There is a reason the legislature does not want the children of Tennesseans to study and learn the constitution of this state, it would, if made part of the general knowledge of the qualified voters, be much harder to play hide the sausage (anyone who has actually advocated firsthand for an issue at the GA has heard the term “You just don’t understand how the sausage is made here”)…right.
Article X § 1 of the Tennessee Constitution mandates this:
“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.”
This is part of the Oath they take; notice it is administered, and they say “so Help me God” at the end (for those who actually believe) before they proceed to business:
“I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice;”
Over the course of the years, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association (John Harris) has exhibited the same sense of purpose regardless of the political party in power at the time, to simply bring Tennessee into line with the United States Constitution wherein, from the Second Amendment:
“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 infringed.”
Notice the capitalization of what the author deigned “important” words, Militia and Arms, capitalization being a form of art for writers to identify key things within a sentence…
Our Attorney General has stated in his Opinion, No. 24-005 from March 06, 2024:
“The legislative branch makes the law; the executive branch administers and enforces the law; and the judicial branch interprets and applies the law…In short, under this precedent, the Supremacy Clause prevents state legislation that would give state courts greater authority to determine the constitutionality of federal action than the limited authority they have under the Supremacy Clause.
Really? From Heller:
“Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” - District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008)
Further the McDonald v. City of Chicago case stated emphatically:
“We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” - McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 44 (2010)
Emphasis mine, holding are not dicta…
The AG does not owe any responsibility to the People in his matter; his job description is to do what the Governor orders him to do, continuing the Democrat stricture of arms rights, regardless of the responsibility to the constitutions and simply sua sponte (because they want to, and have the power to by virtue of Brown Shirts and guns we the People pay for).
How the AG can square that with his Oath to protect the constitutions of the state and Union is an enigma to me…
