JayC

Yes lots of fall out, except we're still stuck with a bad law called the Gun Control Act of 1968, and a bunch of stupid laws since then.   How come when we elect a Republican President, and hold Republican majorities in the House and Senate we can repeal any of these stupid laws?  They didn't even manage to repeal the first AWB, just let it expire.  

While promotions above E4 are slow in the NG, promotions up to E4 are automatic once you meet all the requirements.   So, lets say best case he joined at 35 years old (3 years ago), he either isn't passing PT tests, is a complete screw up, or was promoted and then lost his rank...  And that is putting this guy in the best possible light, the chances are he's in been for a lot longer than 3 years, which would mean he's an even bigger screw up.   I've met NG members who were half his age (19) that are already an E4.    

No my point is how on earth is a 38 year old a PFC in the National Guard?  It's unlikely he just joined in the last year, so that would indicate he is either a complete screw up, or has already done something serious enough to loose rank over....  Either way not good.  

Wow, that makes me feel so much better... a 38 year old PFC and a cop.  And they placed him on paid leave?  Am I the only one that sees something very wrong with this situation?    

They are not more powerful than the people...  The fact they keep sponsoring bread and circuses is a perfect example of that.   They have the appearance of power, if even a small minority of the population went into rebellion they would loose complete control in a matter of days or weeks.    

BTW, take the time and call your state legislators...  1 simple word change in 39-17-1308a fixes most of this silliness with it being criminal to ever handle a loaded firearm in the TN.  Change the word defense to exception (like the above quoted loaded long gun exception).   As for your quoting the local law, you'll not that it's illegal unless you're carrying under state law, an HCP would meet that exception.  There are some cities that did not have that exception in their laws, those laws are still valid.  Again call your legislators and demand they remove pre-1986 laws from the preemption law, as it's been stated nobody has been charged in 100 years so clearly we don't need those laws anymore to protect us from anything.

It's not going to take a large portion of the country...  The Dorner incident proves that 10 or 100 lone wolves would paralyze the police in even a large state to the point they would begin violating more and more rights turning more and more people against them in the process.   Insurgencies are nasty and virtually impossible to win once they get started.    

In short yes, Garner would only impact police officers and others acting as an agent for the state.   Citizens would only be confined to state law, which on this subject says you may use reasonable force, but not deadly force to effect arrest of a person you believe has committed a felony or misdemeanor.  But, if they are a criminal and you effecting a citizens arrest is a legal action, if during the course of the arrest the criminal threatens you with death or serious bodily injury, then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.    Again, I'm NOT recommending that people use the citizens arrest law, only pointing out how stand your ground allows for a wider range of self defense situations.   But, under TN law, there are situations where you can give chase, and legally be the aggressor and still result in a justified self defense shooting.    

Not saying what he did was a good idea, but IMHO would have been 100% legal under TN law.  You don't loose you right to 'stand your ground' just because you were robbed...  The good guy had every right to follow a criminal on a public street, and when that criminal once again became a threat to use deadly force to defend himself.   I'd go one step further though, under TN law the good guy would have been well within his rights to follow and attempt to arrest the robber (again not something I would recommend doing), although he wouldn't have been allowed to use or threaten deadly force in doing so...  but the instant the robber pointed a firearm at the good guy during the arrest, justified self defense would kick in.    

Unfortunately he lost his bid for re-election 2010, after being one of the driving forces behind a very pro-2nd bill.  Probably would have been the one democrat I could have voted for, but I didn't live in Dickson.    

Yes because using CS grenades that carry an explicate warning not to be used inside structures because of the high risk of fire.  This is such common knowledge that the grenades have the nickname 'burners', which you can hear the LAPD swat team referring to them as such.   A secondary question might be why the LAPD swat team was attempting to arrest a wanted individual outside their jurisdiction in the first place?  Why wasn't the local swat team which is certified the exact same as the LAPD team is not the lead on this stand off?  Why were LAPD officers 'in charge'?   With house surrounded, why was the order given to move officers back in harms way to deploy said 'burners'?  Instead of holding a perimeter and waiting Dorner out?    This guy was a bad man, no doubt...  but it sure doesn't seem like there was going to be any attempt by the LAPD to take him alive.  It smells bad.    

I don't think it's 'big business' wanting to keep tabs on us...  I think it's political campaigns and gun related businesses that want a free marketing list.  I had a sitting state senator back during the entire CA mess flat out tell me the reason they wouldn't close the HCP database that year was because they wanted to be able to use it for targeted mailings in the next campaign.   And this was a very pro-2A state senator.      

I carry a KelTec P3AT 380 as a bug, it's smaller than my wallet.  I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with something smaller.

It is true, and when you back out felons, DV convictions and DUI's it's a lot closer to 10% of the eligible population.    

