DaveTN

The bigger risk you would run would be possession of stolen property.

Ammo hasn’t impacted my buying; but the crazy gun prices have; I’ll wait for it to settle back down.    

If you have to ship out of state you are asking too much money. :)  If you don’t like the idea of meeting a stranger somewhere you can legally ship within this state to a TN resident if you are satisfied with their ID. Consignment is the way to go if you don’t want to handle the sale or meet, but you get less money.    

Doesn’t sound like “Constitutional Carry” to me. Constitutional carry wouldn’t need to discuss “Journeys” or going out of your county. Sounds like limited open carry to me. But then I haven’t read the law or the legislation; just what they discussed in the article.    

Other nations may distrust us and have no respect for us. But it sure isn’t because of the way we handle terrorists. We are weak. We have people complaining about not reading an enemy combatant his rights, while others quote our founding fathers out of context. Our founding fathers would have held a speedy trial and hung this guy.   I heard the stories about the family complaining about the media showing their dead azz terrorist sons body lying in the street. I wonder what they thought of the pictures that were posted of the dead and the guy that had his legs blown off by their son. I wonder if they knew that one son ran over and killed the other son while he was down.   I don’t care if they come here, and I don’t blame them for what their sons did. But they sure as hell don’t get to act like victims, or start making threats. Did law enforcement kill his other son? No, but they are going to. Unless he has something significant to offer, and he claims he doesn’t; he is going to be executed. Let his parents come and say goodbye. But I hope the American taxpayers aren’t paying one red cent of their travel expenses.

Bloomberg and Cuomo both want to be President. Before any of you say it can’t happen; look at who we have now.    

The last court ruling I read, and I will admit that I breezed through it; it appeared they were saying there is nothing in the Tennessee code that allows them to let him have guns.    

Yes, only actually it applies after the person becomes a suspect, whether read or not. If the Officer has no intentions of using what the suspect says in court against him; he doesn’t have to Mirandize him.   I use to pick people up on warrants. Many times I had no details of the offense other than the charge on the warrant. I didn’t advise them of their rights; I booked them into jail and left the rights part of it to whoever was going to question them. Some of them would extremely upset in the booking process because I hadn’t read them their rights. Even after I explained to them that I wasn’t going to ask them anything about the crime they were accused of; some still didn’t get it. Many times just to shut them up I would read them their rights.   There have been court rulings that if it can be shown the person knew what their Miranda rights were, and then claimed they had made statements without being read their rights; the statements will be allowed. For example; I couldn’t claim that I didn’t know what my rights were when I made a statement. If someone on the forum committed a crime and his attorney tried to say he made statements without knowing his rights, and it can be shown he gave a dissertation on the forum about knowing your rights; the statements would more than likely be allowed, depending on the Judge.   It was done as a protection for people that didn’t know they didn’t have to answer questions by the Police. Most people today know they have a right to remain silent…. Very few can be silent.

If we are applying concepts or principals… A terrorist acting on a political agenda attacked Americans, killing them. Are our 4th amendment rights under attack? Apply Occam’s Razor.

He is an enemy combatant that committed a politically motivated terrorist act. He is exactly the person all the terrorist laws address. I don’t care if they take him to Gitmo and water board him.   No one is ever required to read a suspect his Miranda rights if they aren’t going to use what he says against him in court. At this point they could care less what happens at his trial; they want to try to stop any more attacks he may know about, or other suspects. Good for them.   Him and his brother planned this out and obviously did not plan on living through it. They know as well as anyone here what their rights are.   I could care less if they let him talk to an attorney. All an attorney is going to tell him is that unless he tells everything he knows to make a deal; he is going to be executed.    

You will see the relaxation of stop and frisk under “Public Safety”. You will also be subject to the search of any packages you are carrying. Kinda like this: http://runrocknroll.competitor.com/2013/04/nashville/marathon-officials-announce-increased-security-measures_47324

That grip angle has to be terrible to shoot.

Each and every case of a claim that 4th amendment rights were violated will be heard and decided on its circumstances, merits and case law. That will be done in a court by a Judge. Cops on the street react to what is in front of them and they make judgment calls in seconds. Sometimes they get it wrong. But my point is that if they went to 200 houses and ask to search and the people let them; our fourth amendment is still in the same condition it was prior to those 200 people saying yes. If I believe what I read on the internet for years cops have been stopping cars and asking to search with absolutely no probable cause. As a former cop I don’t understand that, but it isn’t a rights violation. I would guess most drivers let them search. Has that led to the relaxing of probable cause requirements to search a vehicle? I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

The recent California cop killer. Didn’t someone in the Unabomber’s family recognize his writing and turn him in?

Why couldn’t they have a gun?

No one is asking to violate your rights. That would only be the case if you said “No” and they entered anyway. Allowing a search for terrorist does not put any of our rights in danger, and does not put a checkmark anywhere that someone has given up their rights. If I’m a Police Commander and my Officers are going door to door checking houses, and they have someone refuse, I have a duty to protect both the occupants of that house and other citizens in the area. I would not need to violate your rights to make the area as safe as I could. I would secure the perimeter of your house with Officers and it would stay that way until I had a warrant, permission to search, intel that the suspect was not there, or the suspect was in custody. Saying “Oh gosh this guy knows his rights” and telling my Officers to move on and possibly leave the suspect holding a family hostage would not an option for me. Your rights have not been violated and I would have done all I could to make the scene secure. No slippery slope, no rights violations; just good Police work.

It appears they searched a lot of houses; how many guns did they confiscate? Protecting my rights does not require me to hamper a search for a terrorist that has just killed people. That was not the intent of our founding Fathers and it would not be if they were alive today. The answer to your “What if” is really very simple. Can they have my guns? No.

The obstruction charge wouldn’t be about the shirt. What’s that all about? Need more info.

They are engaging a suspected bomber. Walking up on him or shooting at him (unless he is an active shooter) could result in a bomb going off.

You may be right, that's just not what I have seen. A hospital room with cops at the door is a controlled environment. The waterboarding (if needed) will have to wait, but the interrogations, I think, will take place. These are obviously terrorists that all the new laws were written to address. He will be stripped of any rights anyone thinks he may have and the Feds will do want they want.

If 100 people covertly attacked a city; it would be chaos on the level of Katrina in any city anywhere. If 100 people openly attacked most cities there would just be 100 dead bodies to bag; plus however many innocent citizens they killed in their attack.

I saw a video of what appears to be the bombers carrying back packs that I guess it’s safe to assume contained the bombs. I didn’t see any bomb sniffing dogs following them. I wasn’t aware they shot a cop while he was sitting in a car. But the California cop killer did that also. How would you suggest they should have stopped that? I suspected they would be IDed by video. Thousands of video cameras were filming. They sifted through that and came up with suspects; apparently the right suspects. They put all the information out to the public and the public responded. You are correct that whoever did the background check prior failed. I am also surprised that in this day and age at an event like that someone could set a back pack down, walk away, and no one noticed it or became suspicious enough to call police. We arm chair quarterback; that’s what we do. Sure its easy to say a lot of resources were used. But it worked; what would you have done?

I would guess the interrogations will begin as soon as a Doctor clears the cops to talk to him. That is what I have seen when a suspect is hospitalized.

Plenty of low cost scopes are bright. Optical quality, clarity, repeatability and parallax are other issues.

You are in his fathers house. The cops may have talked him into leaving, but they can’t legally put him out of the house without a court order to do so. You can always use deadly force if a reasonable person would believe you or her are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. But you can’t shoot a person that has a legal right to be in the house. She needs to get an order of protection.