JayC

Trust me, Beth Harwell was on a first name basis with me during the restaurant carry bill...  when I lived in her district.  Enough so that she routinely avoided calling on me at town halls because of my constant questions about her stance on the 2nd Amendment.   But, I'm not sure what she had to do with adding this amendment to this bill...  although frankly it wouldn't surprise me to see her having some hand in it.  

You have otherwise law abiding citizens of CT sitting at home minding their own business...  and some statist gets a wild hair to violate the constitution and turn them into a felon...  And those citizens are supposed to wait around until the government shows up on their front door and tries to take their freedom or their life...  all the time minding their own business?   Frankly I think the citizens of CT have shown great restraint...  I'm half surprised in the days and weeks following the vote on this unconstitutional law a dozen of those legislators didn't end up face down in a ditch, or hanging from a light pole.  I suspect if word gets out that their going around to peoples homes looking for banned firearms, that restraint may well falter...  And some days I wonder if that shouldn't be the reaction a lot more often...     To paraphrase Norquist...  It might not be a bad idea for the government to worry the people might get unhappy with them one day, and drown the government in the nearest bathtub.     

John and I had a discussion about the crazy parts of 39-17-1309 at lunch a few years ago...  I seriously doubt he'd disagree with my opinions on how poorly worded that part of the law is...   I just think that highlighting some of the more absurd parts of 1309 would result in more questions about including it into a parks bill,  or changing it all together...  Highlighting adult 'students' and school administrators creating moving felon zones I think would make it harder to justify they're adding this provision "for the children".  

I'm not disagreeing with John Harris on anything he said in the letter...  only that this problem has existed for a long time, and the scope of the problem is much bigger.   That by highlighting just what is covered when we talk about school activities is more than what any reasonable person would consider...  we do a better job of highlighting just how bad the law is.   It's crazy to think that a high school cross country team running through a state park suddenly turns law abiding citizens into felons...  But it is completely ridiculous when you consider the law applies the same for 30-something college students who are participating in a 'school function'.   Also, remember it's not just 'students' to have this 'halo of felony' following them around...  the employees of the school/university also have this halo attached to them...  So for example a official retirement party/awards ceremony, would have the same effect...  So would a group of teachers having an offsite meeting.  Where does the insanity of the law end?   To fix it all we have to do is change 39-17-1309b1 from:   ... any other property owned, used or operated by ...   to:   .... any other property owned, or solely operated by ....   Taking that one word out of the law solves all of this.    

You noticed I said unrelated to parks...  here I'm talking about public TWRA ranges, or private ranges...  If a 'school' group shows up which would include any college/university approved group...  the way 39-17-1309 is currently worded it creates a nightmare on who can and can not touch a firearm.   I'm using it as an example to illustrate just how bad the law currently is.    

I think John Harris is missing a larger point...  when you say school children people get the impression of kids on a school trip or playing in a high school sport...  but the way the current amendment is worded, any University sponsored activity is also covered under 39-17-1309.   So, if two 25 year old graduate students who belong to the University 'bird watching club' go to your local park on an official club activity, or as part of a competitive bird watching competition then the entire state park is now off-limits to HCP users.   One might think they'd spot a bus full of kids, or a softball game from a distance...  how do you spot a couple of 25 year olds watching birds?   Or an even better question - not related to parks...  if a sorority at the local college sponsors a self defense night at the local range...  who can legally handle a firearm while they're there?  Or what happens when the clay shooting club from MTSU stops by to practice?   39-17-1309 is so badly written it's not even funny...  in all likelihood we've all been somewhere off school property carrying and had 'school children' as defined under 39-17-1309 around us while carrying and didn't realize we could be charged with a felony.  I've personally seen Vandy cross country members running down to Bi-Centennial park in downtown Nashville during their practice...  Which is about the only park in Davidson County (plus Radnor Lake) that you can legally carry in.

I guess my question was, if this opinion or something similar were to become case law here, could it impact long gun carry?  Using the logic they did from the supporting cases...   I understand we're not in the 9th circuit, just asking from a hypothetically stand point.      

The difference being speeding tickets aren't criminal charges in most cases...  carry a minor fine sub-$100 in most cases, and are so minor the vast majority of the public doesn't seem to mind.   In this case we're talking about a felony charge, locked in jail for years, and something people generally care a lot about...   My guess is that CT leaves sleeping dogs alone for 5-10 years then starts trying to slow track down all the firearms...  after peoples passions have calmed down...   Much like the feds did with the NFA, which was pretty much ignored for the better part of 30 years.  

Chip,   Doesn't the supporting case law in this opinion basically say that being able to proscribe the type of firearm carried is a clear infringement as well?  They specifically talk about case law showing that just because X was allowed, doesn't mean you can completely ban Y...   What does that mean for long gun carry if this case stands in the 9th circuit?

