JayC

Then stop wasting money on the parking lots bill, and remove the exception to state preemption...   How about HCP carry at the state capital? You realize that requires a single signature from a republican (in name only) to make that happen?  No vote, just a letter sent to capitol security.   How about removing government buildings/property from 39-17-1359?  For all the money and political capital TFA wasted on a parking lots bill which really only impacts college students...  they could have repealed part or all of 39-17-1359.   How about this simple one, change a single word in 39-17-1308 from defense to exception so that certain types of carry are by default legal.   How about making all parks and wildlife areas in the state carry zones?  That would have caused a lot fewer issues politically than the parking lots bill.   I could go on and on about simple easy fixes that the TFA could have pushed for that would have done a lot more good than the parking lots bill did.    

There is already a market based solution to that problem...  go get a job with a less anti-2nd amendment company.   Why on earth do you want to continue to work for a company that promotes the taking of your rights?  Why help them earn more profit and continue to push the anti-gun agenda?      

The Firearm Freedom acts are winding their way through the federal court system right now (thanks to Montana's AG)...  We'll have to wait and see how those cases work out.  So those letters from the BATFE are being challenged in court as we speak.  My guess is that SCOTUS will side with the Feds, but we could be surprised.   The truth is the Feds can't enforce the laws they have on the books now without the help of the local police departments...  This bill would remove the ability of any government employee in TN from helping in anyway shape or form to enforce federal firearm laws...  and would carry criminal as well as civil risk for any employee that violated the law.     In my post, I never suggested the Fed couldn't arrest somebody for having an illegal 30 round magazine...  just that it would be really hard on them without any help whatsoever...  They would end up convicting some folks, but with no help whatsoever from locals it would be really hard...  How exactly do you find out somebody is stockpiling illegal firearms and/or magazines if no employee of the government can help you?   We already have SCOTUS rulings that say the federal government can't compel the state to enforce federal law...  so this law wouldn't violate federal supremacy, it just prevents TN government employees from enforcing the federal law, and provides for criminal and civil liabilities if they violate state law.  That would stand up in federal court, we can look at other examples of this where it already has.   So yes, they'd be able to convict some folks, but it would drastically limit how many.   You still haven't answered my question, if arrested where do those people sit for the 2 years it takes for the feds to place them on trial?  The Feds have nowhere to hold them without help from local authorities.   I don't break the law Dave - at least knowingly - so I'm not worried about the feds showing up and arresting me... I have no interest in being a test case.... but I do like provisions in the law that place criminal and civil liabilities on government workers that violate state law... and provisions that allow me to bypass the local DA and force action on those violations of state law.   Frankly, I think we should just pass this law today on all federal enforcement...  prohibit with felony charges any state employee from aiding the feds in any criminal case...  if they want to charge people let them do all the work themselves.   You know my opinion, this is all going to end badly sooner or later, might as well get it started and over with sooner rather than later.    

Dave,   This law is a little different...  It includes criminal and civil penalties...  And allows for me to go to the court, and have a special prosecutor appointed to charge those involved and the state covers the tab...  That is *huge*, the TNAG can't just ignore this law and hope it goes away like he did with the firearm freedom law, this allows any citizen wronged by the feds to force criminal charges and an independent special prosecutor on any state employees that aided the charges.   Lets follow this rabbit hole further....   Lets say the Feds pass a ban on 30 round mags...  How does one catch a violator under this law?     No police officer can aid or even tell the Feds about a person having a 30 round magazine...  if they do, they can be criminally charged, and loose sovereign immunity for their actions...  that means they can be placed behind bars for 11 months and 29 days on the first offense, and over a year on the second (being a felony offense).  Then the person arrested could turn around and file a civil lawsuit against the officer (with standing) and collect $50k plus all real damages such as loss of income, loss of property, loss of freedom, etc plus attorney fees, that number gets pretty big pretty quick.   Now, the feds arrest the 'offender'...  where do they put him?  The feds don't have a jail here in TN, and no TN sheriff could touch the 'offender' with a 10 foot poll without also violating this law...  They have to keep the 'offender' in TN because the trial would have to take place in Nashville.  They place the 'offender' in a hotel room under guard 24/7 using only federal officer?  Or take the 'offender' to KY or AL everyday?   Then you have the courthouse itself, where more than 50% of the security officers are TN POST certified law enforcement picking up extra shifts...  which one of them wants to be the test case that this law doesn't apply to them while they're working a part time job?   If passed as is, this would be a game changer...  first time we've been the ability for average citizens to enforce the law through state courts, instead of praying the TNAG wakes up and does the right thing.  

