JayC

Been there, done that, have the tshirt, coffee mug, a Glock 19 and a HCP :) But, nothing compared to helping out with computer forensics in a divorce case... Talk about pissing people off enough to stalk you and confront you walking out to your car late one night... I don't be divorce cases anymore because of that. Never understood how a 45 year old could be sending pics of his privates to the college aged babysitter, and somehow believes it's my fault his marriage is ruined :) ----------------------------------- As for the OP, dude stop kidding yourself, she's a lot more in the middle of this than you're giving her credit... be glad you found out before getting married... time to exit stage right and cut off all contact with her... obviously if you have proof of the threats, I'd contact local PD near you, and wherever he lives.

I'm curious if there is any proof he 'pointed' the gun at anybody...  and if there was, was the 'pointing' intention or accidental sweeping of some sort.

But, what building can you go into carrying?  It would be nice to have one, but all the federal buildings are likely off limits...  although I guess all the national parks aren't off limits under federal law now.

Somebody should suggest cloudflare.com to them...  it's free, and it will cut their bandwidth usage in half if not more.  It will also speed the site up.  But, then again 11gigs of data a day isn't that much ;)

Seems I'll be cooking up a big pot of crow pie for some folks...  I've been saying for 3 years Palmer vs Washington DC was the gateway to removing bans on carrying firearms and turn it into a right.  If (and it should be unless somebody on SCOTUS dies in the next 18 months) this ruling is upheld, it will be a watershed for 2nd Amendment rights.   Clearly under this ruling - should it be upheld, TN complete prohibition against long gun carry would be unconstitutional.

Rumor has it the fliers he was handing out had the name of his business name and website address... Is advertising your NFA business 'incident to carrying on the business'? Even if we feel it was a stupid way to promote his business, I don't think it matters.

I suspect that should this case get dismissed, he's going to make a point that certain officers knew him that day, and targeted him for his past lawful actions.  I'm even willing to bet should he get into discovery on a civil case with the city, he's going to find that officers knew who he was, that he had a valid FFL, and probably that he was legally selling NFA related items...  Since it's already come out that certain officers were gathering 'intelligence' on him in  the past.   I have to disagree with DaveTN a little bit...  I think the DA is trying to wait him out for a plea bargain where they drop all the charges if he agrees not to file a civil case against the city...  Because frankly, I think he has a damn good case against the city right now.     As for his argument about not having to show ATF paperwork to local authorities on request, he's probably got a good case on that point as well...  those forms are considered tax records and there is a federal law (which impacts the state via the supremacy clause) that prohibits local governments from demanding access to tax records without a warrant signed by a judge.     My hope is the city I live in and pay lots of property taxes to, will drop this dog of a case, and settle out of court with this guy as fast as possible, it's already cost the city a lot more than just admitting they made a mistake...     No good comes out of pushing this case any further... the DA is going to have to start making arguments that they has PC to open a closed case because they thought it might contain a firearm...  and push a theory that somehow even though he was in lawful possession of a NFA item he somehow broke state law.   Either outcome would be bad for regular gun owners in TN, IMHO.  

First, TICS blatantly violates the TN state constitution which only allows the legislature to regulate the wearing of firearms not the purchasing of firearms.  TICS also has a much worse false positive rate than the national NICS system, they routinely deny lawful purchases and the error rate is 3 to 4 times higher than NICS, which has it's own high false positive rate...   It's a money grab by the state, $10 per background check adds up, and they're unlawfully taking that money out of our pockets every time we buy a firearm from a dealer here in TN.   And just keep in mind nation wide, that for every conviction for somebody trying to illegally buy a firearm, it's costing us about 25 million dollars in compliance costs with federal background check regulation.   Where else can you go to work, have a 80+% false positive rate and get raises and promotions?

I think it's wrong to arm the state and local governments with weapons that are prohibited from the citizens.  Using history as a guide, protection from tyranny comes from the people, not the government.

Including TN under certain circumstances.      

I can't point to a case... but I can point to a lot of bad AG opinion letters.  And since they appoint the AG, it's time for them to go IMHO.    

