Tennessee Constitutional Question

[Yort92]

Nashville, Capital of the Federation- The Supreme Court has been busy recently with the Tennessee Federation v. Makimer Military Systems. What is the question you ask? Well some very important things must be brought up first.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~Tennessee Constitution

One would say that it is the right of people to bear arms. Is this correct?

The highly publicized hearings brought up the major arguments:

Makimer Military Systems is a large military producer in Tennessee. It does however, maintain a standing army that is to "secure the company from outside corrosion due to its value as a military business." Makimer Systems further argued that it DOES have the right to bear arms.

Tennessee has argued that this is not the right of the company to maintain a force to maintain it's security. "It is the government's job to provide for the common defense. It is in our Constitution."

Tennessee pointed out that the clause specifically states that the arms are "necessary to the security of a free state. The State should provide its own security for its lands and citizens. Of course the citizens may be armed to provide ready security, it is, however, the duty of the state to ORGANIZE the militias and military and direct it in protecting the lands and people of Tennessee."

Tennessee also points this out: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the Tennessee Federation, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" -Section 8 of TNF Constitution

The hotly contested issue dominates the media. The country seems split. Some worry that private armies could cause chaos in the Federation. They also agree that it is the state's dominant role to provide for the common defense. They think the nation will serve this purpose it is charged with.

Others think that the private militaries would be more efficient in serving the state when security is disrupted. They also argue that capitalism would make these armies the best in the world. They believe trusting the government with the military is giving it too much power.

Maybe the Court will make a decision soon. Debates still continue.

It is important to note that Tennessee's position still allows the military companies to operate and produce in the country, however, they are not allowed to maintain a military force. The main costumer of the military companies is, of course, the state.

(OOC: I would really like feedback. I hope I described the situation adequately.... Anyway, I kinda have an idea of what the outcome will be, but I just want to see what people have to say on the issue. This is basically an opinion poll. Also, I don't wish to start debate of Real World gun issues as this is direct from the US constitution.)

Edited April 18, 2009 by Yort92

[Yort92]

OOC: *edited first post* Included more citations.

[Yort92]

OOC: Closed. Thanks for everyones vote! The poll numbers are consistent with my plans!

IC: Supreme Court Case Tennessee v. Makimer Military Systems

"This Court does hereby rule in favor of the Tennessee Federation.

It is the role of the State to provide for the common defense and organize the militia.

No private entity can organize an army. It will be considered armed rebellion against the State.

However, individuals may bear arms and the State may organize these arms in times when security is threatened."

The result spreads quickly throughout the nation. Many wonder: So what now?

Edited April 18, 2009 by Yort92