JayC

Greg,   I'm the first one to say SCOTUS gets it wrong a lot...  but I think we both can agree neither of us want the government endorsing one religion over another...  because while today in this case they might be endorsing the Christian faith tomorrow they could be endorsing a religion that makes both of us uncomfortable.   There are two SCOTUS cases you should read up on...     The first is Abington Township v Schempp 1963, involving asking students to read the Lord's Prayer...  which is on the mark...   The second is Wallace v Jaffree 1985 which involved the creation of a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer.   The basic rule that SCOTUS developed in these cases is the 'secular rule test', which basically says if the actions by the government or it's agents must have a secular purpose for their actions not a religious one...  if the actions are motivated by religion then those actions violate the establishment clause.   If you look even more recently at Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe 2000 SCOTUS ruled that even student led, student initiated prayer is a violation of the establishment clause...   And even if you don't buy the SCOTUS rulings...   You still have the TN state constitution, which clearly prohibits a human authority from interfering with religion, or providing a preference of one religion over another....   Even if SCOTUS is wrong and the 1st Amendment protections aren't incorporated by the 14th Amendment (which would also mean that Heller and McDonald were also wrong on the 2nd Amendment)...  you still argue that States have the right to regulate religion via their own constitutions... and TN has done so, banning the legislature and any sub-divisions of it (which would include all schools), and any human authority, which clearly the principal acting as a government agent meets that definition...  are prohibited from giving preference to any religion over another.   Anyway you cut it, the Principal was in the wrong... he knowingly and intentionally violated both school board policy, as well as both the Federal and/or TN state constitutions...  And in the process of committing those violation enlisted the help of kids under his charge in this unlawful action acting in his official capacity as an agent of the government.   This is from Pew summarizing a number of cases here in the south by state supreme courts, including cases in TN:     Clearly the principal in this case has admitted to both encouraging the cheerleaders and recommending the contents of their speech at a school activity.   Greg, I'm sorry, but you're wrong...  the TN Constitution as well as the US Constitution clearly restricts the actions of a government agent while they're performing their duties...  There is no question his actions were unlawful.  

Difference between us and the principal...  one of us is acting as an agent of the government with the ability to violate the civil rights of people under their charge.  If he had gone out and started the prayer himself, because of his convictions...  I'd have an entirely different opinion of the situation...  but that isn't what happened.   The Principal made a decision to violate school board policy and the constitution knowing full well his actions were wrong... he then enlisted minors (Cheerleaders) under his charge into a conspiracy to violate both their rights, and the rights of other students and citizens of the community in an attempt to too cute by half to pawn the risk off onto the cheerleaders, realizing there would likely be backlash for his actions.   That's why I think he needs to be fired, and he needs to be charged and spend a very long time in jail...  this isn't just bad judgement, it was intentional IMHO.  Because you need to make an example of people who willfully violate the constitution...  to discourage others from doing the same in the future...   But, we both know it's unlikely he'll loose his job, and there is no chance he'll be charged or found guilty...  What will happen?  Somebody is going to file a lawsuit against the school, and they'll win...  and a large chunk of this small school boards budget will be wasted because of this principals 'mistake'...  And those cheerleaders, they'll receive a ton of negative publicity from small minded individuals that can't see they aren't at fault.  

I haven't seen a single person suggest that you or anybody else should be banned from praying whenever and where ever you're moved to...   The issue is when a government employee knowingly violates the constitution...  that person should be held accountable.. and just so we're clear, firing him should be the first step... frankly I think he should be sitting in prison for the rest of his natural life.  That is how harshly we should treat violations of our fundamental rights by government employees who knowingly violate the rights of children under their care.   The principal crossed a line, by his own admission, he approached the cheerleaders and requested they pray at the school function, he did so to intentionally subvert a school board policy, federal and state case law, and both constitutions...     Again nobody is suggesting that people can't pray, that they can't come together and pray at school events...  all we're saying is agents of the government can't request or demand that people pray, nor should those prayers be setup as a formal part of the event.   If these cheerleaders had chosen to do this on their own with no prompting from the school administration, it would have been amazing.   But, that isn't what happened, the principal asked (aka told) the cheerleaders to say the prayer during the moment of silence, and that is by it's very definition an agent of the government endorsing one form of religion over another....  if you can't see the problem with that, it's hopeless.    

