JayC

I worry that politicians are sometimes too cute by half...  I could see a politician declaring that the carrying of firearms in public 'posed a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public' maybe after some questionable self defense shootings during the middle of an emergency.   Orders TDOS because everybody with an HCP poses this risk to suspend all of they permits - you'll note nothing under the law stops them from doing that today during a non-emergency...  Then suspend state law concerning administrative hearings and reinstatement of suspended permits.   Technically has 58-2-107(m) been violated?   As we're often reminded, carrying a gun anywhere is a crime even in our own yards...  and 39-17-1308 provided defenses to that crime...  such as being on your property, being at your place of businesses, having a HCP etc...  What if during an emergency the police department collected weapons, and issued you a citation for court where you can prove to a judge you were carrying under one of the legal defenses...    Yes I know, paranoid...  But, the government both federal and state 'bend' the law this much if not more all the time already...  what would they be willing to do when things go sideways and people don't have access to courts?  

The 5th Amendment allows your rights to be restricted after being found guilty of a crime.  Now, that may very well be an infringement of your rights...  is beating your kids or your wife really a serious enough crime to for life cast somebody as an outcast...   I'm not sure...  We have to infringe on peoples rights who harm others...  as a society we have no choice...  you must remove the liberty of a murderer, or a rapist...  a wife beater is in that same boat....  I do disagree with society that if somebody is so dangerous they can't be trusted with a firearm, they should still be in prison.   But, the fact that we exert force and restrict liberty once you've been found guilty by a jury of your peers of a real crime...  is not tyrannical, nor contradictory to our natural rights.     

I'm not aware anywhere in our founding documents or federalist papers where rights were referred to as 'God given'...  endowed by their Creator yes...   But, 'natural rights' are all over documents from the revolutionary war and after...  The Virginia Convention of 1776 which approved the Declaration of Independence stated:      

I think you're the only one here talking about using force to exert his will over anybody else...   I have a right to life, liberty and property (among others), and included in my right to life, I have the right of self defense using whatever I deem to be the best method or tool to provide for my self defense.   The number #1 unnatural death in the last 100 years has been democide...  the killing of people by their own government.  Every one of those death were legal, and under the constitution or laws of that government... people who violated those laws were enemies of the state...  but none of that makes it right, or moral, nor somehow prohibit the natural right to self defense to stop yourself from being killed.    I don't want to force you to do anything other than respect my natural rights and leave me alone...  you want to give up for firearms, I'm not going to stop you...  you want to be a slave, or march into a gas chamber to be killed, more power to you...  More than 200 million people in a 100 years all 'legally' killed by their own government.   I might be an enemy of the state by violating laws that violate my natural rights, but they're my rights, and only I can freely given them up...  they're not yours or anybody elses rights to give away.   So how exactly does my position sound tyrannical?      And if you really want to get into a deep conversation, lets talk about the rule against perpetuities and how you can be bound at birth by a contract signed by men born more than 250 years ago...  

No, that is exactly what crazy people are teaching our kids...   Our rights existed before the Constitution was ever written, they existed before the founding fathers were born...  They are natural rights that stand above any law or 'government'.  And if you go back and re-read Declaration of Independence and the federalist papers you'll see this throughout both...  Go re-read the 9th Amendment and explain what that means if you truly believe the 2nd Amendment is a privilege.   And here are some examples of the flaw in the logic that the Bill of Rights grants us rights...     Lets say instead of replacing the 2nd Amendment, they repeal the 5th, and pass a law that says the AG of the US can sentence you to death for looking at him funny...  Does the fact they passed a law to put you to death change the fact you have a right to live?  No, obviously not, you're right to life stands above any document or law...     Another example is slavery...  Did slaves have a natural right to be free, to choose who they marry, and to learn how to read before the 13th amendment?  I think every one of us would say yes...  Of course every person has a right to be free...     I agree there are tons of countries around this world that infringe on natural rights, but they can't take something away from you that belongs to you as a human being, they may only immorally violate those rights.   I'm sorry but you're wrong all people have natural rights that can not be taken...  among them are those rights detailed in the Bill of Rights, but by no means limited to just those enumerated rights.   The real question you have to ask yourself is why do free people put up with such infringements on any of their rights?    

