DaveTN

So in your mind you signed so the state could give you a device to allow you to cash a check at Kroger… interesting. Read 55-10-406 of the Tennessee code and you will have your answer.

Got it. I did not know that I figured they loaded them with whatever they wanted just like brass case.

Because when some people see something unusual they report it. We live in a time of mass shootings. They may think if three guys are stupid enough to sit around a Starbucks with AR’s or walk around Nashville with an AR and body armor; they just may be crazy enough to start dropping bodies. The problem doesn’t appear to be with the people calling.   Has someone been walking around carrying a rifle and then opened fire on innocent people? I’m guessing the answer is yes. Has someone done it at a Starbucks? I don’t know.

My experience in metallurgy tells me not to shoot steel case in my rifles; it damages chambers and extractors. But why would anyone think it would shoot out a barrel any faster?

Agreed. And they will have the opportunity to make their case in court. If these three geniuses can convince a DA or a Judge what they did wasn’t disorderly conduct the charges will be dismissed. If the charges are dismissed will anything change the next time these Officers respond to a man with a gun call? Nope, they will continue to respond and deal with whatever issue they have. Just ask “You know who” he’s now facing felony charges. The state of Texas is in control of when and where they carry. They will also decide if what they did violated any other state laws. I’ve never so much complaining about people getting exactly what they want.

A breathalyzer test would require probable cause.

A breathalyzer test would require probable cause.

The bad news is this is only one circuit. The SCOTUS doesn’t have to hear and may not for years.

I don’t think you support drunk driving; I think you are making a constitutional argument. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist when he spoke for the majority said it was a minor infringement; but said it was justified. That’s why my response was what it was to you; it’s been decided. The SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on those issues. I have never participated in a road block. Our department didn’t have to; we had dedicated traffic units specifically task with that every shift. When the insurance companies tried to give our department free fully equipped squads with the stipulation that we would raise our DUI enforcement rates; our Chief refused, saying that would imply we weren’t doing what we should be doing then. But if you don’t have roadblocks the same arguments are used for DUI enforcement… Oh you are profiling and that’s not right. Of course we were profiling. Not only were we profiling but we announced it openly in the media and they still do today. The DUI signs on the highway that show the handcuffs, “100 days of summer heat”, etc. Will it cause it to become a situation where cops can pull over anyone without PC? No, the SCOTUS would not allow it. Ask you Father if he ever had a car he wanted to stop but said, “I can’t find any PC to pull him over.” Doubtful, usually whatever caused his attention to be focused on that vehicle was PC. I have long said that BAC limits will be reduced to where drinking and driving is illegal. I also think we will see it gain felony status. I was a Police Officer when it was removed from the things we had discretion on. I had called parents to get their kids and vehicle, sent people home in cabs, allowed other people to drive. That ended in one day. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it was an example of how much power a group like MADD has. I’m surprised at how much money and resources are spent on DUI but not much is done with multiple offenders. I believe people (especially young people) can make a mistake because they don’t understand the difference in “drunk Driving” and “.08 BAC”. But only once, not multiple times.

Firearm carry is a State Right. In this state it is a crime. If a cop sees you carrying he can stop and ask to see your permit.   Then you weren’t paying attention to what you were signing. Ever hear of “Implied Consent”?   Your stats are flawed and ridiculous. This isn’t a game of numbers. I’m sure there are many here that have lost a family member that are holding back from responding to this nonsense. It’s terrible that you call the deaths of their family members insignificant.   Again… that is ridiculous.

I agree. I’ve had to do it too many times. It’s not an accident and it’s not a good citizen that who had a few to drinks. It’s a criminal that committed a criminal act that led to the death of an innocent person (or people). The person who did it will likely go to prison and their life as they knew it is over; but at least they are still alive, we can’t say the same for their victims.   MADD changed the face of DUI enforcement. Is it emotion based legislation? You bet it is. And the majority of the public is okay with it. Some here may think 10K murders is okay, but the public does not.