Well just incase anybody was wondering...  he posted detail pictures of the rifle he's carrying, and it is indeed antique and doesn't appear to qualify as a firearm under the GFSZA.

And the current form of GFSZA hasn';t been reviewed by SCOTUS since the last version was ruled unconstitutional...  not that I'd suggest anybody become the test case, but it's something to consider.    

It's perfectly legal to openly carry both if they're unloaded.  TCA 39-17-1308a1 includes rifles, shotguns, and pistols if they're not concealed, and the ammunition is not in the immediate vicinity of the person or the weapon.  

The children involved aren't at fault here...  the only adults in power who knowingly used them to circumvent school board policy and the constitution.  Any adult involved should be fired...     The Cheerleaders should be allowed to pray if they want to... but it's probably a valuable lesson for them to learn that the 1st Amendment only protects them from government interference, not interference by small minded individuals who can't separate free speech of kids, from the misdeeds of government officials who attempted to use those children for their own ends.   But, you're right...  people shouldn't be harassing these kids for praying.    

Why can't he openly carry an unloaded pistol?    

As you said the vast majority of people can't afford private schools...  and the fact is unless you're from two branches of Christianity finding a private school to teach your children is pretty much impossible.  Catholic and Evangelical schools are very common in TN, otherwise there are just a handful of schools for other religions most of which are for the Jewish and Islamic faiths.  If you fall outside those limited options you're pretty much out of luck.   Call me one of those crazy parents...  I am endowed by my Creator with natural rights that are mine alone, and only I can choose to surrender those rights of my own free will...  luckily most of those rights are protected by the constitution, and a smaller number of them are respected by the current government.  I don't live in a fantasy, I realize that I'm not free, and I keep my head down and suffer through infringements of my rights on a daily basis, because the world isn't 'fair', and I except that as an adult...  but I'm not willing to give up...  the chains of slavery chafe against my shoulders, and weight heavy on my soul.   And in the past I have willingly given up my rights (along  with my morals and ethics unfortunately) at the whim of my employers who wanted things a certain way...  as I get older and see what is important...  I work to reduce those types of situations in my life, the one area of my life I can't seem to reduce is the government infringements on my rights, ethics and morals...  which is why I feel that violations of those by the government and people in the employment of the government should be harsh...  because we can all find a different church... we can all find a different job... and we can all find a different place to shop...  we're all stuck with the government.  And since the government is the only thing on that list which can use force legally, violations by it should be swift and harsh IMHO.   And yes the Principal should be fired without question...  as clear as day he intentionally violated the constitution (both Federal and State)...  He knowingly enlisted children under his charge into a conspiracy to violate not only the constitutionally protected rights of students but members of the public...  I think frankly that firing him doesn't send a strong enough message...  and while I know most are blinded by their own small minds to even call for that...  there should be real punishment for behavior this outlandish.   If you could find a DA to charge him, I would happily support charges and jail time for the principal.  Just as I would support criminal charges against the teacher in East TN who punished a student for saying God bless you in class.    

According to SCOTUS the prohibition on the establishment of religion is one of the immunities which is incorporated via the 14th amendment, just like SCOTUS has ruled the rights of the 2nd Amendment are incorporated on the states via the 14th amendment.   As for section 3 of the TN Constitution, the school is created by an act of the state legislature aka, a law.  As such any sub-division of the legislature created by law is prohibited from giving preference to any religion...  This is also settled case law by the TN Supreme court for the better part of 30 years.  And if that doesn't work for you...  the principal is clearly a 'human authority' and has by his own admission interfered with the rights of conscience by making a request of students under his charge to make a religious prayer at a school function.   My guess is if the principal had requested that these cheerleaders say 'allahu akbar' during the minute of silence, you'd be ready to run him out of town on a rail...  That is why it's wrong, and why good Christians should demand their government not endorse any religion, because tomorrow it may well be some religion they don't believe in that is being endorsed.   When Christians try and use their majority to force this issue into the public sphere, by using government to try and establish their fate...  they're making it easier for religious minorities such as Muslims to establish sharia law in this country...  because if schools such as this one can endorse Christianity then the government can endorse sharia law be established on followers of Islam.     At the end of the day, the real problem here is we have government run schools to begin with...  it's not good for anybody of faith to allow the government to take custody of your children for 6 to 7 hours a day...  but until we do away with government run schools, they need strict restrictions on those school, including anything that has even the slightest feeling of endorsing any religion.  Trust me in the long run that is what benefits everybody involved include Christians.    

