Originally Posted by WinterWizard
Obviously that is the case here. I am saying I think that it's wrong. It's one of the ways they twist around the justice system. Instead of charging someone with a crime and having to bear the burden of truth (innocent until proven guilty), they are skipping all that and passing the burden of proof onto the person accused (guilty until proven innocent). And I don't care if this is in reference to a privilege and judicial process doesn't apply. This is America and that ain't right, and I ain't cool with it.
If he is such a threat, why didn't they take away his guns altogether? If he was really such a threat, do you really think taking away his "privilege" to carry concealed would really prevent a crime? This was a political statement, pure and simple. Talk crap about the government, pay the consequences. Dissenters will not be tolerated. They will mess with your life in any way possible.
Go to this website Material Likelihood of Risk of Harm to the Public
for other times when Tennessee used this provision in the law.
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921