(Photo Source: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)

Apparently, an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America is just words or a quaint suggestion to some in Washington D.C. A sitting U.S. senator recently stated that the current civilian disarmament plan need to move forward without worrying about Constitutional arguments.

We discuss a Tennessee bill that would deliberately hold business owners liable for injuries that occur after a “No Guns Sign” or policy is put in place. Also, during our SWAT Fuel Fitness Talk, Jarrad discusses the Action Plan to make your goals a reality.

From dailycaller.com:

Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski said at a Senate hearing Wednesday that she wanted to avoid getting “involved in constitutional arguments.” The only problem is that the hearing in question dealt with President Obama’s recent executive actions on guns, which many believe infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“I look forward to…listening to the attorney general and listening to this wonderful panel that you’ve invited to participate today,” Mikulski, a Democrat and ardent supporter of gun control, said in her opening remarks ahead of a Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing, which heard testimony from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

“So let’s solve the problem,” Mikuski urged. “Let’s not get involved in constitutional arguments, and let’s help our American people be safe and secure in their home, their neighborhood, their school and their house of worship.”

Earlier this month, Obama announced that his administration will force more gun sellers — even low-volume sellers — to obtain licenses and to conduct background checks. The initiative, which was developed in part by Lynch, expands the category of gun sellers considered to be “in the business” of selling firearms.

Republicans and gun rights advocates criticized the executive action, alleging that it infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And as Republican senators at Wednesday’s hearing showed, they were unwilling to heed Mikuski’s request to avoid the constitutionality of Obama’s action.
“The department is on notice,” Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby told Lynch. “This subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.”

Lynch said that she has “complete confidence that the common sense steps announced by the president are lawful.” She called Obama’s actions “well-reasoned measures” which are “well within existing legal authorities, built on work that’s already underway.”

From conservativetribune.com:

Most citizens who are ardent Second Amendment supporters know that “gun-free” zones are pretty much only bait for criminals. Now, thanks to lawmakers in one state, they could be bait for lawsuits, too.

A new bill would allow Tennessee residents who were injured on the property of an establishment that was a “gun-free” zone to sue the proprietor for their injuries.

According to The Tennessean, Senate Bill 1736 — sponsored by Republican state Sen. Dolores Gresham — has a very specific purpose: to balance property rights with the constitutional rights of concealed carry permit holders.

“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill reads.

The bill states that if a person is both licensed to carry a firearm and harmed or killed under certain conditions could have been stopped by that firearm, the victim or the victim’s family would be entitled to sue the establishment.

The bill, which was introduced last Friday, allows for lawsuits in the case of harm done by “invitees” (other customers, one assumes), employees, trespassers, wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.” The last category is not clearly defined.

To sue, the plaintiff must have been legally able to carry the firearm at the time of the incident and prohibited from doing so by the “gun-free” signage erected by the proprietor. In addition, the proprietor must not have been required to put up the signage because of state or federal law.

This is a long time in coming. As we know, gun violence is decreasing everywhere in America as America becomes more armed. In fact, there’s only one kind of location that’s seen an appreciable rise in gun violence — “gun-free” zones.

Given that “gun-free” zones make people’s lives more dangerous, isn’t it time that stores and establishments that require concealed carriers to forfeit their right to be armed pay the price when their customers have to pay the consequences?