JayC

Dave,    I never said they were illegal...  They must be conducted in a highly restrictive manner to be legal.  And I also agree if they send a chase car after you, it will probably take them less than a mile to "find" some reason to pull you over...  Which is a bigger problem than the checkpoints themselves.    

    And survey says you're incorrect...  You are not required to provide your registration at a DUI checkpoint.  You have to stop when they ask you to stop, you don't have to answer any questions or provide any documentation other than your DL (and they can only check to see if it's valid) under current SCOTUS (read up on MI State Police vs Sitz)- rulings unless they have probable cause that you've committed a crime or traffic violation.   Checkpoints must be set up in a way that drivers are notified of the checkpoint and have a legal way to avoid the checkpoint if they so wish.  You can't be pulled over for avoid a checkpoint unless you commit a traffic violation or they have probable cause you're driving while intoxicated.     Don't believe me? Go down to your local sheriff's office and ask to review a copy of their DUI checkpoint policy (they have to allow you to review it for free of charge), and see exactly what is says about how the checkpoint must be set up and what the officer can and cannot do.

I agree if a college expelled or punished a student for following state law, it would set up a very interesting court case, that might result in the colleges having even more restrictions placed on what they can and can't do.   My guess is that FIRE would love such a test case.    

Except there is a religious and moral exception clause for vaccination's, you're not forced by the government to buy them, or give them to your children.  And while I believe wearing seat belts and taking vaccinations are good things, I don't think the government has the constitutional nor the moral authority to tell me that I have to wear a seat belt, nor force me to give my child medical treatment that I may find questionable.   The fact is we gave our government a very limited set of powers, and anything beyond those specific powers are prohibited.  If the government needs the ability to force children to take vaccinations there is a method in place to change the state and federal constitution.  Anything else is tyranny.    

Well, while I believe forcing anybody to buy something is unconstitutional, the Kennesaw law allowed any adult to opt out if they had a moral or ethical objection to firearm ownership.   And there is plenty of very old case law supporting the fact that members of the militia can be required to own firearms, and show up and drill with them per local laws...  and that property owners who weren't members of the militia had to provide a replacement or money to offset their inability to to serve in the militia.   I question the soundest of the Kennesaw law, but it's purely voluntary in nature and doesn't appear to be unconstitutional.   But, if we could pass an amendment to toss politicians who violate their oath in jail... I'd be happy to ship the Kennesaw politicians off to prison...  because it would quickly solve the problem of passing stupid overreaching laws.  

If somebody has a handgun in a holster, the chances that they are illegally carrying are nearly zero.  I've done a number of searches, and I'm only aware of 2 times charges being filed, and both appear to have been technical violations, one the man was carrying on a recently expired HCP, and the charges were dismissed, and the other was a guy who had his permit revoked for failure to pay child support.  I've yet to meet a police officer who arrested somebody illegally carrying a firearm in a holster on their belt.     People who open carry just aren't a threat, I too would be upset if a 'carry supporter' called the police because of some irrational fear, at least you can't expect sheeple to freak out, but a gun guy should know facts and react rationally.    

It won't pass, but it's a great idea...  I've always said if you vote for a law that is later tossed out in part or whole as unconstitutional, you should get shipped directly to federal prison for 10 years.

Just like the same people like to brag that TN is a great state with pro gun laws...  I've just gotten use to rolling my eyes ;)    

Yes, because of that pesky jerk exception to the bill of rights :)  If a police officer can't handle law abiding citizens being annoyed or rude during situations where no laws are being broken, if they can't be professional enough to walk away from those situations...  who is really at fault in these situations, the 'rude' citizen? No.   If a police officer can't remain professional at name calling, colorful language, or just people being rude and legally refusing to answer questions, then maybe that person isn't professional enough to be a police officer.    

If this guys rights were violated, he should receive $1, and an order from the judge to the local DA to charge both officers with kidnapping under the color of law and civil rights violations under the color of law and another order to the state to revoke their POST certification for life.     The officers have no skin in this game today, so what if the victim here wins 3.6 million, or 100 million those 2 officers won't loose their jobs, they won't have to pay a red cent of the money, they won't spend a day, let alone the rest of their lives in jail.  We need to have a ZERO tolerance policy on civil rights violations under the color of law.  Ever case needs to be charged, and taken to a jury, and when an officer is found guilty, they need to be sentenced to the maximum.   The fact remains police officers are given a great amount of 'power' in our society today, and we do not hold them responsible for the abuses of that power like we should.  When one of them breaks the law, we need to come down so hard that officers work in fear of violating a citizens rights.

We're all felon's already.  You can't be an adult in this country and do anything of substance without unknowingly violating dozens of laws every year.

