The strange tale of Memphis city officials attempting to get three anti-gun questions on the November ballot despite the proposals violating Tennessee’s firearms pre-emption law has taken a new twist.
As we reported in late July, Memphis city leaders approved several anti-gun measures to appear on the ballot on election day in an attempt to amend the city charter, despite Republican state lawmakers threatening to withhold millions of dollars of state funding if they proceeded with the scheme. Then, in August the state election commission announced it would not place the questions on the ballot because the Secretary of State’s office had warned that they violated several state laws, making them ineligible.
In the latest strange twist, a judge ruled on September 11 that the gun-control questions can appear on the November ballot because they are just proposals and have not yet amended the city’s charter.
Question Number 1 is an end run around the state’s recently passed constitutional carry law. That measure asks voters whether or not the City of Memphis charter should be amended so that no person can legally carry, store or travel with a handgun in the city without a valid carry permit—the exact thing state law allows.
It would further amend the charter to read: “It shall be unlawful for a person to store a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or firearm ammunition, in a motor vehicle or boat while the person is not in the motor vehicle of boat unless the firearm or firearm ammunition is kept from ordinary observation and locked in the trunk, utility or glove box, or a locked container securely affixed to the motor vehicle or boat.” Of course, the language does not define “ordinary observation.”
Question Number 2 deals with so-called “assault weapons.” It specifically asks if the city charter should be amended to ban common semi-auto firearms, and whether the charter should outlaw the sale of such firearms.
“The citizens of Memphis hereby find and declare that the proliferation and use of assault weapons pose a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of Memphis,” the question states.
The final measure—Question Number 3—would set up a process for a city red-flag law. Of course, like most such proposals it likely wouldn’t protect the due process rights of gun owners who might suddenly find their Second Amendment rights restricted.
It’s hard to understand what Memphis leaders are thinking as it is clear the proposed questions run afoul of the state’s firearms preemption law. That law states: “The general assembly preempts the whole field of the regulation of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof including, but not limited to, the use, purchase, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, carrying, sale, acquisition, gift, devise, licensing, registration, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments or regulation.”
The law further states: “No county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government nor any local agency, department, or official shall occupy any part of the field regulation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof.”
The threat by Republican lawmakers to withhold state funding is not one to be taking lightly. Last year, Memphis received nearly $78 million of its $858 million budget from the state’s sales tax revenue.
The rule of law must prevail. They don’t get a pass because of good intentions.
See how they do with zero state services or funding for anything if they want to continue with this charade.
They got paid by the Soros think tank to poke at the system until they find a crack. Money talks. Otherwise the politicians would not care.
Hard to argue that illegal laws that won’t actually impact crime fall under “good intentions.”
“It’s hard to understand what Memphis leaders are thinking…”
They’re willing to spend other people’s money to virtue signal in losing court battles. What else are they going to do? Crack down on rampant violent crime? They’re Democrats.
They have to blame guns. Otherwise, they’d have to take responsibility for the decline of Memphis.
You’ll hear the usual hot air complaints. What won’t be heard are calls to Define Gun Control by Its History for the voting public. Instead most gun owners will sit on their behinds and watch while the sheepish public is manipulated and led to slaughter. If a judge says Gun Haters can list all their Gun Control manure then the same judge should allow Defining Gun Control by its History for voters. What mindset rode with yesterday’s deranged Gun Control rides with today’s deranged Gun Control. For freedom of information the public needs to see the History of Gun Control attached to the now allowed ballot questions before they willy nilly vote for an Agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide…Is that too much to ask your honor?
Since Memphis is a majority black city. They should ask is it OK, for only the white police and white people, to be the only ones to have guns???
Since black on black crime is so terrible.
I did ask this question of a rabid anti-gun black woman.
Her attitude suddenly completely changed. She realized real quick the stupidity of her position. And I told her that training was the best way to reduce these shootings. Because you introduce discipline to these young people.
Something they didn’t have. Since their father was replaced by a welfare check.
The “gun community” needs to somewhere find the courage. And ask these gun grabbers if it’s best to disarm black people???
Because if you do the research, that is the reasoning behind early 20th century gun control. To make it safer for the blacks. It was their stated reason for ending mail-order guns.
That is how the blacks got there machine guns. Delivered to there home address.
The leftist antis have already used slave codes and various racist legislative restrictions of the past to argue in court in support of their wanted gun laws so thinking they won’t openly bless naked bigotry with a full throated endorsement in the pursuit of gun grabbing may be foolish.
As it is plenty of the people asking for more government control and less individual liberty are of the very groups that were once enslaved and marginalized. They just miss the cozy comfort of the chains and supplied room and board.
When you zoom out the left is made up of people who want ultimate government control over the individual and individuals who want the government to have ultimate control over them. Sprinkled throughout that spectrum are individuals with delusions of grandeur who think they’ll be the ones in control. Collectively a haphazard gang of narcissists and people with zero self-esteem working to co-enable each others delusions.
@Cozy: Well said.
As has been said many times on TTAG Control is the key word.
