JayC

I'm sorry but Bush was NEVER a strong support of gun rights...  he was almost always on the wrong side, AWB, trying to increase the legal age of gun ownership, banning certain types of bullets, preventing the importing of legal high capacity magazines.  Closing the 'gun show loophole' which means background checks on all sales.   Many of the same things Obama would like to pass, Bush supported.  Do you think he would have opposed any of the legislation the democrats were pushing after Sandy Hook?  Do you think Remoney would have opposed any of it?   Making it out like Republican's are somehow better on gun rights is just not true...  There are a minority of Republican legislators at both the state and national level that truly support gun rights...  it just so happens they are republican...  but make no mistake republicans have taken away are gun rights in the past, and oppose repealing stupid laws that do nothing to protect us...    

Exactly who do you think has a track record where you can trust them to note vote for gun control measures?  We're lucky in some respects that Obama won re-election in 2012, because if Romney had been in office, he would have passed gun control, and large chunks of the republican party would have voted for it.  The only reason Obama was opposed was to prevent him from having a 'win'.   Lets go down the list:   Jeb Bush - Weak at best on gun rights - supports closing the 'gun show loophole' Ben Carson - Has spoken out in support of a new AWB Chris Christie - Anti-gun rights Ted Cruz - Very Pro gun rights Carly Fiorina - No track record, but says the right things Lindsey Graham - A rating, but has in the distant past voted for anti-gun legislation Mike Huckabee - Luke warn, talks a good game but opposed unlicensed carry Bobby Jindal - Signed 2 anti-gun bills in the 2012 session. John Kasich - Whipped votes for the 1994 AWB Rand Paul - Very Pro gun rights Macro Rubio - Has opposed pro gun rights legislation in FL while in the legislature - much like Beth Harwell does here Donald Trump - supported waiting period, AWB, and other anti-gun rights measures   So out of 12, 2 have a rock solid track record of supporting gun rights no matter what, and another says the right things but has no track record.  The other 9 have opposed pro gun legislation, or out right supported anti-gun rights legislation in the past.   How exactly is this better than the democrats....  Truth be told, as far as gun rights go, we may be better off with a democrat in the white house, and republicans controlling congress.        

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Bush would have signed the assault weapons ban in a heart beat. He also supported mandatory background checks on all gun sales.... Also, the landmark Heller v DC court case, Bush's DOJ fought tooth and nail to support the complete handgun ban in Washington for more than 4 years. Don't believe me, here is Bush in his own words, complaining about the AWB not being renewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh8oubGJo8M BTW, John Kasich who is currently running for President as a Republican helped round up 48 republican votes in the house to get the AWB passed in the first place.... Just a quick note, Kasich, even though he campaigned and voted for the AWB, has an A rating from the NRA, whats wrong with that picture?

As much as we don't like the badges...  there is no way this type of charge would stick.  You really need to go read the law, 39-16-301.   The crime of impersonating a police officer:   1. Engaged in an activity that is ordinarily established by law as a law enforcement activity   AND   2. Causing another to believe that the person is a law enforcement officer   Wearing a HCP badge may very well lead one to believe you are a law enforcement officer, but unless you ALSO are performing some 'law enforcement' activity, there is no crime.   Walking into a DL station and waiting around for a drivers license is not a law enforcement activity...  driving around in a car with a light bar is no a law enforcement activity...  turning the lightbar on and trying to pull somebody over, that is a law enforcement activity.   EDIT: Of course somebody beat me to posting the law ;)  

Some of that money goes to the local sheriff to fill out a form...  forget the exact amount but $15-25...   Plus they waste a lot of HCP money.  They print up a lot of materiel and give it away at gun shows, there is a ton of travel expenses related to them going to gun shows...  they have educational outreach about the permit program...  They get very creative in how to waste the money.   Also, they're supposed to be running a 60-80 day backlog on permits...  what is the current turn around time?  14-21 days?  Trust me there is a LOT of fat that can be cut.   I remember having lunch with John Harris years ago, and him commenting on how they got caught the last time the TFA reviewed their books spending a bunch of money on employee salaries unrelated to the HCP program and had to go back and redo a bunch of stuff.    My guess is if somebody took them time to go down and ask for the budget, you'd be shocked just how easy they waste that $50 per person.  

