If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Funny like that

The Tennessee attorney general has opined that the state would be OK if they charged hundreds of dollars in fees and required testing  for a photo ID  to vote even though it is not a constitutionally protected right.


I was wrong on that.

In fact he said the opposite.

 He said over and over it would be an unlawful impediment to people exercising their voting privilege granted by the state and he would not defend us in court if the state charged a penny for that ID.

But he did reverse that thinking when he respond to my questions and  say it is OK for the state  if they charged hundreds of dollars in fees and required testing for someone to exercise their second amendment constitutionally protected right.  That sort of infringement he could get behind and defend .

Maryville Tennessee judge has already ruled and made statements that "There is no economic sliding scale for the right to engage in constitutionally protected activities.".  I wonder if there is any gun owner from that area who would like to put the AGs opinion to the test.


  1. Is that the same Attorney General Robert Cooper who is appointed by the unconstitutionally seated Tennessee Supreme Court?

    Just asking.

  2. I hear what you're saying, but why legitimize the opinion of the illegally selected AG by the illegally selected judges selected by the Governor and a certain few friends(*wink wink*)?

    The majority party in the legislative and executive (and therefore by default the judicial with our illegal judge selection system) branches has the control. The state enjoys a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds for a defense fund. The individual does not, meanwhile he pays for the state's. Why waste money on another Haslam Kangaroo court on the 2nd Amendment? The defendant = the defending attorney = the judge. The game is rigged and they all as agents of the state have a conflict of interest in maintaining their revenue stream from the unconstitutional 2nd Amendment tax.

    How about a constitutional amendment to remove the bogus "regulate the wearing" line that is used as the excuse to infringe and prohibit the bearing of arms? Then the people can decide. A lot harder to corrupt 3 million voters.

  3. Why don't you elected legislators put the AG's opinion to the test? It was what you are elected to do.

    I am so glad that I am allowed to vote. It's always so much fun choosing which gang of thugs gets to put their jack boots to my throat.

    1. Because I would say the place to test an AG opinion is the courts. If anyone were going to test that opinion, the best place to do it would be in the area where the court with what I would consider a sympathetic judge could be found. I would say the best hope for that would be the judge I quoted. As I do not live in that judicial district I would say someone from that area would be better suited to file the case.

    2. Copout!

      Even if you found a sympathetic judge, the SC of TN and ultimately the SCOTUS would have the final say. But then, that's what happens when the government gets to define and grant your "rights".

  4. Another thing, let's get away from this nonsense of calling the keeping and bearing of arms a "constitutional" right. It is not. It's a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected.

    1. No it's not a split hair. It's because of this nonsense that the government grants us permission or the Constitution grants us permission that we're headed toward totalitarianism.

      It the government gets to define and/or grant your rights, then you have none.

    2. If you want to get technical, there is no right to guns per se, but rather the right to self defense and the right to you property. Keeping and bearing arms is encompassed by the right to defend your life, liberty and property.


Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.