So, you're saying I'm unable to figure out if a person is experienced enough to cut my hair without a license from the government?  That I can't ask my friends and family for a good place to get my hair cut?  That word wouldn't get out if a business hired barbers that cut off ears?  Just how much training does a barber need to have to be certain they can safely not cut my ear off?   I can tell you in TN, 1500 HOURS!  Do you really think somebody needs 1500 hours of training to cut my hair?  Should I not be able to choose a self taught barber with less formal training but an apprenticeship from a highly qualified barber?   Well the state of TN says you can't, they must go to an approved barber training school and don't even get me started on all the stupid requirements to run such a school.   Now, why is it we need all these regulations, who is really helped by all of these regulations?  Because to me it sure doesn't look like the citizens of TN.   As far as FAA requirements, we can discuss at length how that system makes us safer some other day, my vote it does very little to nothing.   And we're in complete agreement that our legislators and judges continue to ignore the obvious.    

Employer/Employee is an implied contract, you work for me for X an hour (week, year) under the following conditions.   Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and one that should guide court cases...  I have a right to associate and disassociate as I as a free person see fit.  I pick my friends, my wife, and people I do business with in my daily life, any interference from the government is a violation of that right.  Some will choose to promote associations that others find question or even immoral, and you're free to disassociate yourself from those persons.   As for child labor, the more and more skilled labor required the fewer and fewer children are put to work.  As wages increased education of children is seen as a greater investment than having them work inside or outside the home to help support the family.  You can also see today in countries that are poor, and suddenly start to crack down on child labor you see a steep uptick in less savory methods of making money.  Vietnam is a perfect example of this where because of anti-child labor laws passed over the last 10 years poor families are selling their daughters into the sex slave trade because they're not longer able to afford them.   As people make more money from more skilled labor, the instances of child labor go away...  So the government didn't do away with child labor, the economy did...     Ok, I'll cite my examples of how we largely didn't have zoning laws unto fairly recently...  1916 is the first example of zoning laws, which happened in NYC because of the Equitable Building, and the Dept of Commerce released the first setup of nation wide zoning regulations involving sky scrappers in 1924.  We still have counties in TN that have little or no zoning, and Davidson County didn't have a zoning board until after world war 2 (although my understanding is that the city of Nashville did).   Ever been to Houston?  I'm pretty sure there are some expensive homes down there.  No zoning in Houston at all.  So it can and does work...  If you're a developer you can still place covenants on the deed so you can build a community of similar homes, but you can't control what others do with property you don't own.   I think that 'society' aka big government likes to get up in everybody's business, even if they morally or constitutionally have no right to... and they often do so in the name of society.  Which is a progressive line of thinking...  Our founding fathers viewed any form of government at it's best as a necessary evil, they set out a number of restrictions to place limits on that government, because they feared exactly what we have today.  Government is there to prevent others from harming you (and punish those that do), either by 'stealing your wallet or breaking your leg'.  Anytime government exceeds this simple rule it is no longer a necessary evil, it's just plain evil.   As for men in black robes, I didn't sign up for them lording over me anymore than any other man...  I'm able to read and understand the constitution and the founding documents of this country, and when a 10 year old can understand what the 2nd amendment means and a bunch of judges can't, then it's just more tyranny.  These judges get it wrong all the time, often very wrong...   So let me ask you this...  every judge that allowed somebody to be charged under the DC handgun ban...  they were right all those times?  If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled they got Heller wrong, then suddenly we loose the God given right to self defense and access to the tools to provide for that defense?  Every case a judge allowed to go forward under the DC handgun ban (Chicago and other cities too) were all wrong, Heller didn't change the fact those rulings were all wrong, only recognized a God given right, and if they changed their mind tomorrow, it doesn't matter that God given right still exists, no government can take a right away, only infringe upon it.   'Libertarian' really should be the progressive wing of logic, a bigger question is how am I bound by choices and decisions people made long ago by people I never even met?  How is it that others can bind me to slavery of taxes and laws that I had no say in?  How is it a generation of people who have been dead for nearly 100 years can restrict my God given freedoms today and I have no say in the matter?  Are any of these questions really all that radical, or have most of us been good little statists being spoon fed at the trough of big government's 'for the good of society' lie?   Liberty means the freedom to do what I want to do without restrict up to the point that I cause you direct harm.  You choosing to work for somebody who requires that you be unarmed 24/7 is your choice and it causes you no direct harm, and therefore is none of the government (or societies) business.  