Clearly you've never read the TN state constitution huh?   First, even if you were correct that the state constitution didn't have an establishment clause (it does)...  the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which TN (kinda) ratified after the civil war binds the states to recognize all privileges or immunities under the federal constitution.   So while pre-civil war some states did have state religions...  all of that ended once the 14th Amendment was ratified (and in virtually all cases had ended before that).   BUT, TN does have a state constitution which prohibits the exact same...   Section 3 of the TN Constitution:     So, here we have a government school created by law that is giving preference to a specific religion and a specific mode of worship.  Clear a violation under the TN Constitution as well.   Please, if you're going to make an argument please have your facts straight.    

And that right there makes it unconstitutional and wrong.  People should be free to pray whenever and where ever the Lord moves them...  but, when a government employee asks students under his charge to pray that is by it's very definition attempting to establish one religious view point over all others...   I suspect that if this Principal had asked those students to say a Islamic prayer before the football game, the vast majority of people in that community and on this forum would be outraged and calling for the Principals head on a pike.  And that point being true is what makes this a wrong move.   The principal should be fired plain and simple.  If the students want to keep praying their free to do so... as is their right.     There are disagreements between Christians over the exact wording of something as simple as the Lord's Prayer...  let alone other religions... and people who don't believe...   And at the end of the day we must respect their rights to practice their religion as they see fit, and not allow the government to force a foreign religion on them...  just like none of us want the government forcing some religion we don't believe in on us.     

I'm not talking about folks on welfare...  I'm talking about 20-something students...  working class folks who have a hard time taking 2 days off of work to get a permit...  single mothers etc...  The price tag attached to a HCP is a lot more than the cost of the class, or the cost of the licence...  time costs money..      

Is it true that the principal went to the cheerleaders and asked them to do this?  If so, clearly a violation of the establishment clause and it should stop.   If all the cheerleaders with no help or encouragement from school employees came up with this idea on their own (I'm highly doubtful) then it's nobody's business if they pray or not.   There is a HUGE difference between students coming together of the own accord and expressing their faith... and school officials attempting to use the cheerleaders as a cut out to push the establishment of one religion onto the school body and the public at large.  

It would depend on exactly how the GFSZA is worded...  does it grant the states powers of arrest for crimes within it or not...  Just because it's a federal violation doesn't mean the states are automatically granted arrest powers...   Now, would that stop them?  Probably not :)   Remember the GFSZA hasn't made it's way back to SCOTUS since they struck the law down the first time...  And for sure hasn't been before the court since Heller...  There are some serious doubts if the law would survive review again.   Because of the change in the TN law, HCP holders aren't covered with long guns from GFSZA anymore...  I seriously doubt anybody is going to be charged, GFSZA is rarely enforced, but it's still a very bad law.      

If the GFSZA could stand up to court review... yes anybody carrying a firearm in the vehicle including in some cases (long guns) permit holders would be in violation.   Yet another bad law...   Only good news...  local DA's can't charge you under the GFSZA... you'd have to piss off a federal prosecutor.  

And if you want leave the permit system in place for those that want a permit...  create another permit that comes with ever FFL purchased firearm, or pass constitutional carry.   The simple solution is to do away with that entire section of TDOS, take the 'make work' jobs and toss them in the unemployment line...  but I get it that some folks want to keep the gold standard permit so they can carry out of state... and if you want to, feel free to...  but it's a waste to require anybody to take that class to carry a firearm.   Pass constitutional carry... and if we can't make that happen....  make a second permit where you get online, pass a 10 question test for $20 and your permit shows up in the mail a couple of weeks later.  Because everything else TN requires is a complete waste of time and money.   And frankly $20 would still be a rip off...  because it should cost less than $5 to provide the test and $10 for a TICS level crappy background check that takes 10 minutes to complete.  

