btq96r

  Nine is only the only number of fatalities.  Most reports have another 18 wounded.  That brings it to 27, which isn't too far off your estimate of 30 victims.

From what little I know about these outlaw motorcycle clubs, this was bound to happen.  To me they're on par with the Crips, or any of the Hispanic gangs out in LA.   I also wouldn't be surprised to find out at least a few of them had a carry permit from Texas.

  Boston Market is not a real sample of Boston area cuisine.   Now if he brings some Chicken Parm subs from a Mom & Pop shop down with him, that would be real Boston food. 

  When you see a B-29 target, you'll notice it's a good it smaller in overall size than the regular targets you see at the range.  At 14" x 22", the thing looks pretty small versus a larger silhouette on poster size (24" x 48" or thereabouts).  Just remember, your actual target is the X in the center, and that's the same size on the smaller one as it is on a bigger silhouette on a larger sheet of paper.  It's all mental.   If you can't secure some B-29 targets, go to the sporting section at Walmart and buy a ten pack of bullseye targets for a few bucks and practice on those.  Using a larger sheet for your target could screw with your head when it comes time to shoot at a small piece of paper.

Both the written and shooting portions of the HCP class are pretty much made so that the average person can pass.  As the late, great, George Carlin said...think about how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are stupider than that.  Since you can post in complete sentences on here, I'm confident saying you will fall on the right hand of the bell curve for the multiple choice examination.   If you are worried about the shooting, buy some B-29 targets (those are what you shoot at), hit the range and see where you're at.  If your class shoots indoors, I'd practice in doors, if they shoot outdoors, practice outdoors.  Use the same firing table as the course to practice.   4 sets of 5 shots at 3 yds 4 sets of 5 shots at 5 yds 2 sets of 5 shots at 7 yds   50 shots total, with every shot inside the 7-ring or better being 2 points, any hit on the silhouette being 1 point.  A score of 70 or better passes.

Welcome to TGO.  As a fellow former resident of the Boston area (Malden to be specific) you're going to miss the food and spread out seasons more than anything else.  Tennessee has about a seven to eight month summer, with roughly one month each for spring and fall, along with a two month winter.  If summer or winter are going to be longer, spring and fall are sacrificed accordingly.   The cost of living is like the difference between night and day.  Keep a poker face when dealing with real estate agents so they don't see you're flabbergasted by the prices for property.   Also, the only magazines here that hold ten rounds are for larger caliber pistols.  15rd for a 9mm pistol, and 30 for an AR are norms around here.  I'd also look at getting some trigger work done on any of your weapons as we don't have that 10lb trigger pull for pistols sold in state.  

  Islam is the religion, Muslims are followers of Islam.    If every Muslim took every tenet of Islam literally, every immigrant of Middle East descent or convert would be committing acts of terror time now.  Since there are no IED's here in Murfreesboro (which has a pretty decent population of Arab decent) I'm honestly more worried about a distracted driver texting than I worry about terrorism.   They're terrorists (criminals really, I hate the overuse of the word terrorist) when they commit an act of terror.  Till then, treat them like you would treat anyone else.  Be friendly, polite, but have a plan to defend yourself if needs be.

  I answered it with my first sentence...I agree that 1359 doesn't prevent crime.     The standard from our State Constitution is "with a view to prevent crime."  Key words being "with a view to."  All they need under that is the aim or intention.  We can argue all day if it really does prevent crime, but the view to prevent doesn't have to conform to our logic.   Here's how they would argue that 1359 is the legislature regulating the wearing of firearms with a view to prevent crime.  Look at how they set the table for all of Title 39 with the General Provisions.     Title 39  Criminal Offenses   Chapter 11  General Provisions   39-11-101.  Objectives of criminal code.    The general objectives of the criminal code are to:      (1) Proscribe and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to individual, property, or public interest for which protection through the criminal law is appropriate;      So, the argument would follow that whatever is placed inside Title 39 is meant to prevent crime, and has a need in order to serve public interest.   Then you look at the types of "catch all" phrasing that is in most bills passed.  Here is a version of the farthest back change to 1359 I can find from 2000 (the digital archives only go back to 1997, or I'd probably link the 1996 version). Note the words at the end that serve as its justification: the public welfare requiring it.       It's some interesting stuff.  Here is the link I was using. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/andrews_v_state.txt

  The adjustable gas block on my SBR has it running smooth.

