JayC

15 years working for the Feds...  9 years working for the local PD...  never held a real job in his entire life from the looks of it.      

I don't think anybody has taken them to court to challenge it...  frankly I seriously doubt it would hold up in court if somebody did...   Simpler solution is not to go to Memphis and more importantly Beale Street and spend a single penny no matter what.    

State government is just as bad if not worse...  if you're going to toss one out might as well toss the other one at while you're at it.  Remember after the first one, the rest are free.    

Just remember that castle doctrine may apply here, so the DA might have a heavy lift depending on the details.

I don't disagree that there are exigent circumstances where the police may be required to enter a private property without a warrant...  I just think we should place some reasonable restrictions on the cases where they do.   First being that any and all evidence discovered during one of these exigent situations is fruit of the poisonous tree is ALL cases, period.  This would create a serious disincentive to use such exigent situations to advance an investigation while still preserving the ability of the police to rush in save people's lives.   Second, if the exigent circumstance turns out to be false...  For example claiming to hear somebody calling for help and it turns out there is nobody inside calling for help...  then the police and the department would lose all sovereign immunity for their actions.     As for your points on the courts basically dismissing the 9th and 10th amendments...  you're right they ignore them with wild abandon, but I don't recognize their ability to rule what is or is not unconstitutional...  Where SCOTUS and I disagree on an unconstitutional infringement, I readily ignore their interpretation...  We are talking about the same body that said slavery and placing American citizens in concentration camps was constitutional.     At the end of the day I can read and understand the Constitution (and the State Constitution) just fine, and I use that as my guide... even though I regularly question the ability of men born more than 225 years ago to bound me to a contract I had no say in.   That doesn't mean I don't stay out of trouble..  because I realize that the government is happy to use violence to enforce their interpretations of the Constitution, even if they use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper on a regular basis... :)    

I would answer all questions truthfully that were asked of me during jury selection... but I would not explain my beliefs in God (and by extension natural rights granted to me and all persons by their Creator) to a judge, or lawyers...  As it is none of their business.   I would weigh all evidence on it's merits, if it was collected in a manner that violated a person's natural rights, that fact would weigh heavily on whether the evidence could or could not be trusted.    

In all fairness I really meant the 5th Amendment...  that nobody can be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law...  In this case, liberty encompasses many natural rights including the right of privacy.  The point being, that unless you're found guilty of a crime then you can not be deprived of a natural right except for the very limited number of exceptions outlined in the Bill of Rights...  If the right government was not granted the power to infringe upon a right, then by the 9th Amendment those rights belong solely to the individual people.   The 4th amendment spells out the limited path to violate the privacy/property rights granted to the government in the Constitution, the the 5th plays a critical role as well.   And I agree the 4th amendment allows for reasonable search but only upon oath and a warrant being issued, all other 'exigent circumstance' searches in my mind are unconstitutional in all cases.  For me that means if such a search is part of a case where I'm on the jury, then I can not in good faith convict a man based on that evidence.   And we're in agreement that natural rights exist for all living persons not just Americans.  And I understand that concept is foreign to most people and can generate some Solomon cutting babies in half moments.   As for your suggestion that the Federal Constitution placed no limits on the States, I'd argue that it did...  or how else do you explain the 10th Amendment?  Rights clearly define as belonging to The People were restricted from both the states and the federal government.  So under the plain reading of the Constitution it was no more lawful for any state to infringe on 2nd amendment rights than it was for the federal government to do the same.  Because the 10th Amendment reserves that right directly to the people, and the States by ratifying the Constitution became bound by the 10th amendment just as the federal government had.  Truth is very few states don't have their own version of the 2nd Amendment, so it's probably a mute point.    

Keal, if the reason you don't have a permit is a lack of a ride because you're in a wheelchair...  lets see what we can do to fix that...  I'd offer to do it but you're 7 or 8 hours from me.   Do me a favor, post over on the TFA website and ask them for a hand...  they're going to have a director for your area that will put the word out and find you a permit instructor who will be flexible in scheduling or somebody who is willing to give you a ride.   There is no reason to break the law, if you want a permit I'm sure other HCP supporters can help you find a way to get a permit...     While I can't get away for a couple of days, I'd be happy to help out any other way...  There is no reason in the Volunteer state that a law abiding wheelchair bound adult should have to go unarmed.  I'm positive as a community we can work together to resolve this issue.  