The fact is that Internet companies such as Comcast and AT&T over commit bandwidth as a cost saving measure, even though it would be profitable for them to not overcommit at the prices they're charging for 1 mbit of bandwidth. They still do.   So when you sell more bandwidth than you have, you're forced to prioritize traffic as part of network management...  The fact is that if I slow down VOIP traffic a little bit, the service completely fails...  but if I slow down FTP traffic a little bit, it works perfectly fine just a bit slower.   A good provider will attempt to manage their network in such a way as to prevent 'service' interruptions, so protocols which are susceptible to packet loss and latency get a higher priority in the queue than protocols which can handle packet loss and latency without causing any issues.   Emails are a perfect example of of this, whats the difference between your email being delivered in 1 sec vs 10 seconds...  little or none.  Even more so when you consider that more than half of emails sent are spam emails.  But, if I delay your VOIP traffic from 100ms to 1 second, the audio is broken and likely unusable.   Of course it would be best buy the proper amount of bandwidth as a provider and make sure that during peak times you order more service when hitting the 60% mark (packet loss and latency can start to become an issue as you approach 80% usage)...     Keep in mind that Google offers their fiber service at $70 for 1,000 mbits of service this is 250 times faster uplink than what I get from Comcast for $100 a month...  When Comcast announced fiber for Austin both the cable and telephone companies started lowering prices and doing massive infrastructure build outs to provide faster services to compete...   Google is providing 5mbit of Internet service for a $300 connection fee for 10 years (they'll continue to provide it for free as long as they provide service, but at least 10 years) that is about $2.50 a month for faster service than most people on this forum have...  and they're paying at least $35 a month for it.   How is what we have (and what most of the country has) a free market?    

Robert,   How many options for broadband service do you have where you live?  Broadband being at least 20 mbits downlink and 4 mbits uplink available.   Show us that you have 6 choices for this service and I'll concede parts of TN don't need this regulation.  My guess, you'll have 1, *maybe* 2 depending on how far you live from your telephone companies central office.    

So I can't tell my 18 year old son who lives with me what can or can't be in his car?  Of course I can it's my property.  If he doesn't like it, he can find someplace else to live.   His rights protect him from the government, not from me...  if he wants access to my property he must agree to the rules I link to that access.   John Harris, keeps complaining about setting up 'special classes' of citizens when it comes to gun rights...  yet he's happy to setup special classes of citizens when it comes to property rights...  All the money they spent on the parking lot bill would have been much better spent removing 39-17-1359 (or at least the criminal penalty)...  Or removing government property from 39-17-1359.   If you don't like the rules imposed by yours employer, you can always go get another job...  If you don't like that a business has their building/parking lot posted, you can always do business with somebody else....  The only cases where you have no choice in the matter are government buildings/property...   I'm a business owner and while I'm very pro-gun... I do have a rule that employees aren't allowed to have tobacco products on the property...  by using your logic if an employees goes to their car and starts smoking they can't be terminated because I have no right to dictate their legal behavior in their car?    

Thats not the best way to do it...  in theory the print outs from the machines would show a significant difference with the centralized counting.  You'd know within a couple of weeks that massive fraud had taken place.   You'd want to attack the individual machines themselves, so they flipped votes from candidate A to candidate B in their memory on the fly... that way the individual machine print outs would match perfectly to centralized counting.  Also this way the total number of votes would continue to match the manual voter rolls which are taken as you enter the polling location.     In a lot of swing states, you're only talking about having to flip 1-2% of the votes in critical districts to flip an entire state from one party to another.  This is well inside the margin of error of exit polls so nothing would seem out of the ordinary up the line.   The hard part would be compromising the machine code in such a way it wouldn't be detected...  the easiest way to do this is to plant 2 or 3 programmers into each machine manufacturer to modify the firmware slightly to allow a trick firmware check so the machine will report it contains a certified version of the firmware and checksum when it's loaded with your 'special' version.   Everything else is cake.  

