JayC

Yeah that bill never passed or was repealed at some point in the last 18 years. There is no limitation in 39-17-1304 on ownership of AP ammo. There is a federal law on making new AP pistol ammo, but purchasing pre-ban ammo is still legal.

It is an AZ permit, not useful for TN residents to carry inside the state, but could be useful for carry in other states.

You're right, if a DISTRIBUTOR wants to drop a brand, then another distributor can pick it up right away...  But if the owner of a brand wants to change distributors, and the current distributor doesn't want to 'give it up',  then the brand must be taken off the market in the entire state for a year before it can be moved over to another distributor.   And it's not technically a law, it's one of those great ABC "regulations" which helps protect entrenched businesses from new startups.  I know this because it bit me in the butt a couple of years ago when we moved to a new contract brewer, and his preferred distributor offered us a lot more money for the business than our old distributor was willing to part with :)  Ergo I found out about the 1 year rule of switching distributors if they don't want to release the brand.  At the end of the day it was worth the headache.    

Or is it the fact that they're single and have no prospects, and therefore is all the fault of women not being less picky? :)     

Packaged for the evening news, or packaged to fit the narrative of their agenda? :)    

We could only hope that a state ran college expells a student for having a legally owned firearm, legally stored in their vehicle...  That likely would result in the legislature taking away their ability to prevent firearms on college campuses state wide in short order.

Again, the class offered is for an AZ permit which doesn't require shooting and is honored in TN if you've not been a resident longer than 6 months.    

Dolomite,   There is a ton of case law in TN on the subject of 'intent to go armed', and knowingly having a loaded firearm in your possession whether you have a permit or not is carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed under that case law.   So, 39-17-1309a1 would apply today to permit holders who have a loaded firearm in their possession, since there is no exception or defense against 1309a1 for permit holders.  1309b1 on the other hand would cover unloaded firearms or firearms unknowingly loaded, since both of those cases would generally lack the intent to go armed.   So basically today to be 'safe' you must be a non-student adult, you must stop before entering school property and unload the firearm and place the firearm and ammo out of reach of each other and the passengers in the vehicle.  Then drive onto school property, do your business, then drive off, where you can again stop and reload your carry weapon.     That is unless you're only dropping people off, or picking them up, then you can have a loaded firearm as long as you don't handle it - if you have a permit.   The new law is a lot better it appears (until the AG makes some crazy opinions on how the law doesn't say what it says) that any permit holder can leave a loaded firearm in their vehicle while on school property.  This includes college students who were not covered under any of the previous exceptions or defenses.    

Umm can you please cite where in the new law college students with a permit are excluded?    

More propaganda being leaked out....  Stop telling us what you think the clues mean...  Show us the evidence and let us decided for ourselves.     Police Departments have an agenda here...  stop telling us about the spreadsheet, and show it to us, show us his writings and an accurate timeline of the events leading up to the shooting and during the shooting itself...  and let grown adult judge what the factors were that caused this guy to go all evil.

I think the concern is 39-17-1309a1, some have speculated that one could be at risk for charge under that law (a felony) for merely having firearm in their car that was loaded.  It's been a grey area under the law which appears will be removed under this new law on July 1st.    

Thats not exactly true, it's been against the law for college students to keep a firearm in their car, and still is until this law goes into effect.   Now, college students with permits appear to be able to keep firearms in their cars on college campuses, and not be charged with a crime.  Now the school may try and expel the student if caught for violating some school policy, but not criminally charged.    

No, it wouldn't be considered ex post facto anymore than changing the dress code, or prohibiting smoking on company property.      

Even student adults on college campuses?    

The 'beer' isn't considered beer under TN law anymore.    

If you think we're paying less for liquor, beer, and wine in TN because of these silly distribution laws...  you're kidding yourself.   How about the law that doesn't allow the owner of a product to switch distributors unless they take their product off the market for a year in the entire state?  How exactly does that not keep the price artificially high?    

Yes, but courts have used some strange logic to rule the vast majority of these laws constitutional over the years.   But, I still believe our best bet for good case law would be to target a state law that can in no way shape or form be considered to fall under the wearing exception...  TICS - yes I know I'm beating a dead horse.   But, if any TN gun law is unconstitutional it's TICS, which only impacts the purchasing of firearms which is clearly not authorized under the TN constitution.    

How exactly did the final bill impact colleges and universities?  What about other school owned/operated property?

Yes, a simple true/false test for $5 would be almost as good as constitutional carry....  WY and AZ have done it, why can't TN?    

They are talking about an AZ non-resident permit, which works in TN unless you've been a resident here longer than 6 months.    

Because the VAST majority of denials are false positives.  Last I heard well over 90%.    

Chuck,   You know I'm a big support of liberty, and think that private businesses and organizations should be free from government interference.  But is Vanderbilt really a private institution?   They have a special law that allows them to hire and maintain a private police force.  They receive lots of state money, and even more federal money to run the place.  They are exactly the problem, this public/private 'partnership' where they can abuse peoples rights while having the direct backing of the state to enforce those abuses.   This law is a good law, not because it's forcing morals on a private organization 'Vanderbilt', but because it will remove a 'perk' that they should never have had, a government backed private police force.    

Until you're a member of a small 20 student group, and 40 people who dislike your religion join your group and elect somebody who isn't a member of your religion to basically shut the group down.    

The freq's wouldn't be all that hard...  The jamming would be down right difficult.   First, the UAV's have 2 control systems in them.  The primary is a Sat link from the bird back to whoever is controlling the aircraft.  This is hard to jam from the ground since the antenna is positioned on the 'top' of the air frame and pointed skyward.  There are ways around this, most likely focusing on the satellite the UAV is communicating with.  The secondary link works over shorter range and is only used in case of primary communications loss, but unless you have a ground station within 200 - 300 miles it wouldn't be an issue.   GPS 'spoofing' is a lot more difficult in this case.  While the civilian GPS signal is very easy to jam/spoof the military uses a separate signal that is encrypted called PY-Code, and now the military has started to turn on M-Code (also encrypted and better to handle jamming).  So spoofing without the master key is next to impossible for a non-state actor because the use of PY-Code or M-Code instead of the regular civilian CA-Code.    

They will, you just need to make the request to review the records for anyone with a last name of X, and show up in person.  No charge to view the records in person per state law.