This list is incorrect...  TN does honor non-resident FL permits and all permits, except in 2 limited cases...  if you're a resident of TN for more than 6 months, or you work full time for more than 6 months in TN and the permit you have does not fall under a reciprocity agreement.   If you don't meet one of those 2 limited exceptions then the FL permit is perfectly fine in TN.    

There has been such a rash for terrorist pedophile kidnappers stalking secondary school children in rural TN that we had to do it for the children!   Something smells, a lot like bull scat here :)    

If I can't have full control of my firearm, what difference does it make if they're stored in an NRA building or an ATF building?  I've lost my rights to my firearms.   The anti-gunners are messing with fire, they're risking the very government they support by pushing for confiscation...  

No offense, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?  Nobody is talking about carrying in FL...  We're talking about carrying in TN by a TN resident on a non-resident FL permit.  Other than the law concerning the issuing of the FL permit, everything else is about TN law is it not?

wow, where to begin?   You're right Hamilton did have that concern in Federalist #84, but to answer that concern, we ratified the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Which basically placed all other natural rights outside the authority of both Federal and State governments.  Keeping in mind that the Constitution is binding to both the States and the Federal government in limiting their scope and authority over 'The People'.   Lets talk about the three big rights identified in the Declaration of Independance...  life, liberty and property.  Most people believe those are the only 3 rights we have, that all other 'rights' stem from those 3..  some will disagree with that assessment.  Nobody is suggesting that you have a right to initiate violence on another...  Nobody...  but we have a right to meet violence with violence to protect ourselves and our natural rights.   If you don't believe in God that's fine, you can believe your rights come from anywhere/anyhow you wish to believe...  as long as your beliefs don't come and try to take away my rights that do come from God.   As for the Constitution, I have a much more radical approach than even you are suggesting...  First, I don't accept the notion that I'm bound by an agreement made among men born 275 years ago.  I don't recognize their authority to condemn me to a life of slavery and servitude to the majority of society.  What gave them to right to inflict the Constitution and this government on me?   Even if I accept that I as a free individual can be bound by a contract they're not a party to...  I for sure don't agree to be bound by rules, regulations, and laws that don't follow the clear and simple reading of that contract.  If a government does something outside the authority granted to it, then by that very act the law is unlawful and can be disregarded.   As for 'The People', the way you say that leads me to think you mean that rights belong to the collective and not the individual...  and that just doesn't jive with either the federalist or anti-federalist papers.  Lets take a look at this quote from John Dewitt #2:     This clearly shows that a common held belief at the time of the Constitutional Convention was that natural rights can only be surrender if the very existence of society would be threatened if they were not....     The Bill of Rights spells out those exact acceptable infringements that are needed to keep the States and the Country together, and permit nothing more to be taken from the individual.  

Robert,   You're right, individual rights include the right to tell everybody else to take a hike...  that is called liberty.   As to why you need to go to court?  Because you're asking the government to infringe on another person's right to property...  you should be forced to show a judge there was actual harm done to you, and convince 6-12 of your neighbors as well before taking away your neighbors rights - due process of law.  And yes it's a high standard because it needs to be, peoples rights, all of them including property rights, should require such high bars to prevent infringement for petty issues.   Also, nothing is stopping you under this legal theory from building neighborhoods with deed restrictions.  If you want to live in a community where people can't be pig farmers...  go buy up some land, place deed restrictions to that effect and sell the land to like minded homeowners.   Since deed restrictions are entirely voluntary and as such don't violate peoples rights...  Then zoning laws and government enforcement (ie threat of violence) of those laws is an infringement of natural rights.    Finally, show me the harm in this case:  http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/19/3764503/couple-sues-miami-shores-for-ordering.html   How is anybody going to suffer any real harm by allowing a garden to be grown in their front yard instead of the backyard?  This is a perfect example of petty government infringements.  Or how about the zoning ordinance that didn't allow people to park pickup trucks in their driveway at night?  You could park a ratty old car, but not a $50,000 brand new truck...  how exactly is that harming anybody?   The truth is you like the government solution because it's easier...  let the government use force to make your neighbors live like you want them to...  it's all about trying to control other peoples lives and coming up with theoretical boogey-men to blame for why the government needs all of that power.   As for your mountain reference, if you don't want somebody building a pig farm next to you, why don't you go live on top of a mountain 100 miles from nowhere?  Why is it I have to move to have freedom from your desire to control my life and property, instead of you having to move from my desire to live freely?  What makes your position the superior one?  Nothing, it's a thinly veiled desire to control others through the violence of government.    