But it was those exact government investments in infrastructure and government mandated right of away that were provided to companies like Comcast and AT&T.  You keep explaining why water and power companies are special, but all the same special exceptions to the rules that have been provided to water, gas, and power companies have been provided to cable and telephone companies such as AT&T and Comcast.   So it either was an appropriate use of government and as such they should be regulated like utilities since up until this time they've been treated with special rules like utilities...   Or it was an inappropriate use of the government, and we should impose utilities regulation while we unwind the special treatment these companies received.    

The now judge repealed FCC rules didn't prevent a provider from performing network management as long as the management was fair across the board...  So they could prioritize VOIP traffic, as long as they prioritized it for all VOIP providers, not just their own service, or a partners service...  They couldn't charge extra to prioritize Netflix's traffic over Hulu's...   It's not a perfect solution but until I have the choice between 5 or 6 broadband providers at my house like I do in a data center, it's better than trusting Comcast in the goodness of their heart won't do bad things to Internet traffic that they've already been caught doing.    

I completely agree in a free market businesses should be left alone...  The problem here is we DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET...  We have the government providing exclusive licenses to Comcast (for example) to be the only provider (or in the best case 1 of 2) for a certain geographical region.  In return for this no competition license, they're given free right of way access by the government on everybodies property, there given state breaks and money from the state and the local communities (and in recent decades the Federal government) to lay the lines and fiber to provide these services.   Comcast currently faces regulation from the FCC, state PCS, and local governments already for ALL their other business lines covered by this exclusive license except providing Internet access to their customers...  They have to get rate hikes approved by the PCS and in many cases by the local government that approved their license...  The FCC requires that they carry ALL local broadcast channels at no extra charge on their most basic cable package.   All we're (and the FCC) suggesting is a simple rule that says as part of your license, you're required to treat all Internet traffic the same, you can't slow down or speed up a certain service/site, or charge extra for connectivity to a certain site/service.   If you think that regulation somehow breaks a free market that exists today, then it's a lost cause....   I'm all for reform, we shouldn't have a single choice in water service, or electric service, cable, or Internet...  we should move away from these government back monopolies...  but until we do, government licensed monopolies and duopolies need to be regulated, that includes last mile Internet companies.    

It can't.  I can tell you as a computer security guy, there is no way to design a electronic voting solution that is less exposed to attack than the paper method.   I use to work doing physical penetration tests back in the day, one time a co-worker bet me I couldn't snag an AS400 from a data center...  10 days later I was in the back of a Ryder moving van posing for pictures with the backup AS400  :) All it cost me was a cheap thumb drive labeled 'private pictures', about $20 in document laminate, and an ugly short sleeve white dress shirt and tie, and the rental of a yellow ryder moving van.  I felt kinda bad as the 2 security officers on duty at 3:00am helped me roll the AS400 off the loading dock lift and into my moving van  :)  I'm not sure if you've ever seen an AS400 but their about the size of a small washing machine on rollers and weight about 200 lbs plus cost $100k or more.   Any race where the outcome is worth spending 2 billion dollars on...  it worth enough to pay somebody to rig...  and nobody has designed a tamper proof computer system yet....  Look at what the NSA can do...  even if you assume under some circumstances that (or some foreign) intelligence agency doesn't get froggy and decided to play games...   Give me 5 years, 100 million in funding and I'd have no problem compromising and flipping half a dozen swing states to whatever party you want.  Hell if you don't care that everybody knows the election was rigged, I'd just flip CA and NY republican for you ;)   I'm not special, there are dozens of guys here in TN that could pull these types of attacks off... give the right funding and motivation.  Paper is your friend, it's a lot harder to mess with paper.  

