DaveTN

I’m sorry but I couldn’t help that. Man… I don’t know what is going on with this forum today… must be something in the water. You are on an internet forum. You will quickly see that there are people posting their interpretation of laws here that will make you shake your head and wonder how they find their way to work in the morning. From what I have read RBC isn’t one of them, I just think he was being funny. However I’m not trying to make excuses for him, I’m sure he can deal with that himself. I’m a former Police Officer and have been told in short order that I don’t understand chit about Tennessee law or the Constitution of the United States. So with that in mind …. My interpretation of the law is that the legislators do not want you carrying in an establishment that is licensed to serve liquor on the premises. My interpretation of their intent is that they are not interested in getting into whether or not you were drinking or whether or not any liquor was being served. But as Dennis Miller would say… I could be wrong. Yes drinking will help. I’m always much smarter when I’m drinking.

Come on now… who else read #6 and laughed out loud and thought… “Whoever wrote that has been spending too much time around Glocksters.†.

No. I’m done… you’re being ridiculous and are trying to justify using deadly force against a cop doing his job. Anything I post after this won’t end well so I’ll step off and let you continue with your cop killing scenario.

I don’t know in Tennessee; but I’m sure you do. In Illinois you would be justified in using deadly force.

Not one time have I suggest that they can do that for no reason. But I have pointed out several times that you may not know what that reason is. You seem to believe that if you have done nothing wrong Tennessee law allows you to refuse their demands; I can’t ague that except to say I find that very hard to believe.

I can’t support the death penalty because of religious convictions. I could not be on a jury where the death penalty is an option for that reason. But also… It costs more to kill a prisoner than keep him. Look at all the money we (the tax payers) paid for Coe’s defense. I think death is too easy. If I knew I would never get out I would take death over life in prison. If they had put Coe in GenPop he would have suffered for what he did. How many innocent people being executed is acceptable?

That is not a civil rights violation. That is criminal sexual assault by an authority figure while he is armed with a deadly weapon. That is no where close to you getting your feelings hurt because a cop is disarming you.

Justifies whatever amount of force is required to subdue and disarm you in most states. Apparently that isn’t the case in Tennessee. According to you Tennessee cops are going to enter into negotiations with you and see if they can talk you out of your gun.

Absolutely, but if you read the thread that Monolabetn linked the “suspect†said he knew his rights, didn’t have time for this BS and walked away. I have said all I can from a former LEO point of view, common sense and the fact that you will be held responsible for whatever path you decide to take will have to form your decisions. I certainly hope that no one on this forum is ever in a position that they think pulling a gun on a cop seems like a good idea.

Good. If you ever find yourself with a Police Officer ordering you to surrender your weapon; tell them you know your rights and walk away. If you are still alive maybe he’ll come bond you out.

They don’t need to justify it. Tennessee requires you to pay tax; they say they are collecting it so you don’t have to do the paperwork.

No doubt. Many cases are waiting in the wings for the “individual right†answer. The D.C. decision is nothing that will force a ruling. I posted this in another thread but I will post it again here… Oh I agree that it just won’t happen. But you can’t deny that the majority of 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment proponents think this is how it should be, and believe that there is a chance of that being the ruling. That is #2 and that is what I fear the ruling will be. That would clear the way for states to ban firearms totally. What D.C. does after the fact is moot to the rest of the country. The question is can that case cause the court to rule on the “individual rightâ€. That will (in my opinion) end the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment battle. <O:pDon't you agree? We are here in <st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State>. But for states like <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> and <st1:State>California</st1:State> that would be devastating. <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> could expand the <st1:City><ST1:pChicago</st1:City> handgun ban to the rest of the state without having to worry about having the Courts tell them they can’t. I thought that passing the legislation that allowed retired Leo’s to carry in any state might be the beginning of a national carry permit. But with a few states in the way I can’t see that happening. <O:p</O:p

It is the SCOTUS that is dragging their feet on hearing a case; the NRA has no input on that. But many pro-gun people and groups (myself included) feel that the ruling could be disastrous. There are only three ways they can rule… 1. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is an individual right. Everyone straps on guns and goes walking around. 2. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is not an individual right; it is a protection for the state. 3. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is an individual right. But the state can regulate when, where and how firearms can be carried. I don’t think the SCOTUS wants to make the ruling because if they make ruling #1 state and local government will immediately say that they can longer protect their citizens. It’s also a states rights issue. I don’t think they want to make ruling #2 because it opens the door for states like <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>California</st1:State>, <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> and <st1:State>New York</st1:State> to outlaw firearms period. They just created a whole new class of criminals. Or they could make some kind of ruling like #3. A “feel good†ruling that really isn’t anything more than we have right now by leaving it up to the Federal Districts. Once it goes to the SCOUTS the fight may be over. <O:p</O:p

And since VT had nothing to do with mental patients and everything to do with law abiding students being disarmed let’s hope the changes in the laws fix that problem before it happens again.