“delivered to their home address” is the correct form not delivered to there home address. That minor point aside, regarding the sale of “machine guns”, see long existing federal law, in particular The National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricted, note restricted, not eliminated the sale and possession of “machine guns”. Factual errors such as are included in your comment serve to diminish the value and impact of factually correct portions of your comments. Consider that aspect of the thing.
Look up the 1950 Hollywood film. “.45 Colt.” Starring Randolph Scott who portrays a gun sales man in the old west. It is the only example of how guns were gotten thru mail-order in the country.
People focus on the 1934 NFA. But they know nothing about the normal everyday delivery of guns and ammo. All across the USA, before 1934.
Also there are old collectible mail-order catalogs from the turn of the century. That list cannons the ammunition as well as machine guns for sale. I use to have link. But I lost it.
That should be taught in high school during a 2A history class. The history of guns didn’t just start in 1934.
Lawfare morphs into workfare for law-crats…
The leftists don’t think existing laws apply to them
https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1836411430012133747
They can put it on the ballot and the proposals can even be passed…but it would still be unenforceable due to prevailing state law. There will undoubtedly be numerous lawsuits that will ultimately quash it
It’s just a waste of tax payer money and time.
It’s fun spending other people’s money. This is one reason to become politically active.
“…but it would still be unenforceable due to prevailing state law….It’s just a waste of tax payer money and time.”
“unenforcable”, in what sense? Being arrested, thrown in jail, and tried seems to be the heart of “enforcable”, no?
The effort is also a waste of time and money for the victim of enforcement. A waste because it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Are all judges in our country in the back pocket of the Left?
YUP
Coming from one of the most dangerous cities in the country! I would answer with pro gun answers! Or 2A all the way!!!
I’m growing tired of all these ballot proposals (most of which are from out of state groups sticking their nose in other peoples biz). They are trying to get ranked choice voting here in AZ and they got caught with duplicate signatures. Some were signed three or four times! 40k out of 80k were dupes. The crooked Sec of State wants the measure left on the ballot and we’ll “take care of it later”. What a scumbag. What has happened to our once solid red state.
It’s been Californicated!
“I’m growing tired of all these ballot proposals…”
What, you are opposed to democracy, mike?
Not at all. States should welcome citizen voices. Do you like having outside interests make policy in your state? I actually like local initiatives making the ballot. A louder voice for all. Thanks for your scathing response Sam. ouch
“Thanks for your scathing response Sam.”
Happy to be helpful.
Note: ballot intiatives are not free of influences from outside the locality; same influences that control govts.
When the legislative process doesn’t get the intended government approval, politicians abandon the republic, and revert to democracy (mob rule). Politicians act alike, and will use any tool availabel to prevail on an issue.
Note, note: I vote against every ballot initiative/measure, no matter the source.
And again I ask exactly how will another law actually do anything to prevent those who already ignore the laws from continuing to do so? And exactly how will these anti gun proposals in any way stop those with criminal or evil intent from doing the same things they do now in purchasing/stealing/otherwise procuring firearms?
Sorry kids, the only people affected by these idiotic laws are the more or less law abiding who were never a problem to begin with.
And, in a city like Memphis, if guns are banned for the general populace, the only one’s with firearms will be the allegedly racist government and the same criminals they claim are the reason to disarm. leaving the honest taxpayers, property owners, and citizens caught in the crossfire.
“And again I ask exactly how will another law actually do anything to prevent those who already ignore the laws from continuing to do so? “
Laws guide and deter only the law-abiding. The prime purpose of law is punishment, not deterence.
Bingo, but “identify & punish.”
“Bingo, but “identify & punish.”
There ya’ go.
Makes perfect sense.
The high levels of violence in Memphis have pushed tennessee towards the top of the crime list in the country. But if Memphis was cut out. Then tennessee would fall to the bottom of the state crime list.
“Because if you do the research, that is the reasoning behind early 20th century gun control. To make it safer for the blacks.”
If increased safety for black people is the goal, then it is settled science that if govt takes guns away from everyone, safety for black people will increase.
OTH, “Bruen” ended the public safety argument for gun control.
‘Tis a puzzlement.
“Judge Rules Memphis Anti-Gun Questions Can Appear On November Ballot”
If I understand what we have learned about “standing”, someone must first define the damage imposed by the act of some person, agency, of law/regulation. Thus, an “illegal” law can be created, and until someone has standing (from being impacted by violating the illegal law), an illegal law can survive forever.
Not seeing anyone with standing to challenge the proposed law, in this instance; indeed, the proposals may fail to be passed. This seems to fall under the “what might happen” doctrine that 2A defenders argue is not sufficient to justify restrictions on the exercise of 2A rights.
Rights are not subject to mob rule (democracy). The votes and the initiatives mean nothing. If the laws are enacted, they are unconstitutional. The judge was wrong to permit them on the ballot regardless of the outcome.
“If the laws are enacted, they are unconstitutional.”
Not until adjudicated by the courts; laws are presumed to have constitutional authority, until proven otherwise, else we would have a system whereby all regulation of anything would require court review before the regulation is enacted. Is that workable, what we want to experiment with?
let me guess…..a catch and release town ?
Comments are closed.