Robert, common carrier status would mean the exact opposite...  A common carrier can't filter service, or they loose safe harbor protections...  I haven't heard about the FCC mandating the blocking of any sex lines...  We'd have greater protections from filtering that we do today.   People lived without water, power, natural gas, telephone...  and society has advanced to the point where those are now treated as utilities because in modern life they are required to function...  Internet is fast approaching that status...  so many functions of business and government have moved online that you're at an extreme disadvantage by not having access...   The VA just announced they want to move disability applications online (and only online) instead of the paper methods they support today...  Other local, state and federal governments are moving the same direction.  A majority of our economy today is impacted by Internet access...  if it was shut down we'd see food shortage, power outages, and medical service disruptions...   If the government is going to give a business exclusive access over a region, and not allow anybody else to compete with them...  then that business should be heavily regulated...  period.  They should be licensed as utilities and prevented from moving into other business avenues which could create a conflict of interest...  or outright limited to only providing the utility in question.   I'm not sure we can get rid of the last mile utilities companies, and they may very well need to be government run, government backed coops, or something similar to how we treat water, natural gas, and power...   The best free market solution probably would be to have companies which exclusively provide last mile connectivity, the would operate as a non-profit similar to say the Harpeth Valley Utilities District...  Customers would buy access over the last mile utility from any ISPs wishing to provide services...  The cost of entry for ISPs would be low, since the infrastructure would be provided (at cost + improvements)...  Most customers would be able to select between 5 or 6 ISPs depending on the packages offered and the restrictions placed on those packages.   In this type of setup you wouldn't need net neutrality since most people would have more than a half dozen options to choose from.   It's not good to give big multinational companies utility monopolies but not regulate their behavior when providing a utility...  Nothing today is stopping Comcast from not only blocking netflix completely, but redirecting the netflix.com address to their own pay-per-view site which costs 10x as much as NetFlix and has a much smaller selection...  The loss in revenue from the few customers who could switch to a different broadband provider would be offset by the drastic increase in pay-per-view sales...  Also nothing stopping them from making a deal with BING to red-riect all traffic to google.com to their search engine...   And we have examples of cable companies doing things like this already...  or worse.  So it's not hypothetical we know given no regulation Comcast will do bad things.      

Frankly, it would be a lot harder to rig an election using paper ballots than it would be to rig one today....  Flipping bits inside a computer is easy to do on a massive scale...  Moving around thousands of paper ballots to each polling location and properly stuffing those ballots before they get to the county level where you have people watching the count is a lot harder to do on a wide scale.   Computers allows a handful (or less) of people to rig the election...  Paper leaves a lot of evidence and would require hundreds or thousands be involved in the crime.   I'll take paper ballots any day of the week over what we have today.  

How would she be violating company policy?  If she received permission to carry, then that would be within the "only to the extent permitted otherwise by applicable state or local law" exception in the handbook...     How can you be sure she didn't get permission?  The way the state law is worded her direct supervisor/manager could say she can carry and it would be legal under state law.    You mentioned her brother works there, and doesn't hide the fact he is pro-carry...  is there any chance he's her supervisor, or is buddies with her supervisor?   More over she'll turn 18 soon, she can change residence to South Dakota, get a carry permit from SD and carry here in TN 100% legally just like you do.   Personally, I'd encourage her to carry legally whenever possible...  I'd offer to help her learn how to properly handle and shoot any firearm she was going to legally carry...  Not looking for ways to get her into trouble.   At the end of the day, you were wrong to tell her carrying at 17 isn't legal...  it can be, and maybe even is in this case.  

Dave,   There is a lot of evidence that the traditional public school system does more harm to children and provides the wrong type of socialization...  You might want to read up on work done by Raymond and Dorothy Moore back in the 1970's...  They discovered that removing children from their parents and placing them in the a school before the age of 8-12 resulted in increase risk of juvenile delinquency, nearsightedness, increased likelihood of special education classes, and other behavioral problems.   Thats not to say some children don't benefit from early schooling, but many middle income or upper middle income children likely suffer by the one size fits all approach to public education.   If you look at some of John Holts work in the early 80's...  He said "I want to make it clear that I don't see homeschooling as some kind of answer to badness of schools.  I think that the home is the proper base for the exploration of the world which we call learning or education.  Home would be the best base no matter how good the schools were."   While I might be describe (generously some would say) as not the biggest fan of big government...  and I'm obviously concerned with exposing my child to that type of environment 7+ hours a day...  Lets be honest the government does everything poorly, my own public school education was horrible... I wouldn't wish those 13 years on my own worse enemy.    

Lot of grey area where her carrying at work could be perfectly legal...  unless there is an issue that poses a safety risk I wouldn't get involved...  and if I did get involved I'd talk to the manager/boss or her parents not law enforcement.  

Correct 39-17-1308 covers both minors and adults...  from charges under 39-17-1307...  it does not cover minors who have a handgun from charges under 39-17-1319.  

