On April 9, 2023, Rep. Monty Fritts presented House Bill 2082, as amended, to the Tennessee House’s Civil Justice Committee. The bill passed in that committee with the House Amendment which is slightly different than the amendment adopted in the Senate Judiciary on Sen. Joey Hensley‘s companion bill, SB2502.
The slight difference in the two bills is due to an oral amendment made in the House Civil Justice Committee which amendment actually weakens the bill such that it is clear that the Senate version is the better of the two versions at this time. But, either bill is better than the current unconstitutional state of Tennessee law that now exists and which has been allowed to exist by the Tennessee Legislature for decades.
Rep. Fritts’ presentation of the bill starts at approximately time mark 46:30 on the official video of the committee hearing. It is worth watching for several reasons. One, Rep. Fritts makes an excellent five minute presentation of the bill’s need and purpose. That need has existed for at least two centuries in Tennessee and this legislation could, if enacted and not vetoed by Bill Lee, address that problem.
Another reason to watch the video is Rep. Chris Todd’s comments that this is a serious infringement of a basic civil right that the Tennessee constitution violates and needs to be removed. Rep. Todd notes he has carried similar legislation in the past and that this legislation’s effort to fix these unconstitutional problems are undeniable. Rep. Todd also was stated that the gun control audience members were “free to leave”. (time mark 54:20)
A third reason to watch is Rep. Jason Powell’s comment that the words that he would speak are not helpful. (time Mark 53:33)
Another thing to note is that the audience of primarily gun control advocates could not constrain themselves and repeatedly interrupted the hearing. (See video at time marks 53:20, 55:25 1:13:40 after which Chairman Andrew Farmer finally insisted that the gun control advocates refrain, but they refused, and he finally put the committee into recess to deal with the gun control advocates and 1:15:04)
Setting aside the emotional outbursts of the gun control advocates, take a moment to consider the facts and law. As Representatives Fritts and Todd stated, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions (Miller, Heller, McDonald and Bruen) make clear that existing Tennessee law is unconstitutional. The gun control advocates don’t care because they want more gun control, or frankly gun bans, not constitutional compliance.
The gun control advocates, particularly those who have arisen since March 2023 and who claim to be Second Amendment supporters that desire only “reasonable” restrictions, blatantly and recklessly ignore the U. S. Supreme Court’s hold in Bruen, that only those laws that are supported by the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation as that tradition existed in 1791 may be constitutional. The Supreme Court rejected appellate decisions which had allowed unconstitutional laws to survive challenge if the government could show that the law’s restrictions promoted “public safety” or some other “reasonable” goal.
Numerous recounts exist on the internet of a statement by Paul Harvey, a famous commentator, about “reasonable” gun control and why such gun control measures really were not reasonable at all.
Paul Harvey on Guns
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter? CONSIDER;
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 % Armed robberies are up 44% In that countries’ state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a
steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.” It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it’s too late, write or call your delegation.
Paul Harvey, or at least the observations attributed to him, are reasonable. In a republic where the ultimate power is and remains in the citizens, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent government action, like that of so many other governments, to disarm the people for the purpose of protecting the government from the people.
The fact is that what these gun control zealots who are currently active in Tennessee are seeking is not “reasonable” because there can be no valid argument that willfully violating a constitutionally protected right is “reasonable.”
- It is not “reasonable” to misrepresent what the constitution prohibits government from doing.
- It is not “reasonable” to misrepresent what the United States Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment’s limits on government authority.
- It is not”reasonable” to misrepresent what the Tennessee Supreme Court has held in the Andrews and Aymette decisions.
- It is not “reasonable” for government to impose restrictions on the rights protected by the Second Amendment which restrictions violate the Supreme Court’s holdings about the scope of that right
- It is not “reasonable” to claim that those 18 years old and older cannot legally own, purchase or possess firearms, including handguns.
- It is not “reasonable” to advocate for laws, regulations or other government restrictions that violation of a constitutionally protected right.
- It is not “reasonable” to base advocacy predominately on emotion rather than the foundations of a constitutional republic.
The Tennessee Legislature needs to pass HB2082 / SB2502 as amended in the Senate. That is constitutional. That is consistent with the foundations of the republic. That is consistent with the preservation of fundamental human rights. That is reasonable.