  IANAL, but you don't need to get arrested to have standing to challenge this in court.  Call the government department which runs the 'park' in question and ask them if you'll be denied entry if you're are legally carrying a firearm.  Record said phone call.   That should be enough to have standing in front of a state judge to issue an injunction from denying you entry.

Only way to stop this is to have very harsh penalties for violations by 'public servants'.  Rights violations like this should be 10 year prison sentences, and if you're armed while violating rights, life in prison.   $500 is nothing, 10 years in prison, and you'll think 3 or 4 times before going ahead with your stupid idea.    

The permit system is supposed to be self funding, and not spent on anything else.  The key word is supposed to be.  In theory if you cut the funding completely only the make work jobs related to the HCP program would be cut.  

Officer clearly violated 39-17-1351t.  Lack of reasonable belief the rider in question was a threat to him or the public.   Remember 39-17-1351t does not allow officers to disarm whenever they want to, they must have a reasonable belief the specific permit holder in front of them needs to be disarmed for their protection.   It's likely the stop was also  pretense, and therefore unlawful which means any disarming during the stop was likely unlawful.   Now, the rider should have been using some for of retention holster so that people couldn't walk up and disarm him so easily.

Yet another reason we should push to have TICS - which violates the state constitution - repealed...  TN should take no part in firearm background check which violate the natural right to own a firearm.

I'm sorry Dolomite, but you're completely wrong on history, and natural rights here...  The right to own and carry arms to protect yourself is a natural right, any restrictions on that right what so ever is an infringement on our God given rights, and a violation of the Constitution.   While you and I may feel a pistol is good enough for protection (and I don't completely agree with that statement), someone else may well feel the need for a rifle, and a fourth person may well feel they need to carry a sword.  To try and limit a persons options to carry the weapons they see fit to protect themselves, is an infringement of their God given rights, period.   And you're analogy with freedom of speech is completely wrong...  I'm free to say anything I want, but there maybe consequences in very limited circumstances to that speech...  Let's take the commonly used yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater example and compare it to gun control laws.   The government can prohibit all speech in a theater for fear that one person may yell fire...  The government can't even prohibit people from using the word fire in a theater...  to do so would be considered prior restraint which is almost always prohibited under current law and SCOTUS rulings.   But, gun laws are prior restraint, and therefore always infringe on the peoples free exercise of that right...  These laws no matter what SCOTUS may say violate our natural rights endowed by our Creator, and therefore are immoral and unconstitutional.  

Completely wrong...  Lets go over some of the ways you can be discharged under honorable conditions in less than 13 months back in the 90's.   1. Injury during the first couple months of service, and received a medical discharge. 2. Pre-existing medical issue discovered after enlistment, that once found barred him from service. 3. ELS - Entry level separation - as long as the separation was started within 180 days of enlistment. 4. This was at the height of the cold war draw down, so a RIF - Reduction in force - is possible. 5. Dependency or Hardship Discharge - illness is spouse, child or family member, etc.   Those are just the one's off the top of my head...  you're right it's likely something else was wrong...  but the fact he was discharged as a PFC and not a Private would lead me to believe it wasn't some behavior issue.      

Simpler is just remove local governments from 39-17-1359 Problem solved.

I don't see how they can prohibit firearms at all in a park legally...     39-17-1359 does not apply, even if a business or other entity leases the park...  because it's a park owned or operated by the City of Memphis, 39-17-1359 can not apply, period.  and 39-17-1311 doesn't allow posting either, so seems like they're out of luck.   I don't think you'd have to full on go to trial on this, seems like a simple injunction would work...  the plain meaning of the law is clear, parks can't prohibit carry under any circumstances anymore...  unless a school board is actively using it.   And watch, if they lose they'll get the local school board to sponsor the event next year ;)  

Go ahead and try it sometime...  very few people notice.  I end up openly carrying a lot more than I'd like to...  because I'm not going to disarm to fill my gas tank, etc and don't want to put a cover garment on while doing it...  In all the years I've been carrying I've only been approached once about being armed in a Krogers, and it was a very friendly encounter.    