  I think you're wrong on that point, brother.  From the opinion of the court in McDonald.   Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 567 F. 3d 856, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.  Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.   No mention of it only dealing with "keep" or separating it from "bear."  The 2nd Amendment, in full, was incorporated.

  I think continuing to chip away is the right way to go.  The turnaround we've had nationally, and statewide within the last 10-15 years is no small thing.  From the AWB expiring, to the Heller and McDonald cases, they've helped fuel the fire at the state level for all those victories you list.  Every state that enacts Constitutional Carry and Campus Carry just puts more pressure on Tennessee to do the same.   In a lawsuit, I don't think the Andrews case would be as helpful as you believe it to be.  Here are a few other parts of it that can be used against us if it were ever to become the linchpin in a case.  To me it looks like "with a view to prevent crime" would be given a wide latitude if it was ever up for review.  I can't see a requirement to prove that it reduces crime since proving a negative and other philosophical burdens of proof aren't compatible with legal burdens of proof.   ____________________   But the power is given to regulate, with a view to prevent crime.  The enactment of the Legislature on this subject, must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.   It is insisted, however, by the Attorney General, that, if we hold the Legislature has no power to prohibit the wearing of arms absolutely, and hold that the right secured by the Constitution is a private right, and not a public political one, then the citizen may carry them at all times and under all circumstances.  This does not follow by any means, as we think.   While the private right to keep and use such weapons as we have indicated as arms, is given as a private right, its exercise is limited by the duties and proprieties of social life, and such arms are to be used in the ordinary mode in which used in the country, and at the usual times and places.  Such restrictions are implied upon their use as are thus indicated.   Therefore, a man may well be prohibited from carrying his arms to church, or other public assemblage, as the carrying them to such places is not an appropriate use of them, nor necessary in order to his familiarity with them, and his training and efficiency in their use.  As to arms worn, or which are carried about the person, not being such arms as we have indicated as arms that may be kept and used, the wearing of such arms may be prohibited if the Legislature deems proper, absolutely, at all times, and under all circumstances. ____________________   Admitting the right of self-defense in its broadest sense, still on sound principle every good citizen is bound to yield his preference as to the means to be used, to the demands of the public good; and where certain weapons are forbidden to be kept or used by the law of the land, in order to the prevention of crime-a great public end-no man can be permitted to disregard this general end, and demand of the community the right, in order to gratify his whim or willful desire to use a particular weapon in his particular self-defense.  The law allows ample means of self-defense, without the use of the weapons which we have held may be rightfully proscribed by this statute.  The object being to banish these weapons from the community by an absolute prohibition for the prevention of crime, no man's particular safety, if such case could exist, ought to be allowed to defeat this end.  Mutual sacrifice of individual rights is the bond of all social organizations, and prompt and willing obedience to all laws passed for the general good, is not only the duty, but the highest interest of every man in the land.         And that's why I think it could go to SCOTUS....someday    With McDonald incorporating the 2nd Amendment, state gun laws are now Constitutional issues.  Not sure if SCOTUS would take the case in our example, or that the outcome would be in our favor, but like you, I think the argument could be made to get it there.  I would like to see more federal case law to help us out with standing before it all happened.        I agree that 1359 doesn't prevent crime.  But, since it was written with a view (albeit a illogical one) to prevent crime, it meets the requirement of the TN Constitution.   As said above, I think "with a view to prevent crime" would be widely interpreted as laid out in the Andrews case, especially by this part: ...in order to the prevention of crime-a great public end-no man can be permitted to disregard this general end, and demand of the community the right, in order to gratify his whim or willful desire to use a particular weapon in his particular self-defense.

  It would really depend on the lower courts.  They took the McDonald case after it had been pretty much decided.  Some of that was probably to hear it with post-Heller jurisprudence.

  I think it would pass a challenge in state court, and at appeal to the US Supreme Court.   If you think it would go down, feel free to file suit.