Somebody who doesn't believe in God, would say that rights, natural rights, come from our humanity...  The fact that we are sentient thinking beings give us natural rights.   But, does it matter, you believe in God (I assume), and since God, our Creator, endowed inalienable rights on all of us, not just those that believe in Him, then you already believe they have natural rights...  so does it matter they use some crazy logic to grant those same rights to themselves without believing in God?    

That is today, these printers are going to be as commonplace as an inkjet printer is 10 years from now...  So why go spend the afternoon building a zip gun by hand, when the printer can crank one out overnight?  And I doubt it costs $25 worth of plastic to do it.   You also have to understand there is an entire generation of people who can't even use a screw driver...  those people don't even know where the hardware store is let alone what to go pickup to build a zip gun.  

Call me paranoid, but 58-2-107(m) doesn't seem him from using this one:   58-2-107(e)(1):     Hoes does 107(m) stop him from using 107(e)(1) to order TDOS to revoke all permits?  Or to stop approval of new permits, renewals, or even better yet, removing the limitation on police officers to have to return firearms unless a permit holder is arrested... etc...  That doesn't seem to add an additional restriction prohibited in 107(m).   I think 107(m) could be more strongly worded, as to prohibit any modification of rights or privileges currently afforded under state law.   But, my bigger concern is to see that 39-17-314(b) is repealed.        

One question where are the criminal charges?  Them losing their licenses to practice and POST certification should go without saying.   Some of these procedures where done after the warrant had expired, that is clearly an illegal search, and an assault...  Everybody in the room including the nurse, doctors, and officers need to be brought up on charges....     And he should be well on his way to owning the hospital, for the check they're about to have to write.  They forced an unconsented operation on a patient without medical need or proper court order, that is going to cost them a LOT of money and it should.

How do you know it's not a dominant eye problem?  Have you done the thumb test on her?   I'm a right handed but my left eye is dominant, I shoot rifles with my left hand, and pistols with my right (both eyes open).   Check her dominant eye with the thumb test, and then have her shoot with dominant eye hand...  I might have her use a more traditional bolt action rifle at first, it would have been very hard for me to learn on an AR platform with the raised sights as a kid, old style bolt action rifles were hard enough.   BTW, I'd run the eye dominance test a number of times over a couple of days, using both thumbs (left and right), make sure she isn't switching eye dominance back and forth - I've seen it in some shooters I've trained.  If that is the case, have her close both eyes then open only 1 to shoot, it should solve the issue.  

We need constitutional carry, if that is not possible, we need to remove the government from 39-17-1359, with the exception of judicial proceedings in a courtroom, and security areas of a jail/prison/detention center where officers are not allowed to routinely carry.   Also, it wouldn't hurt to do away with a couple of other bad laws while we're at it, removing the ability of the Governor to prohibit HCP permit holder (or any citizens) from carry during an 'emergency', and removing the 'anti-military training' law.  I'm guessing those two are new to some people.

He just released a book on his life, and has been making the circuit to sell his book, everything will go back to normal in a few weeks, after his press tour.    

I couldn't agree more...  We were all born into slavery the government is really good at keeping us from realizing it.  

First, I've seen draft legislation that would remove TDOS ability to revoke, in cases such as this.   I don't think Yeager is out of pocket much money, since TDOS lost the case I'm pretty sure he can recover legal fees.   Further, it's a bad law and needs to be gone...  Yeager is a perfect example of somebody that poses no threat to the general public and only got his permit pulled because he said something stupid about the political process.  Frankly, I wish he had pressed the issue after getting his permit reinstated and filed a 1983 lawsuit against TDOS for violating his 1st Amendment rights.   At the very least TDOS should have to go before a judge and request that your permit be revoked, and you should have the ability to contest that request in that hearing.   At some point one of these cases will result in emails getting released that show a political connection to a revocation and TDOS will loose the ability to suspend permits at their sole whim.    

One of his crimes touched my family, and has left it's mark on us...  However God saw fit to take him, he's gone, and good riddance. 

Get an attorney, get an attorney, get an attorney.  Those are your 3 options...  I'd echo DaveTN's recommendation to find the attorney that worked for Yeager and at least ask for a reference for an attorney in your county.   Good luck, this subsection of TN law is bad and needs to be repealed as soon as possible, if what you say is true, it appears as if your permit was revoked because of an employment dispute with a politically connected employer (the local Sheriff)...  If proven true in a court of law, that could provide the ammo needed to get this stupid public harm clause removed from state law, or at least require a open hearing before a judge rules you a risk to public safety.