Getting rid of TICS wouldn't stop background checks..  It would just make them free, faster, and less error prone...  Oh yeah and get rid of an unconstitutional tax...   What's not to love about that plan?   Only republicans who claim to want to make government smaller would see the 90+% false positive rate of TICS as anything other than a sign from above it's nothing but a make work program for TDOS.  

I really believe limiting what people can do with property they own is a gross infringement of a natural right unless you can show real harm.   I believe we can work things out without the needing the government to use force to enforce agreements between neighbors.   If I do something on my property that harms you, take me to court and recover damages.  The problem is most of the restrictions in place via zoning laws, and frankly between other local ordinances would be completely unenforceable if that was the standard because in the vast majority of enforcement actions there is NO HARM.   Be honest, you like it the government uses force to make your neighbors use their property how you see fit, and you use the possibility of some harm that could theoretically happen as the justification for infringing on their right.   You also have to keep in mind that our founders never imagined a world where every possible square inch of land was incorporated and there would be no escape from these petty tyrants.  

I'd suggest going to the next council meeting and asking how much waste fraud and abuse did they stop last year?  My guess not a single penny...     Then remind them that the hard economic times are still here, and the council should take a much closer look at the city budget and figure out how to make do with what they have...  if not the people might find some smarter council members who not only can make due with the current budget but find plenty of waste to cut on top of that.

Robert,   I know we disagree here...  but you're claiming the founding fathers supports regulation of private property just isn't true...  Zoning laws didn't appear in this country until the 1860's and only in large progressive east coast cities such as new york and boston.  States largely didn't pass zoning laws in the rest of the country until 1924 when the Department of Commerce wrote the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act.   Are founding fathers allowed for a single property right infringement in the Constitution, and right to take land for eminent domain to be used for public projects, roads, etc.  They NEVER endorsed what you're describing.   The zoning acts you're describing are an unconstitutional taking of property rights....  Nothing stops you under common law from filing suit on a neighbor who is causing your harm...  the issue is you need to show actual harm not some make believe theoretical harm that may happen sometime in the future.   Again, any instigation of force by a government is by it's very nature an illegitimate infringe on peoples rights.  Government should only meet force with force to protect citizens rights.  If you've been harmed by your neighbor you can file suit and solve it without the help of the government.      

The issue is the government does not have legitimate power to limit rights further than what is defined in the Constitution.  There is an absolute right to privacy, the 5th amendment allows the Government a very small window to legitimately infringe on that right.   How do we fight it?  There are a couple of method you can use to fight these illegitimate infringements by the government...  you must pick the one you're most comfortable.   1. Passive resistance - if selected for a jury trial, take the time to go on the jury, if you believe the government violated a natural right in the process of getting evidence - say using an exigent circumstance to discover drugs...  vote not guilty and stick to your guns no matter what.  The cost of a hung juries will help dissuade the government.   2. Speak out, call the government out when it oversteps...  try and educate people that the Government was only granted a very limited number of powers (both federal and state) and if the constitution in plain english doesn't explicitly authorize an action then the action in by it's very nature is unlawful.  There are a lot of things that disgust me that the Government isn't authorized to mess with...  I realize in a free society good people will die from time to time and while sad it's not a good enough reason to remove my freedoms.   3. Activate resistance - Question authority always...  When interacting with the government force them to follow the rules and the laws, refuse to give ground out of politeness...  going along to get along.  This obviously has more risk involved...   4. Finally, full resistance - if you believe the Government has so overstepped it's authority granted under the constitution then you are free to treat it was you would any other criminal enterprise...  stop paying taxes, refuse to allow the government access to your life and the lives of your family...  The reality is the government can't really enforce laws that even a very small part of the population refuses to take part in...  They can't charge 10 million people with tax evasion a year...  They can't arrest 15,000 people who surround a state capital and refuse to leave until the politicians repeal broken laws...  We're not to this step yet IMHO but it's one of the steps.   At the end of the day we need to educate people who have has such a poor education in the public school systems...  We need to question all propaganda we've been fed all of our lives, and question the very need for every government action that takes place...  The fact is we need a little bit of government, but we could take a chainsaw to the current government (federal, state and local) and still have too much left over.   The government is 12 times bigger today than it was 100 years ago, counting for inflation and economic growth....  That is crazy, we don't need 12 times the government our grandparents or great grand parents needed.   I hope these peaceful methods will result in the changes we need in our government, but I'm concerned we're running out of effective boxes (soap box, ballot box, ammo box) to solve these problems, and the only viable option may very well be the ammo box.    

