JayC

DaveS,   TN honors permits for ALL states, per state law 39-17-1351.  And while you must be 21 to be issued a TN permit, there is no such restriction placed on honoring out of state permits.   So since she had a valid out of state permit, isn't working full time in TN and isn't a resident of TN, she would be perfectly legal to carry here in TN, open or concealed.   39-17-1351r1:     You'll note it doesn't say anything about age restrictions...   So everything you just said is completely incorrect.  

Super 8 Nashville West 6924 Charlotte Pike Nashville, TN 37209   That is one exit down the road and in a MUCH better neighborhood.

Yeah that part is pretty rough...  Lots of check cashing stores and pawn shops...  during the day you'd be safe enough, at night or on one of the back streets?  No way I'd be there unarmed.    

Republican party is on the wrong side of so called 'social issues'...  They're just like the democrats...  They think they know whats better for you, than you do ;)

Yet another example of my don't give LEO's your permit unless you're required to do so under the law.  They won't find out if you have a permit or not until after they run your D/L, and by then they've already written the ticket and likely won't bother asking about it.     One day an officer in the name of "officer safety" will have a negligent discharge and end up shooting themselves, the permit holder or an innocent bystander, all because they thought it was a good idea to handle a loaded firearm for no good reason.   At the very least we need to amend the law to require officers document every time they disarm a permit holder and the exact officer safety reason for that disarm.  My guess is the number of these silly posts would go away with that single change.

You're never going to get a law through the legislature prevent companies from firing you if you violate a company policy.  The exact same Republicans you are using to vote for the pro-2nd amendment bills, and going to be pro-property rights and not want to interfere with business.   A much better tactic imho is to focus on removing government buildings and schools from 39-17-13xx, and if we're lucky, remove the criminal penalty for a 39-17-1359 violation.    

I'd suspect that won't be a problem for a long while ;)    

When they get done kicking her off the bench they need to refer her criminal behavior to the federal DA for a 1986 charge.  And she should see the inside of a prison cell for what she did...

Maybe the information from my ethics class 20 years later is outdated, but I was taught a mock execution of a prisoner was a war crime, and against the UCMJ under all circumstances.  Has that been changed?   As for your clear and present threat...  lets be clear it's not like some of his soldiers were being held prisoner and he was trying to find them before they were executed...  He had intel that an attack was being planned on his unit, brought an Iraqi officer in for questioning...  When beatings from the interpreter and several army personnel didn't work...  LtCol West dragged the police officer outside, showed him 6 US Army soldier with weapons and said they would kill him if he didn't talk, and finally when all of that hadn't worked...  he stuck the prisoner's head in a barrel and fired a round in the barrel next to his head...  Then the prisoner 'confessed'....   Now, the supposed ambush never happened, there was never any evidence proving an attack was going to happen, and we ended up letting the Iraqi police officer go because we couldn't come up with a single charge to hold him on....   So yeah, "wrong thing for the right reasons", is a kind way to describe what LtCol West did that day...  he was trying to protect his men, but he went way overboard...  Which when you're trying to rescue a POW, you might excuse doing whatever it takes to get your men back...  trying to get a confession of an attack which isn't even scheduled to happen until tomorrow...  maybe not so much...   He can't be elected, anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves...  doesn't mean Allen West isn't a good man, or somebody to admire...  but he had a mistake and took protecting his men too far, and did so knowing that it would likely end his career...  That takes real courage...  but in this case it also precludes you from being elected President of the US.    

I'm not happy about that fact, I respect the man a lot, and he did the wrong thing for the right reason, knowing that his career was less important than the lives of the men and women who served under him.  But, in the current anti-war mood in the country, he is unelectable as President.    

Agreed, the government would have to recognize many different forms of 'marriage' if the states got out of the habit of licensing marriage...  But we did this for a long time before states started requiring marriage licenses, we can do it again.   Just change the law for the government to recognize any form of civil union or marriage certificate from a church for the purposes of inheritance, taxation/debt....   But, then again why do we need special rules for any of those issues?  Why does my wife get taxed at a different rate than my children, or my best friend when they inherit property from me?  If we get rid of the special exceptions under the law for marriage, there are fewer problems to have to solve.    

I agree, the government is violating our Freedom of Association, and that is the root cause of this entire issue...  by forcing you to recognize something you find morally objectionable in your own private life or business, you are causing all of the mess we see today.   The real question is why can't we get the state government out of the business of marriage business?  The taxes can't amount to much money...  it's all about control... and all of us should band together and take away this power from the states.    

