit be limited to the citizens of this State.”

The latest rendition differs a little, I am not sure I know why. Most likely some legislator or governor had a vested interest in the difference, but the wording is arguably the same:

“That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.”

The claim that the legislature had the power to deny completely the ability of the People to go to the courts for redress of grievance is laughable on its face; anyone that is competent to read the English language on an eight grade level can tell from our constitution that We the People have a right to contest statutes that appear unconstitutional or illegal.

Judicial review is a foundational constitutional principle dating back to Marbury V. Madison from 1803 i.e. the power of courts to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional. Written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the opinion became a cornerstone of U.S. constitutional law and defined the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.
Article 2 §s 1 and 2 of our Tennessee constitution describe the distribution of delegated by the People powers, granted to our elected or appointed employees:

§ 1. The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct departments:
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
§ 2. No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise anyof the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.

The insinuation that Public Chapter Number 621 (stemming from SB 1870 in 2018) took sovereign immunity from the state is a bold-faced, egregious lie. The bill had no fiscal note, it did not cost or save the state any money. What it did do was expressly give rights to the People to take state statutes to task in our courts.

Senator Stevens comment in Senate Judiciary from his script apparently, says:

“back several years ago this body I believe unintentionally, and certainly never intended I don’t believe, to waive the state’s sovereign immunity”.

He was correct; the body did not intend to waive their sovereign immunity, and it did not with the passage of SB 1870. It is pointblank in the verbiage that it did not give rise to claims of damages (money).

Sovereign immunity limits damage claims, it does not disallow the pursuit of challenges to unconstitutional or illegal acts by the legislature or “state actors” e.g. the Attorney General or the Governor.

Our Supreme Court in 1871 stated that the power to regulate is NOT a power to ban. That case also in dicta defined what and who is sovereign in Tennessee:

“We come now to the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and endeavor to see what restrictions or limitations the sovereign people of Tennessee have chosen to place upon themselves, in reference to this subject, for the general good… We do not, however, hold the power of the Legislature to be supreme for all purposes, when not in terms prohibited by one or the other of these Constitutions. We find limitations upon the powers of State Legislatures, as clearly defined by fair construction and implication, and as binding, as if expressed in so many words.” - Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).

HB 1971 is a blatant power grab by the legislature of a centuries old right of the People to challenge their legislatures when they do wrong, to be decided by the branch of government specified/enumerated to decide the fair use of power to deny or allow natural rights.

Tennesseans, demand your rights call your elected employees and demand that HB 1971/SB 1958 be tossed in the trash heap of failed legislation where it belongs.

That path had always followed the division of governance inscribed in our state constitution, three divisions

ARTICLE II.
Distribution of Powers.
Section 1. The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct departments: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
Section 2. No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.:

1. Legislative, charged to make law.
2. Administrative, charged with enforcing law.
3. Judiciary, charged with deciding the constitutionality of actions by the two prior mentioned branches

From as early as 1803 arguments have been made as to who holds what power over the People. The famous Marbury v. Madison case before our SCOTUS of the time elicited this as dicta (a judge’s expression of opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case, often used and quoted in later cases as precedential).

Chief Justice John Marshall held that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” and that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void. This principle allows courts to invalidate unconstitutional statutes when properly presented, from that case:

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary… It is a settled and invariable principle, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 147 (1803)

The job of our unelected bureaucrat Tennessee state Attorney General is to protect the state constitution and the statutes of the state from attack or change; or so it seems from recent activity on that office’s part (see Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. recent appeal of a three judge panel’s Order that 39-17-1307(a) and 39-17-1311 (a) were unconstitutional and that office has appealed that order to keep the state’s current statutes on the books, doing its job).

If that is the duty of the Attorney General, they why is he seeking to erase a statue lawfully placed on the books preserving an unalienable right to petition the state for grievances as laid down by a statute placed on our books in 2018. (Public Chapter Number 621):

Title 1, Chapter 3, is amended by adding the following new section:
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a cause of action shall exist under this chapter for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action.
A cause of action shall not exist under this chapter to seek damages.

Prime co-sponsors in the Senate were Senators John Lundberg, Janis Bowling and John Stevens (current sponsor of a proposed bill that would completely erase this right of the People…when was he wrong, then or now?)