IANAL :)   39-17-1308 only provides defenses to violations of 39-17-1307...  Which covers adults carrying (among other things) handguns and long guns at their residence, property they own, and place of business...  and while we don't have an AG opinion on 39-17-1308 place of business provision is a fairly common legal term in both federal and state law and would cover most people who go to work and stay in a building all day, it doesn't require ownership or management responsibilities.   While 39-17-1308 covers minors carrying all firearms from being charged under 39-17-1307 it does not protect them from being charged under 39-17-1319, which only covers handguns carried by minors...  in order for a minor to carry a handgun they must fall under one of the 39-17-1319d1 defenses...  so there is a slightly more limited subset of cases where a minor may carry a loaded handgun vs where they can carry a loaded rifle or shotgun.   Now an interesting issue...  while I as an adult can't legally carry on your property (without a permit), a minor can...  because none of the 39-17-1308 defenses would cover me, but the 39-17-1319 defense would cover the minor.  Yet another perfect example of how poorly our gun laws are written.  

I hate big government...  we should focus on the root cause of the problem and do away with the last mile monopolies and duopolies...  but until then, Comcast and AT&T are given access that is exclusive and as a competitor I'm unable to get the same access...  As such they're not part of a free market...  Others are not allowed to move in and compete with them for last mile of service...  and until that is fixed, they need to be regulated to the common carrier standard, and their Internet services should be price controlled to 3% profit margins like virtually all other public utilities.   These companies have already been caught abusing and lying to customers...  It's not hypothetical question, Comcast was caught manipulating traffic in such a way that if you or I did it, we'd be subject to a felony charge under federal law.  

But in the case of cable companies, and LEC's (telephone companies) that is EXACTLY what is happening...  The government is giving them an exclusive license, and exclusive right of way access to provide services to a given area. Thereby preventing any competitor from joining the market place.   A better example is your local electric company decides to sells you power at $.10 kwh, signs an agreement with black and decker that where you continue to pay $.10 kwh when using their power tools, but must pay $.20 kwh when using other companies power tools.  Or worse telling you're not allowed to use their power on other companies tools.   I'm buying X amount of bandwidth for Internet access, it's not my ISPs business what I'm using that bandwidth for...   So lets look at data centers where you can buy bandwidth from 6 to 10 different providers...  The bandwidth costs at least half as much as the bandwidth from Comcast or AT&T...  no more than $1-1.50 per mbit/s, where as Comcast is charging upwards for $4-5 per mbit/s and AT&T is charging as much as $20 per mbit/s...   We don't allow electric companies (a utility which has a monopoly) in this country to charge unreasonable markups over cost to the end customers...  LECs (telephone companies) are similarly restricted how much money they can make over cost...     Yet we allow Internet providers which are basically providing a utility to overprice their product and reap massive profits Comcast in 2011 made ~97% profit margin over cost for providing Internet service...  AT&T telephone service profit margin is capped at 3.5%...  Even after you factor in capital improvements to their network, they're still profiting 3 times what the PCS allows telephone companies to make on telephone service.  And telephone companies aren't going bankrupt - far from it.   So here we have public utilities that are granted exclusive licenses, but aren't managed by the PCS which are making 97% profit margin while AT&T is capped at 3.5% for telephone service (not capped on Internet service).     It's not unreasonable to regulate these government back monopolies by saying they may not favor one customers traffic over another.  

If the government only allows 1 grocery store within 100 miles of where you live, you don't think the government should be allowed to place conditions on that government imposed monopoly?  

I'm sure they called big brother FBI to come and investigate them being harassed.  Lets wait and see, they still might burn the entire SHOT show down before it's all over with.  

Then revoke all the giveme's comcast and at&t get from the citizens...  no more free right of ways... force them to negotiate with each property owner to get access to their land...  don't allow exclusive contracts that prevent others from entering the market place.   Robert, if we had a free market I'd agree with you...  you know how much I hate government interference...  but these are government backed monopolies and duopolies...  until you end that and make them pay back the government money they used to lay the cables end the ground, it's not a free market and they should be heavily regulated...   BTW, the FCC will just re-issue the rule making ISP's common carriers, which would treat them the same as telephone companies for the last 100 years, and as common carrier's they can't priorities any customers traffic over others.    

A minor carrying at work may very well be legal in TN.  39-17-1319d1F allows minors to carry firearms on real property with the permission of the controlling adult and the parents.   It is only illegal not to report a minor carrying a firearm if it's related to school grounds or school athletic buildings/events...  39-17-1312   It's also a crime to provide a handgun to a minor if they're going to carry it illegal 39-17-1320   So if she was carrying at work, it might or might not be illegal...  even if it was unless your work is at a school/school athletic building you'd be under no obligation to report it per the law. IANAL.