Well technically, it's no longer a crime for you to carry a firearm in your vehicle, permit or not.  It's not a defense to 39-17-1307 but an exception...     (Dave I know you're aware of the following, but just to give background to others reading this reply) Truth be told technically carrying a loaded firearm on your property you're committing a crime, just a crime you have an automatic defense to, and therefore nobody is ever arrested for...  The Vehicle carry exception is different, since it is an exception to the law, you aren't breaking the law when carrying in your vehicle.   Now, I agree, as much as the legislature (and more importantly the TFA) want to protect HCP holders as some special 'protected' class, it's just not possible...  and more importantly, your employer has no obligation not to violate your natural rights, if you say something in the press even off the job they disagree with, they have every right to terminate your employment.     

I'm going to run by one of these community centers and see if they have a legal 39-17-1359 posting ;)  

In Nashville's case, these buildings are also administrated by the Parks department, so logic would say, the build sits entirely inside a designated park, the build is managed by the county/city parks department, therefore 1311 must apply ;)   Simplest way to find out, would be to get the parks department to tell you the centers are off limits, then have an organization such as TFA file a lawsuit to block enforcement as a violation under 39-17-1311.    

I disagree...     39-17-1311a     I agree there is no case law, but it's clear the legislative intent is for areas covered by 39-17-1311 to be exempt from 39-17-1359...  Also, none of those locations are currently posted via 39-17-1359.   I think the argument you'll have for Community Centers is the fact they sit entirely within the confines of public parks in most cases in Metro Nashville...  I can't see the government saying with a straight face the law says you can run around the entire park with a firearm, but can not access a building within that park because it's called a Community Center.   At the end of the day somebody (hopefully the TFA) will test the attempts by Nashville, Knoxville or Memphis to violate 39-17-1311/1359.   Some examples:   'Bellevue Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/search/Bellevue+Recreation+Center/@36.0713775,-86.9328273,18z   "The Parthenon" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Parthenon/@36.1497249,-86.8126882,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x70f4d37bc63ae1a6   "Hermitage Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/3720+James+Kay+Ln,+Hermitage,+TN+37076/@36.1772803,-86.614717,19z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x88646afbfbcd5fe1:0xf89d058f22dbf138   "Madison Community Center" - https://www.google.com/maps/place/510+Cumberland+Ave,+Madison,+TN+37115/@36.2657108,-86.6999561,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x886443aa05c0d1b1:0x83d5724a7f833b68   Here is a list of Metro Community Centers, all but 6 clear sit entirely inside the boundaries of a 'Park'...     http://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Community-Centers-and-Recreation.aspx   OhShoot, you really think these examples aren't covered by 39-17-1311...  These Community Centers are smack dab in the middle of 'Parks' in each case.  If the skate 'park' is in, I can't see how the entirety of a city park including any community centers listed are in as well.  

While Bridgestone might be a grey area...  Metro Nashville has a lot more areas that aren't grey and are going to cause Metro Parks to flip out ;)   For clear examples of 'recreational' that appear to be covered under the new law:   Centennial Sportsplex - I don't see how they can argue that the sportplex isn't covered by exceptions in 39-17-1359 or 1311.   Parks Community Centers  - Again, they're ran by Metro Parks, don't see how they prohibit somebody from carry a firearm at those either.   Two Rivers Skatepark - Yeah this one too...   Wave Country - Entirely ran by Metro Parks...  I can see them trying to ban carry through some other method here... but legally they can't.   Parks/Metro Police are going to have a cow when they figure out all the areas covered by this law...   Bridgestone is the least of their worries...  they have a fighting chance to argue that those aren't parks...  I don't see how Metro Parks makes the argument in court stuff they run isn't a park under 1311 and 1359 with a straight face.  

I would think anything governed by 1311 would be covered under that definition.  As a legislative intent issue...  the 'other similar public place' is a big catch all.   No case law as far as I'm aware so, who knows.    

No case law on the subject, doubt it would be considered recreational unless it included an indoor play ground, slide or something else.    

Isn't it better to carry a poorly concealed firearm than go unarmed?  

No, it was already out of committee, they can pass a law without funding it... and TDOS would just suck it up or not place the extra 'make work' jobs at the capital.    

Happy to help...  Anti-gunners try and use stats against us...  we need to use their own arguments again them...  They argue that only police officers have the added training to carry firearms, you show them that citizens are much better...   They complain about the few permit carries commuting crimes...  they point of the fact that more officers have their POST certifications revoked for wrong doing every year than HCP permit holders do...  and there are more than 10x as many permit holders in TN  ;)