You quoted the answer.   Do you have the right to carry a gun without the cops stopping you and asking for your HCP? Nope, because you bought that privilege from the state. Driving is a privilege also.    Our founding Fathers didn’t have cars or automatic weapons or nuclear devices. They put in place a group of men that would answer those questions when they arose. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is a minor infringement on the 4th amendment, but is effective and necessary. I don’t agree with all their rulings; but I’m okay with that one.

http://www.impactguns.com/ruger-sr1911-compact-commander-45-acp-ss-425in-6702-736676067022.aspx   Might be able to find it local for less.

Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest. They should have started that video with “Hey Bubba, hold my beer”. If you use a gun to make a statement; the cops are going to respond. They had a chance to walk away, but then they had a brain fart that caused them to think it would be a good idea to turn into Perry Mason.

The system that our founding fathers put in place to deal with situations in the future ruled that the DUI checkpoints were justified because they were effective and necessary and that there is a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving.

You implied that people need to do what the cops say and opened a discussion on rights. How did you expect it to go? Exactly the way it is I’m guessing.

I see the difference. A gun is a gun and a car is a car; nether are illegal. We don’t support those that kill their family members or friends with reckless or negligent conduct with a gun. The SCOTUS has ruled that you have a right to own guns, but the state will control when and where you carry them; that is not an individual right.   A DUI checkpoint is not a violation of any rights. You do not have a right to drive in any state. Our founding fathers put the word “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment and they put a system in place to determine what that would be because they never pretended to know everything.   If a drunk gets waived into a DUI checkpoint; his luck just ran out. No rights have been violated, but an ongoing crime has been stopped and it may have saved lives.

Nonsense. I realize you hate the government and any level of authority, but we haven’t agreed to a risk by DUI drivers. The BAC by any given state isn’t a “legal limit”; it’s a presumption to impairment.   Have you ever investigated an accident ort filled out an accident report? Sure there may be a box to check for alcohol for a passenger, but most cops don’t check it unless it applies (under age arrests or citations for example).   When two cars crash everything is a factor. You may be discounting that because the driver wasn’t over the “presumption” level; but it’s still a factor.  A sober person runs a red light and a drunk hits them and kills them. Is the drunk going to be charged? Of course they are. Being intoxicated contributed to the crash.   How many people do think are tested for DUI that blow .01? You could maybe find a story of it somewhere, but the numbers are so low they wouldn’t cause a blip on a graph chart; except those cases where drugs are involved.   As you can see on this (mostly conservative) forum; we haven’t accepted drunk driving. It is a crime. Not only that it is a premeditated crime.   Get drunk, go out and fire your 308 down the street and kill a citizen several blocks away and everyone will be okay with sending you to prison for a very long time. Get drunk, point your car down the street and kill an innocent family and some people don’t think it’s the same. It’s the same; it’s a reckless criminal act.   Who cares what the NHTSA publishes? We are intelligent people with common sense (most of us anyway) we don’t need stats to tell us drunk drivers kill our family members and friends and that is not a risk we accept.   Constitutional rights? You have got to be kidding me. The innocent people that are slaughtered everyday on the roads by drunk drivers have the right to live and be safe. The drunk didn’t care about their rights when he climbed behind the wheel of the car.   Go to a meeting of people that have had friends and family killed by drunk drivers and make a speech about how the NHTSA is skewing the numbers or that the cops are violating people rights in DUI enforcement or that their government is more dangerous.

I hope they don’t decide to make an example out of here because of Ted; but I think that might happen. He has got to be going freaking crazy.

You can drive drunk on your own property in Tennessee? Because most states I’m aware of drunk driving laws are enforceable on private property. In fact, in many states you don’t even have to be driving; just in physical control of a vehicle.

Anyone here have a sinker EDM machine? Pretty easy $7500.

I own the full size 40, Compact 40 and 40 Shield. My full size is my car gun and range gun. Compact is a medium carry conceal gun and the Shield is my micro 40 for the most concealibility.

Steel case ammo?

When have you ever heard of a person that was ruled justified in using deadly force charged with discharging a firearm in the city limits? They would have to claim that a city ordinance trumps the state laws on the use of deadly force and a 1322 defense.