The reason they are focusing on FFL with new regulations is to make life harder on the FFL and to try and force more and more of them out of business.   F-Troop is making a huge mistake by allowing themselves to be politicized like this, they run the risk of being seen as an arm of the anti-gun establishment...  if that happens when a pro-gun republican President comes into office, they will treat the ATF as a political arm and neuter them completely like what happens with the EPA.   Just remember that all the President has to do is issue an execute order placing a hiring freeze and no overtime on the ATF...  Then turn around and nominate a former NRA/GOA board member as the Director of the ATF...  tell the new director to audit every personnel file for violations of the law and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.  Then use those investigations and prosecutions to go before Congress, describe the ATF as rotten to the core and the need to disband it.   Largely, both Democrats and Republicans have recognized that it is a mistake to politicize federal law enforcement agencies like Obama is doing, but frankly I don't mind it in this case because we can wait our turn and decimate F Troop once and for all.

There are no custody issues here other than the school holding his children hostage after the school day is over.  He is a legal guardian and normally picks his kids up from school.  The issue here is that the school instituted a new pickup policy that even the sheriff has admit is causing an unsafe situation in and around the school.   The 'security guy' Captain Donut made some rude comments the day before to Mr Howe and Mr Howe called the sheriff and complained...  the comments from Captain Donut stem from that complaint and him being clearly upset having his boss called.   And btw, Howe showed up outside at the normal pickup point, and it was Captain Donut that told him to go into the office... after school was let out, so there is no way Mr Howe's complaint impacted learning in anyway shape or form.   But lets be honest exactly how is a public school in this state ever a 'positive learning environment'?  It's a daycare prison at the best of times, not a learning institution.  

How about we do away with TICS altogether?  I mean it's completely unconstitutional to begin with, so why keep it around at all?

Disregard, I didn't notice the time warp :(

The last statement is from a non-TN court that is being quoted in the opinion of our appellate court.  I *think* they're referencing a MA state case, but I'd have to go back and re-read the footnotes to be sure.   From my reading of the entire opinion, it does indeed impact more than anonymous tips...  The court basically says that tip even if valid does not provide RAS for a terry stop and the 'officer safety' search that comes with it.  As I read the entire opinion basically having a gun does not give officers RAS (let alone PC) to perform a terry stop unless they have some other information available to them that indicates this individual is committing a criminal act.   Almost assuredly it prohibits the running of serial numbers on firearms as a routine procedure in some police departments.  

Just because a government bureaucrat makes up a policy and puts it in writing doesn't make it legal.  More importantly the policy doesn't appear to cover the situation you're describing so all the actions were taken outside of the written policy.   State law is clear once the school day is over the school is obligated to return custody to the guardian on demand, it doesn't allow for any exceptions outside the scope of student or staff safety, neither of which are anywhere near applicable here.   And the form they asked him to sign granted the kids the ability to walk home without the father, if that is against his wishes how can he be required to sign the form?   The school administrators are wrong, and should be facing criminal charges.  And Captain Donut should be sharing a cell with Bubba tonight on felony kidnapping charges.   Frankly I'm surprised the dad didn't beat the snot out of the deputy, and I doubt you'd find 12 men and women in Cumberland County that would have convicted him for doing it.