Sorry but you're wrong, in TN and many other states up until the late 1890's you didn't have to get a license from the state in order to be married.  You went to your local church and got married, there was no license from the government.   MA is the only state that had a marriage license before the revolutionary war, and it was in alternative to going to a church and being married in the eyes of God...  it wasn't until the mid-19th century before any state required that you get a license to be married.   How has the Federal government recognized marriage since the revolutionary war?    

Again, the issue here is the size of government...  why does the government run schools?  If you could pick the school you wanted your child to attend, you could select one that wouldn't teach social issues that are morally at odds with your beliefs.   Look at the root cause of the problem, the government is too big, and able to force social policy on the citizens, get the government out of the business of licensing marriages, running schools, and violating our natural right of freedom of association...  and who cares what somebody else does...  you can choose to ignore them and nobody will force you to do any different.    

You do realize other than social security benefits there is no reason 'marriage benefit'?  If anything married couples are taxed at a much higher rate for the same amount of income compared to two single people living together and having children?   The entire reason for this push, is to use anti-discrimination laws to force private businesses and individuals to recognize the marriages..  It's all about using the force of the federal government to socially change the country, and nothing to do with taxes.    

I agree with everything you said except if TN recognizes gay marriage it won't force anything on anyone.  Here are a couple of examples of how it would.   Lets say you run a medium sized family owned business and provide healthcare to spouses of your employees, but you have religious objections to gay marriage...  The ruling comes down, and now you're forced by law to provide insurance to gay married couples, or violate the law and open yourself up to lawsuits.   The second is lets say you run a small wedding chapel out of your barn on your property, (or it could be a wedding cake company, flower arrangements, etc), and are religiously opposed to gay marriage, now you'd be forced to provide services to gay couples marrying or face legal action.   So yes, allowing gay marriage in TN would have a direct impact on private businesses which have a moral objection to the practice.   David has the right idea, get the state out of the marriage business altogether, allow businesses and people to recognize individually who is or isn't married and be done with it.  And it has the added benefit of recognizing our 'Freedom of Association' rights.    

I like West a lot, but he can't be elected to state wide office in FL let alone President.  The reason for him leaving the military will prevent him from being elected.  It's sad but true fact.   Best we could hope for is a Paul or Lee win, and West being nominated as Secretary of Defense.

You're going to want to go west, and the other side of 840 to find a property like that, in that price range.    

Don't ask, don't tell...  It's not a crime...  if you don't talk about it nobody is going to know, be smart and keep your firearm properly secured (and legally) in the car and you'll be fine.    

TN laws are pretty straight forward and easy to read...  It's a lot easier to read than a contract, articles of incorporation or a federal regulation IMHO.  The gun laws maybe stupid, they may lack definitions in a lot of cases, but they aren't hard to read and understand.    

Even if a court didn't rule against them, it's very likely the next year the legislature would change the law preempting the schools ability to expel law abiding citizens for following state law.   UT really doesn't want to play that game, they'll lose in the long run.    

The new parking lot bill doesn't say anything about students vs anybody else.  

I agree neither violated state law in anyway shape or form, but the same section of the law used to revoke their permits was can be used to revoke any permit holder that has violated 1351 in their opinion...     Another reason why 39-17-1352a should be done away with or heavily modified.  All it takes is TNDOS to say you've violated some part of 39-17-1351-1360 and they can revoke your permit for life with no hearing, and no standard of proof required.  And if they get it wrong, nothing happens.    

If you go back and look at the bill authorizing the expenditure it not only included the stadium itself but all the greenways down near the stadium...  Since Metro and the state own it, if it is a 'park' or 'other similar area' then Metro can't post it without approval from the state legislature.   I disagree it's city owned, the state coughed up a bunch of funding for the stadium and surrounding parks, and had some ownership stake in the stadium and surrounding land under the agreement.  We'd have to dig way down into the weeds to see if it's legally binding under 39-17-1311.   Would be funny if because of laws authorizing the funding of the stadium in 1998, the state created a loophole which would prevent the stadium and the surrounding lands to be covered under 39-17-1311, and by extension unable to prohibit HCP permit holders from carrying.  

Here is a fun question...  Is the stadium covered under 39-17-1311?  And if so, can carry be prohibited there under state law since the state government owns part of the stadium?  Not that I would suggest testing that legal theory, but it's an interesting thought.