If it's a public university, let them try.  TCA 39-17-1314a (state preemption) prohibits them from attempting to regulate among other things the possession, storage and transportation for firearms unless otherwise provided for by state law...  Since there is no law granting colleges and universities the ability to regulate firearms, it would seem to me they can't legally.    More importantly, it would be a PR nightmare for them, it would inflame gun rights activists and groups... and would give conservative Republicans a great liberal target...  The BoR is already fighting a campaign against the campus carry law...  expelling a model student and citizen for keeping a legally owned firearm in the vehicle...  just might be the straw that broke the camels back...   I just don't see them taking the bait.    

Nobody is getting rich on regular welfare either...  but it doesn't make the HCP corporate welfare any better ;)   And it's a lot of money...  Figure $75 is the average price for a permit class...  Plus another $25 in ammo...  That's $4 million a year in corporate welfare...  Lets say there are 100 ranges in TN that are performing the vast majority of classes in TN..  That's $40k a year per range...  Maybe there are more ranges... but not a lot more...   $40k in revenue that serves no purpose what so ever...  Less than 1% of people who take the course, fail to pass...  most instructors run a virtually try until you pass guaranty on their courses.  The current method only prevents low income law abiding citizens from being able to carry a firearm for protection... and another roadblock for those law abiding people from quickly gaining access to carry a firearm legally for protection.   Although car carry does a long way to help solve those issues.   Also, there is another $1 million or so in corporate welfare with companies taking finger prints for the permit...  fingerprints which have NEVER been used to solve a single crime.    

Corporate Welfare for ranges and instructors...  The training class could be replaced by a simple test online for $5 and would be just as effective.  

With his track record of playing games...  exactly what do you think he's going to do that would be legal, yet still give rise to a justified shooting?   The guy is coo coo for coca puffs...  but he tries really hard not to break the law...  I just don't see it happening...   I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't moved onto testing 39-17-1308a4 the incident to 'other lawful activity' defense...  I think he can carry ammo for the rifle and pistol on his person if he's walking to the shooting range...  but there is virtually no case law to be found on that defense... so any attempt would be risky...   best case, ignore him, don't give him the attention he craves... and he'll go away.  

Just remember that DA's can and do get convictions of bad people getting killed... Some guy walking about with a rifle on his back, let alone with the rifle in a case (no matter how stupid the case looks) is not a threat to any reasonable person.   As strange as he acts... as annoying as he is... as questionable as his motives are...  he never acts in a threatening manner...   Remember, it's not a question of if you are in fear for your life... but a question about if a reasonable person would have been in fear of their life...  and what reasonable person could ever be afraid of a guy walking around with a rifle slung across his back.   As much as nobody likes to admit, he's very careful...  I don't see him taking this to the next level in a way that opens himself up to arrest... or at least not serious arrest...  it's clear if a DA wanted to pick on him, they could hit him with jaywalking, or disorderly conducted.....  but anything more the a minor charge...  I don't really see that happening...  each time he learns from the situation and refines his operation.   IMHO the fact he is now handing out leaflets is a critical change...  He's not fishing for 2nd Amendment/4th Amendment violations anymore...  he's hoping for a 1st Amendment violation of prior restraint...  which traditionally are a lot easier to win.   The best thing law enforcement could do with Voldrmort...  is completely ignore him...  Don't detain him...  don't search him... just let him wander around handing out his flyers...  IMHO he just wants the attention, take the attention away and he'll find something else to focus on - hopefully having to do with school bus drivers violating the law and not firearms :)  

His case wasn't thrown out on the question of the search, because they didn't even get to that part of the criminal case...  The case got tossed because he had a proven defense and it was dismissed out of the gate...   There are so few exigent circumstances where you can search a locked container without a warrant, there is no doubt the search was bad...  They just didn't get to the suppression of evidence because the case was so weak it couldn't survive a summary judgement.      

I feel sorry for the HCP that does that since they'll be in prison for the rest of their lives, for this clown.  

TCA 39-17-1307f3 might throw a wet towel on that thought process....   The weapon is clearly in a locked container and he claims to not have the key, so technically he doesn't 'possess' the firearm under state law.  Therefore 39-17-1307 doesn't appear to apply, or at least that is my guess on the legal theory he's working under.   Also, locked containers have very strict SCOTUS case law, when it comes to exigent circumstance searches....   My guess is he's carefully crafting the situation to give him the greatest chance to winning a 1983 lawsuit as he can possibly dream up.   So far no more takers...  which is a good thing, even though Voldrmort is an idiot.