State of Tennessee v. Arthur Jay Hirsch, M2016-00321-CCA-R3-CD

On December 10, 2013, a Tennessee Highway Patrol sergeant stopped Arthur Jay Hirsch after observing an unrecognized rear license plate and no front plate; Hirsch admitted to having no valid registration, no proof of insurance, and no valid driver’s license.
Officer discovered a loaded handgun stored in a small water cooler on the front seat; Hirsch admitted he had the weapon without a permit and said he carried it for protection.
Hirsch was charged with driving on a suspended license, carrying a firearm with intent to go armed (unlawfully carrying a weapon), violating motor vehicle registration, and violating financial responsibility laws; a jury convicted him on all counts tried.
At trial Hirsch (pro se) argued religious/sovereign-citizen-style theories: he claimed he was not required to have a license, registration, insurance, or a carry permit because he was not engaged in commerce and asserted Biblical/constitutional objections (including Social Security "mark of the beast").
Hirsch did not file a motion for new trial but timely appealed; the State argued many claims were waived for failure to move for new trial. The court considered jurisdictional and facial-constitutionality claims despite waiver rules and declined plain-error review of other issues.

Issue	State's Argument	Hirsch's Argument	Held
Whether trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction	Court had jurisdiction; offense occurred in Lawrence County so circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction	Statute and court lacked jurisdiction based on sovereign-citizen/rescission arguments	Court held it had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and rejected Hirsch's jurisdictional theories
Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (carrying with intent to go armed) is facially unconstitutionally vague	Statute is valid and intelligible; presumption of constitutionality applies	Statute is vague and thus unconstitutional on its face	Court held the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and is constitutional
Whether evidence was insufficient to show carrying with intent to go armed	Evidence (loaded gun in cooler on front seat; defendant admitted carrying for protection) supports intent to go armed	Carrying a loaded handgun in a closed container cannot satisfy the statute; no intent to "go armed"	Court held evidence was sufficient for conviction; intent can be inferred from circumstances
Whether other constitutional and trial-procedure claims should be considered on appeal	Many claims are waived because Hirsch failed to file a motion for new trial; plain-error review not warranted	Asked court to suspend rules to consider all claims; alleged trial-court bias, multiple constitutional deprivations	Court declined to suspend rules; most issues waived; plain-error review denied as criteria not met

Brown v. Brown, 281 S.W.2d 492 (Tenn. 1955) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders judgment void)
Booher v. State, 978 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (rejecting sovereign-citizen challenges to jurisdiction)
Gallaher v. Elam, 104 S.W.3d 455 (Tenn. 2003) (presumption of constitutionality when evaluating statutes)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Cole v. State, 539 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976) (intent to go armed may be proved by surrounding circumstances)
Cooper v. State, 321 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. 2010) (plain-error review framework)