Prime Co-sponsors in the House were Judge Mike Carter (arguably the finest mind on legal matters in the General Assembly, ever) Courtney Rogers, Clark Boyd, Judd Matheny, Martin Daniel and Tim Rudd. Video of the House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2018,) incidentally Chairman Farmer who was all for this bill then; he is the Sponsor of the House version saying it is full of beans now…:

Video of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (2018) where Co-sponsor Senator Stevens voted “Aye” to move the bill, along with every other committee member present, which put the bill in the “Consent Calendar” of the Senate, which meant every Senator was in favor, or they could have objected (none did) Republicans and Democrats alike stamped their support by letting it go through without objection.

Now Senator Stevens thinks his actions in 2018 were undermining of state sovereignty, however, SCOTUS in 1908 would differ:

“[t]he act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of the complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity…[i]t is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.” - Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

If the legislature was doing their jobs, abiding by their oaths to support the constitution of the United States and the state of Tennessee, we would not be having this conversation; there would be no unconstitutional laws.

Historically, his ability to vacillate on important constitutional issues (waffle for those in Cat Fight) is legendary; he can zig zag well enough to make a running back sick with envy.

In 2016 he voted in Senate Judiciary to kill Real Constitutional Carry as sponsored by Sen. Mark Green, his vote the hinge that dropped that constitutional requirement on the People’s right to arms into the abyss; claiming it was so terrible that the requirement deal struck of “carrying a piece of paper” was too onerous (awful) for him to stomach.

Uh Huh…the governor at the time, and all the appointed Kings Men (e.g. Jeff Long, David B, Rausch) hated the thought of an armed electorate had noting to do with his change from my meeting with him one day, and his promise to vote in favor, to the next when he did exactly the opposite. Receipts upon request…

View the many mailers he issues in reelection bids which portray guns aplenty and his claim of being the “Most Second Amendment friendly Senator” , tetter-totter.

Come we now to this, SB 1958 sponsored by the Senator which in the words of the bill strike from our Code the ability of the People to challenge unconstitutional state statutes in Court:

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 1, Chapter 3, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(a) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, a cause of action exists under this section for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action of only a political subdivision of this state. A cause of action DOES NOT EXIST under this section:
(1) To seek damages; or
(2) TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OR CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY STATE STATUTE.(emphasis mine)

If you can’t hear the “gravel flying and rubber squealing” as noted by Charlie Daniels in “Uneasy Rider”, you have cotton in your ears as well as soft spots in your head…
SB 1870 from 2018, Prime Cosponsored by the same Senator Stevens:

Had in its language:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 1, Chapter 3, is amended by adding the following new section:
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a cause of action SHALL EXIST under this chapter for any affected person who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief in any action brought regarding the legality or constitutionality of a governmental action.
A cause of action shall not exist under this chapter to seek damages.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Stevens did not raise an issue with the 2018 bill in committee (8-0 vote to move it forward) or on the floor of the Senate where it passed into law on a “Consent Calendar” vote, meaning even the Democrats did not have a problem with the bill.:

Article II § 27
“Any member of either House of the General Assembly shall have liberty to dissent from and protest against, any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the Public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.

Where was Stevens’ proclamation in 2018 saying how bad the bill he championed at the time was, I do not find it in the Journal.

In his presentation of the bill in committee he says,

“ this bill would not strip away the right to challenge unconstitutional government action citizens will still be allowed to sue the state including, its officials and entities”.

Disingenuous at best, in the bill it describes the path that any such action must follow and that is to present it to the Civil Rights Enforcement Division that, (overseen by the Attorney General) whose job is to defend the state from any legal action that would set aside a statute as unconstitutional (see the appeal of Hughes v. Lee as proof)

Stevens portrays himself as the “Lawyer” on the Judiciary Committee but has this to say about himself when given the opportunity to introduce and describe himself:

This not only precludes out of state groups from suing the state, but Tennessee citizens as well, read the text of the bill. Fiscal Review does not see any savings to the state, just like they said the bill in 2018 did not cost the state anything.

It is our right to challenge the state, and the courts are the proper venue, do not accept the lies.