Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
That's crazy. This guy has GOT to have plenty of legal avenues still open to him. After all, if someone's 2A rights can be revoked for posting a video on YouTube, then what's next, targeting people for posting on gun forums like INGO? We could all be next. 30,000 Indiana residents lose their LTCH for being members of INGO. Far fetched, right??
was I not clear when I asked what he was supposed to have done?Would like to know which video or video's that they deemed the reason to revoke his gun privileges?
Hey, any possibility that this guy is misrepresenting his case? What makes you think that he is telling the truth? About Youtube videos being the reason? About his privileges being revoked at all? This case makes no sense to me. It seems to me like either the guy has a payday coming, or he is lying. He doesn't need to vent on the internet. He needs a lawyer.
Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
Apparently in Tennessee, it is a privilege. (I am assuming the verb 'wear' means the same thing today as it did in 1796).
Maybe he can bear his gun, just can't "wear it".
...the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms (Any Ridiculous Mammal Skins ) with a view to prevent (fashion) crime.
29,999 I live in MI!