No attorney, let alone one of us is going to recommend you carry on a out of state permit if you've been a resident of TN for 3.5 years.  There is no case law on the subject, so all you're going to get are 'opinions'.  But the state law is very clear, you must get a TN permit within 6 months of becoming a TN resident.  Clearly, you don't fall into the 6 month window.   So, you've got a couple of choices, first get a TN permit, it's a horrible bad system that only acts as corporate welfare for firing ranges and instructors, but it's the system we're stuck with in TN.  Second, stop being a TN resident, and then TN will honor your out of state permit with an out of state drivers license.   Most people choose to go the first route, because it's cheaper and easier.  As I've said, the only people I know who've gone that route, are people who can't get a TN HCP (due to age restrictions) and for them it's worth changing their residency to a state such as SD because that state issues permits to 18-20 year olds, that TN honors for out of state residents.  The only other reason I could see to put that much time and effort into it would be if you've been denied a permit here under the dreaded 'material risk' rule by TDOS and wanted to carry legally anyhow.   The long and short of it, you're out of luck the way TN state law is currently written, even though TN recognizes all permits from other states, it only recognizes TN permits for TN residents - so you're SOL.   I'd cite the exact law, but LexisNexis's copy of the TCA is down right now.     

Is he still a TN resident?  I know a couple of 19 and 20 year olds that moved their residence to South Dakota, received a SD carry permit and DL there and carry legally here in TN.  But they aren't TN residents, they're SD residents who happen to spend a lot of time traveling.   The real issue is why did you become a TN resident, instead of staying an AL or FL resident?  My guess, is that getting a carry permit here for a 21+ year old is probably not worth the effort of changing state residency...  As I said I'm only aware of a couple of 19 and 20 year olds who did it so they could carry under 21, and for them in their situation it made sense.   

Not the same message...  one says we're sheep and even though you violate or God given rights that are protected by the 2nd amendment, we will submit to your unconstitutional laws...   The other says, you're in power only because we choose not to remove you from power, so shape up or we'll ship you out.  10,000 armed people is the same size as an Army division not something you 'over look' when marching around your town.  

Mark my words, this is the start of something big...  Here we have the federal government violating the 1st amendment because DefCad is publishing information that they don't like.  It's a gross violation of civil rights.  Tyranny is alive.

While the line men and women of SOCOM command may very well support individual rights to keep and bear arms...  The sad truth is they aren't the one's making these types of decisions.   Where do the political leanings fall of the Generals and staff officers of that command?  I seriously doubt they are in line with the line officers and enlisted men and women of their command.   I'm not suggesting that there was any payback in this contract...  But your logic that because the men and women of SOCOM support the 2nd amendment, doesn't mean they have any real say of whom SOCOM awards a contract to, that is largely controlled by staff officers and Generals.    

The bigger question is, why wasn't a single person disciplined or fired over this targeting?  This is a perfect example of tyranny of our government against citizens trying to organize legal political opposition.   Not only did the IRS do it, but they lied to congress and the American people by repeatedly denying that it was being done.    

If 10,000 people showed up with loaded rifles?  Absolutely nothing, except there would be a bill introduced the next day to make it legal.     You don't pick a fight you can't win, and you don't give an order that you can't enforce.  Only a complete idiot of a police chief would do anything.   Laws against stuff only work when you can scare people into following them, the instant they show up in force and out number you 3 to 1, you just have to back down and wait for another day.  Otherwise you risk starting a shoot out where your officers are out gunned and out numbered.   Here is a perfect example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJzyN0ykMBg   100+ people show up at your 20 officer police department, walk inside, sit down and light up weed and pass it around...  What happens, nothing...  They can't enforce laws, their little town can't lock up 40 or 50 people, or provide them speedy trials, or feed them when they refuse the conditions of bail.   What does MNPD do with 10,000 people even if they could arrest them?  We don't have that many free beds across the jails in the state, the courts in Nashville would spend 100% of their time convicting those people for the next 3 to 4 years.   The 'control' part of our society really depends on sheeple doing what they're told, if a relatively small minority tell them to shove it all at once, there is nothing they can really do about it.    

The worse that would happen is they would arrest them...  If they opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators, it would spark something that would grow out of control in short order.  It would have a very good chance of ripping this country apart.    

So as long as 50%+1 of the population supports what the government is doing, we should just suck it up and take it?  No matter what?    I can't imagine that is really what you meant to say.    98% of soviet citizens voted for the communist party, does that mean they had no right to overthrow their government?  Hitler's party  received 99% of the vote in 1938.  By your stated logic it would have been 'wrong' to try and overthrow either of those governments?    

