JayC

Dave, I'm not aware of any 2nd, 10th or 14th Amendment challenge to the 1986 act that has made it to SCOTUS, and you cite the case in question? The 1934 NFA tax is going to be much harder to argue is unconstitutional, although some provisions of the NFA clearly are... Seems to me being forced to wave your 4th amendment rights to search to get a NFA tax stamp is clearly a violation for example. It's hard to argue that taxing is something the government can't do, and Miller seems to confirm it. Although there was some question raised in Miller as to whether a firearm that was in use by the military may have exempted it from the NFA all together... But the 1986 amendment banning the registration for new full autos does seem to be a clear violation for our right to bar arms, and individual right under the 2nd Amendment which SCOTUS ruled in Heller. Keep in mind that this case is more likely to get heard and ruled on in a favorable light than the Chicago case, because the NFA and 1986 acts are federal restrictions on the ownership of firearms, which has been ruled an individual right... We can only hope this gets taken up by SCOTUS. One way or another we're likely to know where we stand in the next 12-18 months on firearms and the Constitution. If SCOTUS removes our God given right for self defense, and right to property... Then I question whether the republic is completely lost to reform.

You had me with the badges are silly, but the open carry comment went a bit too far... There is nothing irresponsible about open carry in Tennessee, it's legal and a number of folks do it without incident on a regular basis. A number of folks here will argue that open carry puts you at a tactical disadvantage, and while I personally don't think there is evidence that proves that one way or another it's a point of discussion and a possible risk that you take when you open carry... Personally I wish we could all carry the firearm(s) of our choice concealed at all times comfortably, but reality is that I'd rather see folks carrying open than not at all, and nobody should try and tell them what is the right carry method for them.

We eat up there on a regular basis... Great food, and the staff has always been friendly to us... And added benefit they don't serve liquor or beer on site so it's one of the few places to get a good steak in Middle TN where you can carry right now.

The law allows business owners to carry at their place of business, this includes bars and restaurants.

I've carried one as a bug for 6 or 8 months now, great little gun. Not going to be shooting bad guys at 100 yards with it, but great little 5-10 yard self defense weapon for sure.

I carry 2 extra magazines, a belt holder for those magazines, and a box of 50 JHP rounds in my go bag, which is with me every where I go. Better to not need it and have it in my book.

Your LEO friends are mistaken... The law was changed years ago allowing HCP to carry in places that sell beer, wine, and liquor for off site consumption. That law was changed about 10 years ago. Because of a court ruling we're no longer allowed to carry in locations which sell beer, wine, or liquor for on site consumption (because of a lone judge ruling the restaurant carry law unconstitutional a little over a month ago). In either case, you can't be charged with carrying a firearm if you're involved in a self defense shooting under TN law.

Only FFL's are prohibited from selling a handgun to persons who are 18 but not yet 21. In TN it's perfectly legal to gift or sell handguns to an 18 year old.

And the chance that said violation will pop up on the current check when they purchase a firearm? So we all have to pay a $10 tax, and waste our time and money (because the wasted time of the FFL gets passed on to us as well)... To stop a couple of criminals who happen to still have a valid HCP from buying a firearm? Yeah that seems like a great deal where do I sign up?

Well, I'd point to the end of School Segregation as an example of a very unpopular SCOTUS ruling at the time... Much less popular than the notion that everybody has a right to carry a firearm for protection is today. Within 15 years or so years after that ruling, SCOTUS ruled on forced busing which was implemented in short order (also VERY unpopular at the time). The taking away of these rights took a long time to do, it's going to take a long time to clean up.... If it ever can be cleaned up. Keep in mind that SCOTUS has over the course of the last 100 years or so changed their minds on a lot of topics... They upheld a number of jim crowe laws for the better part of 100 years and then suddenly started to over rule the entire process of segregation in a short 15-18 years. I'm not against gun control, the states and federal government should be allowed to abridge the rights of citizens convicted of a serious crime... Those laws are already in place if you're a felon you can't own or carry firearms everything we do beyond laws meant to limit ownership by criminals and others who have been to court and had their rights restricted via due process is a complete waste and does little to stop crime and a lot to help it. But that must be restricted to only those who have had their rights restricted via due process not because somebody MIGHT commit a crime in the future. The real question Dave is what do you believe in? Do you believe that all humans are granted by their creator certain inalienable rights? That among those rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property? That those rights exist no matter where you live, or what form of government you're born into? If you don't believe in those rights on a fundamental level, you're never going to be convinced what the government is and has been doing is wrong. If we are already to a point that our current form of government has turned into a "Tyranny of the majority" (referred to as the 'violence of majority faction' in Federalist 10) and these issues can't be fixed within the system... where does that leave us? I'd like to still believe there is hope this can be addressed through the system, because if enough people loose that hope the alternative is a very scary place.

Dave, I agree that one ruling from SCOTUS won't solve 100+ years of poorly crafted (and in many cases unconstitutional) firearm laws... I also agree that in all likelihood I won't live long enough to see this type of ruling come from SCOTUS, Hellar was a perfect chance and they hedged their bets on that ruling. But, can you give me an example of where SCOTUS ruled something unconstitutional and the states didn't comply in fairly short order? Every case I can think of from the mid-1900's would appear to support the idea states generally fall in line with SCOTUS rulings... Right or wrong.

I think one can argue that the 10th amendment also removes the ability for the state to regulate firearms as well.. Since the right states 'the People' and not 'the States'... I'm not sure anybody has argued that line of thought in front of SCOTUS yet.