Since there is no “quality†involved; as low as possible. After purchasing a couple of firearms from a local dealer I wouldn’t expect to pay anything if I was transferring something he didn’t have or couldn’t get. That is the relationship I had in my home state, unfortunately I haven’t been able to find that since I moved here. On used stuff I have just posted on several forums what I want or what I am selling and put “FTF in TENNESSEE†in the title. I have had real good luck with that and the transfer hassle is not an issue.

There have only been two that matter. Has DC changed their gun laws? I don’t think any of us are going to like the way the SCOTUS rules on this if they choose to hear it.

Who is looking down their nose at you? There are people on this forum that have actually been in shootings. Not in combat, but encountering a criminal face to face on the street in exactly the type of scenario that you may find yourself in some day. If those people try to share their experiences of what you need to know to stay alive or to even avoid a shooting in the first place; that is not looking down their nose at you. If you are saying that now that you have been through your 8 hours of smoking and joking at the range and paid your money to the state; that makes you Jack Bauer... most folks are looking down their nose at you. You listen to everyone, you take any advice at the range that is offered, you look at who is offering the info, why, and if they have a clue. You keep the good and throw out the bad. There are bad guys out there that are experts and have as much experience as probably anyone of this forum. Do not think that because they are criminals they won’t shoot you dead in a confrontation? Look at both sides of things. You don’t like me telling you that you don’t have right to own a firearm in Tennessee. Your reaction to that is emotional; not logical. Sure we could all run around yelling that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I mean after all we all are patriots and that’s what patriots do right? Wrong, patriots don’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they agree with, they don’t pick and choose what laws they want to abide by. Our Federal Courts have established that the 2nd amendment is protection for the state; not an individual right. You and I may not agree that is what our founding fathers intended; but that is the law. There is nothing right about violating parts of the carry laws in Tennessee that you don’t agree with. I may be a little passionate about this, but I have lived in states that allow no one to carry firearms except the Police. As far as your driving abilities…. I submit that Danica Patrick would embarrass you and she’s a girl.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you think you have a RIGHT to bear arms? I think we have a right to bear arms. Unfortunately what you and I think does not count; we must live by the laws and the decisions of the court. If you think that you have a right, where does that right come from? I submit that you do not have a right to carry a firearm. Therefore the state granting you the privilege; is just that. If you are carrying a firearm without a permit and it is discovered by a Police Officer, you can be arrested for no crime other than possession of a firearm. Therefore your state does not recognize it as a right; rights do not require permits.

Have you done it? Have you stood face to face with and armed assailant and taken his life? Do you know what goes through your mind? Do you know how your mind and body reacts? Any Police Officer? Broad Brush?

To you (and the others here that are instructors) I apologize if you think my comments were aimed at your teaching abilities; they were not. My comment was directed at the state training requirements for a carry permit. Considering that someone is trained to be carrying a firearm after 8 hours of training is laughable.

Lets be real man… you didn’t jump through hoops… you paid money. Training is a joke….. Most here can’t even answer the most basic questions about Tennessee gun laws and have no idea how they would act in a deadly force situation. And proven you are responsible how? No… I’m sorry but the fact that you bought a carry permit doesn’t make you all those things. Control??? You live in Tennessee and you think your legislators have gun control issues?? I support my pro-gun legislators and I realize that my gun privileges in Tennessee come from them; not from the Constitution. When I look at the privileges I have as compared to other states I certainly don’t think my legislators have control issues. If they want to ban carry where liquor is consumed; they have my support. If I needed to carry all time I just wouldn’t go in those places.

I don’t care one way or the other on the liquor thing. But let me take a WAG as to why. Judgment is effected quickly when consuming alcohol; way before .08%. Apparently the legislators didn’t feel they wanted to get into the legal mess of proving BAC. Is it fine? Can you be arrested in Tennessee for DUI with a BAC of less than .08%?

Yes, it means that they are not on the Supreme Court of the United States so they not only don’t have anything to say about it; but no one cares what their opinion on the 2nd is. In trying to get legislators in Illinois to even talk about concealed carry one of the biggest hurdles is to get pro-gun folks to understand that they can’t let the words “2nd amendment†pass their lips while discussing carry permits. Once you start that discussion you are doomed. We need to be asking our legislators to change the laws that we don’t like; not telling them they are violating our rights.

She understands that she is a conservative democrat?

If you believe the 2nd amendment was intended to give you the right to strap on a firearm and go wherever you like; then you need to push for a SCOTUS ruling. There are rumblings that a ruling may be coming. I do not believe that most here will like it when it comes.