No, no, no!  This is absolutely the wrong attitude to have, wait until you live in a total dictatorship to try and overthrow the government?  Now that is just crazy talk.   By this standard, our founding fathers should have waited for things to get a lot worse before taking up arms against King George.  Our government is almost to the same position as the british crown was in the 1770's.    Men (and women) are either free creatures with God given inalienable rights or not, there is no middle ground on that question.  If they're free they should be able to choose how to live their life, as long as they don't use force against other free individuals in society.     "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty"        

I'm with you, I don't think we're there yet...  not because we're 'allowed' to vote for the lesser of two evils...  although any disruption of that process would also cross my own red line.     I'm still officially a fence sitter, and I'm not advocating an armed rebellion, only that it's just as silly to make threats of taking up arms against patriots, as it is for 'internet commandos' wanting to take up arms against the government.   But, I do find it offensive to belittle valid concerns over possible future actions that may cause there to be a valid reason to take up arms...  I also hope in the same thought that I never live to see that day, because when it happens it will be the worse kinda hell any of us have ever seen in our life times.   But, make no mistake IMHO the road we're headed down as a country leads right to that fight, the house to house searches in Boston, really concern me, not so much the fact they happened, but over a 1,000 police officers and national guard troops not only stood by and allowed it to happen, but actively participated in the unlawful activities, and not a single reported case of one of those men refusing those unlawful orders.  That along with a lot of other incidents doesn't give a very positive outlook on the future of liberty in this country.   We're not there yet, but it's not out of reason to think we could get there in the not so distant future.    

Just to point out, but you didn't take an oath to uphold what the majority of American's wanted at any given point in time, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and while 50% or 60% might agree with that tyranny it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional or evil.   Our 'social contract' that we were born into (and we can get into how screwed up that entire idea is if you want), states that we have certain inalienable rights which come from our Creator, or our humanity, and no other man or group of men have the right to take away or infringe upon those rights...   The founding fathers of this country, gave up a very limited subset of those rights, to society and only after being found guilty by a jury of their peers could their rights be infringed upon.   So you can easily have a 'freely' elected 'government' that violates God given rights, and the restrictions placed on said government in the constitution, and still have a government that morally can be overthrown.   Remember democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote :)  Good to know you're with the wolves if push comes to shove ;)   Also, remember just because somebody says it's "legal" or "justified" under the law doesn't make it so...  Every Jew killed in German - a 'freely elected government -  were killed legally.  55 million Soviets were convicted of "crimes against the Soviet people" and executed between 1917, and 1987, all of which were "legal" killings, by a "freely" elected government.   I just got done watching a documentary on Waco, you know it was 20 years ago last month that our federal government killed 80+ citizens including 20+ little children, all over a reported tax dispute.  How many of those guys lost their jobs or went to jail?  None, not a single person.   I just watched as a large american city - the site of the Boston Tea Party, on the 238th anniversary of the 'shot heard around the world', was placed in an unconstitutional state of martial law and police officers none of which seemed to have any problem violating their oaths, illegally forced law abiding citizens from their homes at gunpoint, and searched those homes without warrants, to 'keep people safe' from the scary "terrorist".   Reminding myself what was the number 1 unnatural cause of death in the 20th century, democide - the legal killing of citizens by their own government.   And you feel the need to say that people concerned about their own government turning against them, and posing not only a threat to their lives, but their liberty and freedom is somehow not a threat even worth discussion...  When a government starts to kill citizens - as our own government has - with no due process of law, that even if "freely elected" overthrow isn't a valid option?  Please.   It's no wonder that 29% of the voters are worried about an armed conflict with our government...  and I for the life of me can't understand why anybody who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution would threaten other patriots for wanting to defend their freedoms and liberties if push comes to shove.  

I'm going to say if 29% of people are willing to tell a strange over the phone they believe a revolution might be coming, that the number of people who really feel that way is a lot higher.  There are a lot of people who won't speak to family members or their best friends about this subject, let alone some stranger on the phone.

Or how about the compromise be, we stop wasting 100's of millions of dollars a year on the background check system that doesn't even work.   Look at the horrible return on investment, it costs the federal and state governments well over 100 million a year to run NICS and the state run programs, that is real tax dollars.  Now, how much more in increased gun prices to cover the expense of FFL's to deal with all the silly background check paperwork...  Lets say it's $5 per firearm, with 17 million firearms sold in 2012, thats another 85 million...  Now lets try and factor in the wasted time on the part of gun owners having to stand around waiting, and dealing with all the hassles of the background check, that's probably another $2+ a firearm sold each year (or a lot more).  Thats another 30-40 million.    So 200-250 million dollars a year spent on this current background check system... What do we get for all that tax dollars, and make work?   4700 or so people stopped each year from purchasing a firearm who is really prohibited from owning it are referred to the ATF, of those 62 cases are sent to prosecutors, and 13 cases result in a conviction.   So we're spending about 15.3 million per person.  Even if you take into account the people stopped, it's still over $50,000 per.   Why do we put up with such a useless system?  To really lock up 13 people at year?  And stop maybe 5000?  It's a waste and nothing more than a waste.  We don't even need the background check system to begin with, let alone make it cost more money and waste more time of law abiding citizens.