I hope you're wrong, but I agree some posts raise serious questions...  Not that I would ever tell forum admins what to do, but I'd think somebody who falsely claimed to the a current or retired LEO would be quickly dealt with.    

I'm not sure that is the case...  The wording of 39-17-1351r1 would seem that under state law a valid permit from another state shall be treated as if it was issued by TN...     39-17-1351r1:     And the code from the GFSZ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990     I don't think there is any case law on this anywhere, let alone here in TN....  but since an out of state permit under state law is treated as if it were issued by TN, then isn't the person carrying on an out of state license, licensed to do so by TN?   Just saying ti wouldn't keep me from lawfully carrying onto school grounds under 39-17-1313.   Also the GFSZ doesn't apply to universities/colleges, only public or private primary and secondary schools.  So my guess is the number of people who are visiting schools on a regular basis in this state that are out of state residents is pretty low.  

That brings up a good point, would it be hard getting a law passed that prohibited a POST certified officer from sharing lawful firearm ownership/possession information with non-law enforcement departments or private businesses?  That would reduce the risk of a traffic stop on or near campus resulting in the University finding out about any firearms you might have.    

I'm more concerned by the fact that somebody who lists working in law enforcement (or previously) and lives in TN doesn't know what 39-17-1351r1 means....  How exactly do you go through POST certification and not know what that is referencing and how to look it up on Lexus/Nexus?  

DaveS,   Please go read it again...  I referenced the EXACT law 39-17-1351r1 then quoted the EXACT text of that law:   You then post without ANY cite that your 'research' shows that we don't honor all other out of state permits...  And then you question my maturity for calling you out on totally ignoring the fact that I not only showed you the exact place in the law where TN does honor all permits, but I took the time to quote you the entire subsection of the law so you could "read the law for yourself"...   I'm not sure how much easier I could make it for you?  How exactly should I go about citing laws in the future so you read them and don't just see a bunch of numbers and letters?  I'll turn on the big flashing red letters if that helps you in the future?   Just a quick FYI, those 'bunch of numbers' are the place in the TCA you can go to look up the law in question, and helps save time so you don't have to read 10,000 pages of laws to find the one you're looking for....  I try to include the TCA reference so if you want to go read the law yourself you can look it up quickly and confirm my quoted text is correct...  instead of referencing mysterious 'research' where I provide no link or cite :)  

It remove the criminal penalties, if somebody finds out you have a firearm they can still fire or expel you...  but you won't have the gun confiscated, and you can't be charged with a crime.  

Robert,   You're assuming that 'true conservatives' are somehow better than progressive democrats...  Can you give me some examples of 'true conservatives' you'd like to clone and put into office?  I'd offer 100 Senator clones of McCain and Graham would do us no better than 100 clones of Reid.   While the details of the collapse might change, the end result would be the same either way.   I doubt there is anything we can do to save the country from an economic collapse, even 'true conservative' republicans aren't talking about doing away with medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare.  

Except in this case they're talking about a ratified treaty...  and whether it does or doesn't trump the constitution...  I'm not sure that is settled case law.  

DaveS,   Did you even read the post I made?  Did you see that I took the time to quote the EXACT law that honors all other state permits?  39-17-1351r1?   The entire 'TN honors states that honor it' law was repealed and replaced years ago...  There is a TN reciprocity agreement law on the books still, it requires the Secretary of State to enter into such agreements with other states when those states require such an agreement.   BUT, reciprocity only matters in one case today, if a non-resident works full time in TN for more than 6 months, if they have a out of state license which has a reciprocity agreement with TN, they don't have to get a TN permit.   FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) doesn't have anything to do with this situation, which is the only law I can think you'd be referring to about traveling through a state.    DaveS this is why people get so frustrated with you...  they take the time to look up and quote you the law to prove you are wrong, and you don't even bother to read it and just dismiss the quoted text outright.   Face it you're WRONG on this, nothing you said is even remotely correct.  TN does honor permits from Maine, and all other permits issues by any other state.  You don't have to be 21 to carry a firearm OC or CC in TN on a valid out of state license.