I personally believe the ATF routinely violates both the constitution and federal law....  but I don't think they're sharing said illegal activities with every police department in the country performing routine B&E investigations :)  

Unless the law has been changed in the last 2 years...  4473's are NOT entered into the tracing database as that would be a violation of federal law.  Form 4473's specifically prohibited from being put into a computer database by federal law, and every year the budget passed by the House provides that no money shall be spent on entering them in a database.   Here is a story from NY Times in 2012:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0       So IF the ATF is building is registration database it's doing so in violation of federal law.   A much bigger concern is a little know system run by NCIS called LinX which is storing data on firearms ran during traffic stops...  which could be turned into a registry.  

Truth is they could affect changes on the federal level.     1.  Pass a law to make it a crime to provide any information to the federal government without a warrant signed by judge.   2.  Pass a law that makes it a crime for any employee of the state or a local government to provide any material support to a federal law enforcement agency involving any firearm related case. 3.  Revoke state law enforcement powers granted to all federal agents, and force them to go armed under the same rules as citizens of TN.   Crazy, yes.  Won't ever happen... but those 3 laws would basically turn the federal government into a toothless tiger here in TN regarding the 2nd amendment.  

Slept through those civics classes in high school huh? :)  It takes a simple majority in both chambers and the governors signature the change an existing law....  nothing special about 'repealing' a law.   But you're right it's unlikely any republican would vote to repeal that law next year.    

There is a defense in 39-17-1308 for carrying a loaded firearm on your property, residence, or place of business.  If for some reason, you can move the firearm from your residence to your car via the popular but often unused 39-17-1308(a)(4) - "Incident to ...  other lawful activity"    

Unneccesary, unconstitutional, and false positive prone TICS needs to go away.  

That's just not true anymore, the legislature restored that right for every law abiding adult citizen to carry a loaded firearm in their car.  It's an exception to 39-17-1307, not a defense such as having a permit 39-17-1308.   I never said they can't disarm you with valid cause, only they can't use 39-17-1351(t) to disarm you because they feel like it.  Officers can't come into your home to take a report on a car breakin and confiscate your firearms in their squad car while taking the report...  This change basically treats your car the same.   Their going to need a good reason to disarm people..  general 'officer safety' excuses currently used by some departments with permit holders won't hold water imho since 39-17-1351(t) doesn't apply to legally armed non-permit holders.    

I can't support an organization that cries foul every time the legislature proposes police officers, judges, and DA getting 'special privileges' then turns around and tries to carve out a special protected class of worker which violates the core values of the 2nd Amendment freedom movement.   I like John a lot, had lunch with him a few times, and helped out with TFA on the technical side some.  Nice guy, but I'm 100% against this idea they're pushing to put a government permit between the employee/employer relationship.  Hopefully they'll let it die next year, because I'd like to be able to support the TFA again.   As for the NRA, I'm a lifetime member, and they call on a regular basis asking for money, and every time I hang up and make a donation to GOA, because they don't compromise.    

Remember the key word reckless...  A DA would have to convince a grand jury let alone a jury in court that shooting at a bad guy in the act of committing a mass shooting was reckless.   I seriously doubt you'd get a DA to charge let alone convict in that situation but IANAL :)        

Like what?  With the exception of trying to interfere in the employee/employer relationship nothing on that list concerns me at all.  

Nope.  39-17-1351(t) is the only place that I've ever seen regarding disarming a citizen not incident to arrest.  Since the new law isn't a defense but an exception, I don't see how taking your firearm back to their car for safe keeping would be anymore legal than taking your laptop/tool box during a traffic stop for safe keeping.   Some of the officers will try to pull the 'you *might* be a prohibited person' trick, but under current case law that shouldn't hold water.  

And unlike John Harris, some of us think it's perfectly fine for an employer to be able to fire you for violate the conditions they set on your employment.  Which is why I don't support the TFA any longer.  

I'm curious if anybody in the LE community realizes 39-17-1351(t) doesn't apply to the new law?  It only applies to permit holders.  

If they get caught delaying traffic stops because a person has a gun and *might* be a prohibited person...  They'll have problems.     Second, up until July 1st, having a loaded gun has been a crime...  that goes away in your car...  so they can't detain you for having the gun anymore, unless they have RAS that you specifically are a prohibited person.   The other big surprise for officers.. 39-17-1351(t) doesn't apply to non-permit holders...  so there is no 'disarming for safety' of non-permit holders who has a loaded firearm in their vehicle under state law.     Since the new law creates an exception to 39-17-1307, not a defense to it...  I foresee a lot of officers having issues with the new law, and a number of lawsuits coming from it.