Unlike normal states, the TN AG is a member of the judicial branch, not the executive or legislative branches.  He's appointed by the State Supreme Court...  and little known fact unlike what the constitution says we don't really elect supreme court judges like we use to..  Under what is called the 'Tennessee Plan'.   Because of this, the TN AG does not answer to the people of TN.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Attorney_General   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Plan   Here is something we should be pushing through the legislature...  ALL judges should have to stand for an open election period.  Why isn't the republican controlled legislature push to repeal the Tennessee Plan?

Unenforced laws are the worse kind...  it allows for selective enforcement...  which is often used to throw the book at somebody you the DA doesn't like for whatever reason.    

Just curious, but if this opinion was applied to TN, would it make long gun carry legal?  One of the cases cited in the 9th opinion says that banning all handgun carry while still allowing long gun carry was unconstitutional, does that not imply the reverse is true as well?

It's a very interesting read...  I've not finish the dissenting opinion yet, but the opinion is very well thought out and appears to be supported by Heller and McDonald.   Basically they're saying that the state can regulate the manner in which you carry, but may not create laws or policies that would prohibit the average law abiding citizen from carrying...  nor can they regulate away which arm you carry.   So while the CA legislature is against open carry, but allows concealed carry that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, but bu having a policy that limits concealed carry permits and completely prohibits open carry the 2nd amendment has been violated.     And they go on to rip  2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuit opinions on the matter...  basically saying they relied on historical opinions that are clearly at odds with Heller...     I don't totally agree with the opinion, but it's a big deal moving forward for carry rights in places such as LA and SF.    

Waste of tax money, nothing but security theater that puts people at greater risk than going back to pre-2001 security.

In all fairness it's just a single person preventing carry at the state house...  Beth Harwell...  she could place her signature on a letter and tomorrow we'd legally be able to carry there.    

I think the bigger concern is the politicization of the National Guard and the military in general...  I can't think of another time in our history other than possible MacArthur getting so involved in politics.

I'm going to echo DaveTN's comment....  My recommendation is they do one of the following...   Go to college, get 60 credits and apply to the National Guard as an officer candidate, you'll spend 2 years finishing up college and getting officer training.  Then get yourself transferred to one of the special forces units in the Mississippi NG... Or look into a switch to active duty, or another service -  again a lot easier for an officer to pull off.   Or, go to college join Navy ROTC and become an officer :)   While there aren't as many officers in special operations units it's generally a lot easier to get a slot as an officer, and as a general rule you're a lot less likely to fail out of training...   I know it's not fair, but the reality is for some odd reason instructors tend not to fail officers as often as enlisted.   Also, the job prospects for officers leaving the service before retirement looks a lot better.   I'd also suggest they think outside the box, I've got a buddy who is a Captain in the 8th SOS (Air Force), who nobody has ever heard of which is pulling missions with SEAL's, SF, etc on a daily basis, and it's a cakewalk to get into compared to say the Rangers.

There is virtually no reason for the police to do stops with unmarked vehicles...  Maury County Sheriff should make an announcement tomorrow that his deputies will never pull somebody over for a traffic violation in an unmarked car.  Any attempt to pull a vehicle over without a marked unit in support should be assumed to be an impersonator.   There just isn't enough reason to have 'under cover' officers in plain clothes performing traffic enforcement in any TN county to offset the risk.

Technically the way the law is written, you could be sitting in a McDonald's eating lunch, and the instance a school bus drives onto the property, you're violating the law.   It just highlights how bad the law is currently written.  

Everybody has to remember that only 1 republican voted against the parks law in the first place...  RINO Beth Harwell.

Wk05 if you can change your residency you can legally carry in TN now. Change your residency to South Dakota and get a permit in that state... Then come back and work here temporarily... South Dakota has a reciprocity agreement with TN so you don't have to get a permit from TN after 6 months. Only real reason not to do this is if you're attending college on in state tuition or have to have TN residency for a job.

Guys, this is Constitutional Carry for all practical purposes.   Unless you're a prohibited person, you'd be able to carry openly and concealed everywhere a permit holder could with some very limited exceptions...  parking lots bill wouldn't apply...  parks bill wouldn't apply (maybe)....  some of the school drop off laws...  otherwise it's just like having a permit in state.   Is it perfect?  No, but it's damn close.

If by sniper you mean, using a 22 to open fire at close range, sure...  it was snipers ;)

Difference between Jews and non-Jews in their gun laws... Also, in 'military' and non-military, the vast majority of Jews are 'in' the military and have greater access to firearms.    

You're going to loose a lot of support from business owners trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their employees....  The parking lots law is about as good as you can make it with the exception of these 2 changes that are being proposed.   We need to make those 2 small fixes and move onto new legislation that protects every-bodies rights...  instead of trying to make a special class of HCP holders employees.  As it stands now, I can carry in my car when I go to vote at the local school, and can visit friends on college campuses without breaking the law...  It was a massive improvement in my book.   If you work for a private employer and you don't like the terms of employment find somewhere else to work.