Well to a certain point... We can't buy full autos made after 1986... So M4's, H&K 416's, full auto FN SCAR's, M249's etc are all off limits. All the modern weapons that an infantry solider carries today are basically off limits to the general public no matter how much money you have... The few full automatic weapons available are super expensive and based off of 30+ year old weapons technology. So the GCA of 68 and the 1986 ban have pretty much eliminated the average citizen from owning the basic weapon of our (or any other) military for the last 24 years, and made it very hard to get your hands on for the last 70+ years. Both the GCA of 34/68 and the 1986 amendment are unconstitutional IMHO for sure the 1986 amendment is when you consider the Hellar ruling.

I'm sorry but you're looking at the keep part of the 2nd amendment wrong. Keep is ownership, and part of ownership is the ability to sell and purchase, and that right shall not be infringed. Also, keep in mind that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us a right, it prohibits the government from regulating a god given right. We're born with the right of freedom, with the right to protect and govern ourselves... The Constitution doesn't grant us those rights, it's a list of rules the Government shall not violate of god given rights. Also, please point out exactly where the Constitution allows the governing of sales, transfers and making of weapons? See that is the fallacy of your argument... You read the 2nd, but failed to read two other very important amendments... Lets start with the 10th: So unless the Constitution states somewhere they have the power to regulate the sale, transfer or manufacture of weapons, the right to regulate those things was passed to the states in the 10th Amendment. One could make the arguement that the 2nd amendment is a restriction not only on the Federal government but also on the State governments as well, since unlike the 1st Amendment, which restricts Congress from making a law, the 2nd Amendment states "the peoples' right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed it appears that under the 10th amendment that is a protection passed to 'the people' and not the States.Then we have the 14th Amendment, which further restricted the ability of the States... This amendment basically prohibited states from that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... This is a big Amendment and even though the passage of this amendment is marred by questions of being legal, after 150 years it's unlikely we could ever win that argument.So, this amendment passes the restrictions of the federal constitution down onto the states, which means the states loose the ability to prohibit keeping and bearing of arms. Since that is a right immunity protected by the federal constitution.... If we followed the Constitution to the letter today, neither the States nor the Federal government would be allowed to abridge the ownership, carrying, sale, transfer, or making of firearms and ammunition without having a trial where your rights are abridged. Anything less than that violates our god given freedom and right to protect ourselves and the Constitution of the US IMHO.

Require it to be nice and big, say like the parks signs, 14" by 6"....

Also if I read the law correctly, that exception would not be covered by 1359? Fallguy do you agree?

More importantly under state law, bars that serve liquor are against the law... The instance you place that sign up, they fine you and threaten to take away your liquor license if you don't get food sales up above 50%. That is the entire fallacy of this ruling, IF the business wasn't legal to carry in because of being a 'bar' the 'bar' owner is violating the law already (in the case of liquor licenses) and yet instead of THEM being the ones to have to become legal, they're allowed to continue to operate and we're not allowed to carry because the law is too "vague". All the examples being used start off with a business who is already in violation of state law.

Just FYI, it's a good idea to train one handed reloads in case one of your hands becomes injured, this should be done with both your strong and weak hand. Every time I go to the range to practice I spend a little bit of time practicing single handed reloads with both my strong and weak hand. I'd strongly recommend it...

I'm not sure daycare is covered by the language for schools... Can you provide a cite for this?

I agree, it makes me sick every time I hear somebody refer to Lincoln as our greatest President, maybe our greatest tyrant. All part of the brainwashing of our youth via government controlled education. You're right likely the government won't allow the law or the Constitution to stand in their way in an 'emergency' real or not.

Well, first there is no process to declare martial law under the federal constitution, only the following line: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. This is the only part of the Constitution which is allowed to be set aside, and current SCOTUS rulings limit even when it maybe used. Also, since federal law enforcement receive their law enforcement powers from the state of TN when acting inside the state of TN, they would also likely be limited by this law. Now the truth is, if the federal government declares martial law, and comes door to do to take firearms, likely no state law or pesky Constitution right will stop them, nor will they likely face any legal or criminal repercussions from their illegal behavior - just look at all the police officers who violated LA state law and the federal Constitution during Katrina, how many were charged? NONE.

If it's been 97 days, you should call TN DOS and ask where you're CCW is... I'd also call my local legislator and see if they can help you get this straightened out... hopefully you live in a area with a pro-2A one.

Didn't you receive a yellow receipt that says basically this acts as your permit until your new one is received? I'm not sure what they do with out of state licenses but every renewal form I've ever seen had a little white sticker on the top that says to the paper as your permit until the new permit comes in the mail.

Well the smoking law does allow a restaurant owner to having smoking in his place of business but sets up certain rules by which he may do so, doesn't mean it's a good law just means that it is not a smoking ban, there is choice. As for the gay and black issue, technically those laws violate the constitution, we have freedom of association. You can read about the 2000 Boy Scout case where SCOTUS ruled that states can not force you to allow a gay scoutmaster. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is why you don't see gay rights activists going to interviews at churches and winning EEOC cases for not being hired. We should attempt to support the Constitution all parts of it. We should not try and force businesses to allow carry if they don't want it. Just like the government should not force smoking bans, nor force you to associate with any class of people if you choose not to. With that said, smoking is disgusting IMHO and having a smoke free location to eat dinner is nice, but shouldn't be required by law, I'm smart enough to know if I want to eat around smokers or not. Now, it would be very valid for the state to just remove the posting enforcement in 1359 and require that the owner or manager asks you to leave, it's not required that we give a sign the force of law to allow business owners to regulate who they serve in their business.

As I read it, they still have to file the same paperwork with the police and wait 15 days. As that paragraph states they must compile the same as a dealer...