~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Is that a fact? From the Brief:
Of course, even Plaintiff, who usually carries a handgun for self- defense, was not utilizing his gun for ordinary defensive purposes.Plaintiff carried his gun for the purpose of being arrested:
"I can’t wait for a cop to arrest me because I open-carried a handgunand someone called 9-1-1. It almost happened twice but no cigar yet.Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that. "
(Cited from a forum post using your "kwikernu"? 'handle'.)
There are trolls. There are TROLLS. And, then, there are TROLLS who TROLL to get arrested by creating an "unusual weapon" by disguising a legal arm as a toy -- and then TROLL about their misadventure here on FR -- without divulging their earlier, obvious TROLLING.
I am a no-holds-barred supporter of RKBA -- but I DO NOT appreciate being scammed, spammed and lied to by a PaulBot TROLL! (And, no, I have not hit "abuse"...)
What do you have against a Ron Paul supporter posting factual information here?
The ak-47 pistol I carried is a handgun as defined by clear Tennessee law. The state park was clearly legal to carry in. I had a valid permit to carry the handgun. open carry is lawful. The painting of any firearm is lawful.
The fact is that calguns foundation and the second amendment foundation have now come out and stated that open carry of lawful handguns is not protected under the second amendment. That premise is wrong and a Tennessee Supreme Court declared it wrong back in 1833 in simpson v state.
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, (p.360)or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, “that the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Article 11, sec. 26. It is submitted, that this clause of our constitution fully meets and opposes the passage or clause in Hawkins, of “a man’s arming himself with dangerous and unusual weapons,” as being an independent ground of affray, so as of itself to constitute the offence cognizable by indictment. By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgment a constitutional privilege which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it the absence of such a view.
On the authorities, therefore, I am of opinion that this record of an indictment against the plaintiff in error does not contain the charge of an affray, or any other specific offence cognizable at common law by indictment, and that there is nothing either in our Constitution or acts of Assembly in repugnancy to this conclusion, but, on the contrary, strongly corroborative thereof.”