  I understand it...but it's clear they set up a system to delegate that power to local governments when it comes to their buildings with the wording of the laws.     Laws on the books, and in the case of the home US Supreme Court rulings, protect firearm ownership in the home.  As to the roads, I don't know if any part of TCA that has that authority delegated for pedestrians, but personal vehicles are pretty well covered by the recent "guns in cars" bill.

  Yeah, tracking on the parks thing in regards to 1359.  The issue at hand wasn't if a lessee of public property can get around that- which even I'm divided on- this was about local governments being able to put gunbuster signs up at government owned buildings, which I think they have the authority to do.   Worriedman thinks that it's only the domain of the State government.  Obviously, we disagree. :)

  The very first words in 39-17-1314(a) are "Except as otherwise provided by state law."   This is the door/loophole/whatever that allows 39-17-1359 to be exercised by cities and counties on government owned property, unless there is a specific law against it.

  The word only doesn't appear in Art 1, Sec 26.    With 39-17-1359, the authority to regulate has been delegated to an individuals, corporations, business entities, and local, state or federal government entities or agents thereof to make the call on their properties.

    Ownership as in a government agency can be the legal entity owning a property.  The Property Clause is pretty firm in legal ground on this.   Yeah, I get it that "the people" ultimately own government property, but like Garufa said, it's semantics.

  I think local governments should be able to decide if carry is permitted on properties they own just like every other property owner.  If they can't do it, then the state has to do it for them, and that's a can of worms I'd rather not see.   Plus the chances of amending 39-17-1359 as you suggest are as close to zero as can be.

If they just hop online, buy some ammo like the rest of us, no issues whatsoever.  Should there be some written rule about not using department computers for non-department use, then a stern "knock it off" with a week of cleaning the break room would suffice.   However, if they used their positions or government equipment (to include email) to solicit or take advantage of any offer not available to the general public, that's misconduct and needs to be addressed.  I won't say it calls for someone to be fired, but some kind of reprimand or action would be called for.    But since this is the Rutherford County Sherrif's Department, it's just another line item that needs investigation.       The bold part is a conflict of interest that needed to be investigated.  I'd expect any solicitation or RFP, bids, notes and memos during review process and final contract to be all public information that is available for review.

This can be fixed with a legislative tool.  Just pass a state law, and local ordinances that says every contract/agreement to lease public parks or land must include a clause that the lessee cannot prohibit the lawful possession of firearms as would normally be allowed at the park or land.

  Well, if a 3rd hand source said so...   Taxes, tariffs, and fees, fall under the category of "nothing new under the sun"  And there isn't much of it related to firearms that isn't prevalent in some shape or form in other industries operating costs.       No.

This. Something as straightforward as who actually fired shots to neutralize active shooters isn't the type of info that gets corrected in follow-up reports.

George Zimmerman is the gift that keeps on giving for the anti-gun crowd. 

As to the whole Hillary against guns thing, there isn't going to be a Democratic House in 2017, so any gun control laws are DOA.  The Senate has a chance to flip again in 2016, but without the House to match, we're back at a stalemate like we were from 2010-2014.       Pretty much.  Though I will add, that the things Republicans were attacking the President for in 2012 aren't going to be used in 2016, because they have improved on his watch- though not necessarily to his credit.  Hillary will run on those issues to make up for her lack of record from 2008 onward.  Unemployment rate back to normal levels, budget deficits cut while still keeping programs intact, ect...those are issues Democrats can run and win on in swing districts.  Republicans need to come up with a fresh angle, because their message is only sticking to an aging electorate.   The best quote I read in a while came from a GOP strategist after the mid-term elections, and will come home in 2016 if the Republicans can't push get a long term vision the country can get behind. "Midterms are brake-pedal elections. They’re about the incumbent and a course correction. Presidential-year elections are accelerator elections. They’re about where the country should go. We’ve proven we can win elections that are about saying ‘no,’ but we haven’t proven we can win an election about leading and taking people to a better place.”   Between all that, and counting to 270, Republicans are starting out with 3:1 odds against at best depending on who wins the nomination, while Hillary is the favorite at 1:2 in my unofficial, for entertainment purposes only, sports book operation.