You seem to forget about Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - the Contracts Clause   Also that pesky freedom of association.   The industrial age corrected itself here and around the world despite government involvement not because of it.  But, yes I don't have a problem with child labor or 'sweatshops' per say, because where they exists it's still a better situation than the alternative.  I'd much rather see a 12 year old working away in a factory 6 days a week, than starving to death, or turning to 'worse' methods such as prostitution to feed themselves and their family.    We don't have a long history in this state of regulating property, all of that has come about over the course of the last 50 to 60 years, all of it from the progressive wings of the political process.  We largely didn't have zoning laws in TN until the 1950's or 1960's, and in many of the rural counties not until 10-15 years ago.     So where has this super hero government saved society from business exactly?  It's a fallacy.   Don't get me wrong, there is reasonable regulation of businesses that needs to take place.  Businesses which the government turns into de facto monopolies and duopolies should be heavily regulated - electric, gas, sewer, water, telephone, etc.  These businesses are given special access to the market place and therefore aren't really free market industries.  The vast majority of government regulation of business in this state is the government trying to protect establishment businesses from completion.  That by far is where the vast majority of of the laws and regulations passed by our legislature come from.  Why exactly do we need licensing for somebody to cut my hair?  How does that benefit society at large?  It doesn't.   I know what my God given rights are, I'm a reasonably intelligent, educated adult.  I don't need 9 old people in black robes interpreting a 17 page document for me.  Most often times interpreting away my rights by giving more power to "society" aka government.  My rights don't come from the government or society, they come from my creator, and unless I'm tried and convicted by a jury of my peers society has no right to violate those rights because it's in societies best interest.   As for the fallacy of this law, it is a bad law, period.  It's never going to be a good law, no matter how much make-up you slap on this pig.  I'm all for pressing our legislators to remove more and more of the crappy firearm laws we currently have on the books, and there are a lot of them we should have been pushing for that won't get passed this year or next because we're wasting so much energy trying to take rights away from business owners and give them to permit holders.   Lets make a list of laws that don't take away any rights that would have done more good than what is currently being passed as a parking lot carry bill.   1. Changing 39-17-1308 from a defense to exception under the law - This little single word change would create legal possession of firearms for every law abiding citizen in this state, it would remove the assumption of unlawful activity.   2. Remove pre-1986 exceptions to the state preemption law - This would give us 1 set of laws in this state concerning firearms, no more wondering if Knox County passed some law 100 years ago that nobody has heard of that somehow makes walking down the street illegal.  Currently there are 100 cities and towns that APPEAR to have an unenforced law on the books prohibiting HCP permit holders from carrying firearms in some way shape or form.   3. Removing local opt-out for parks carry - Need I say more   4. Close down TICS - Both unconstitutional and would save gun buyers lots of money in the process.   5. Removal of government entities from 39-17-1359 - there by opening up all government buildings to legal carry.   6. Completely repealing 39-17-1359 - Even better would give us even more than the current parking lot bill without revoking any businesses property rights.   7 Adding personal vehicles to 39-17-1308 - Giving all law abiding citizens the right to carry load firearms in the cars.   Many if not all of these could have been passed with the same or less political capitol spent on the current parking lot bill.  With the exception to modifying 39-17-1359 most of these wouldn't get serious push back from the business community.  All would have had a greater impact on gun owners in this state.   I'm all for pushing hard for more legislation to remove the idiotic firearm laws we have in this state, but only if those laws don't violate some other persons freedoms in the process.  It's when we turn our backs on freedom that we loose our way and get the results we see in this current legislation.  When we focus on restricting government, or freeing people without removing the rights of others that we win our biggest battles.   I'm all for forcing the legislature to make changes, real changes, removing the criminal penalty from 39-17-1359 would have been about the same lift as the current 'parking lot' bill, and would have been a much bigger win.  

No they don't, that is a progressive fallacy.  And just because you can get 9 old men in black robes to say it's constitutional doesn't mean it is, or that it's moral.  These same 'judges' in the past have said that it was all right to place American citizens in a concentration camp.  Today we realize was both morally and constitutionally wrong.   Employers aren't forcing anybody to work for them, you're free to except their terms of employment or look else where for employment.  Because of this, there is no harm on society, just a simple contract between two free adults.   All of this is for not, the 'parking lots' bill has failed...  The TFA and the NRA spent all of this capitol on trying to get it passed, and all they managed to do was basically remove 39-17-1359 from public parking lots.  It's a complete failure, we attempted to make permit holders into a special protected class and it back fired big time...  When we should have been focusing on passing laws that limit the scope of government, not try and limit the freedom of property owners.   It's time to let this line of legislation die, and focus on legislation that restricts the government, not other law abiding citizens.    

Worried,   I'd find any such action to be shocking, even if I wasn't targeted for termination I would look for employment elsewhere, because I would find those actions indefensible.  But I personally don't think any of that should be illegal.   But, none of those actions would violate your Constitutional rights.   And if you knew such a company was acting like this, you and many other people would stop doing business with them, and they likely would go out of business or reform their ways.  Which is how the market would solve these problems.    

Lets pretend what you say happens in the future...  Repealing 39-17-1359 would give you what AL has, and it would have cost a lot less political capitol to repeal 1359 than it did to get this law passed.     I think the only good that *might* come from this law is that it might allow some permit holders to park in government parking lots and schools with a firearm in the vehicle where they can not today.  And I've been arguing all along we should have pushed legislation to remove the ability of governments to post first, instead of trying to target private businesses.    

Employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected.  Try telling your boss he's a jerk and an idiot, and he'll fire you for it...  protected speech is protected from the government, not from individuals...  You keep pushing this thought process that somehow the government can force your boss to be associated with you...  That violates another one of his rights called freedom of association.   Just like your freedom of association allows you to not buy products or services from a company that posts their business under 39-17-1359, and for you to choose not to work at a business that prohibits permit holders from carrying firearms.    

Yes, because the 1st Amendment is so much less important than the 2nd :)   Lets all say this together, the Constitution restricts the government NOT private people or the businesses they own.   The TFA and NRA look like fools today, they wasted all of this money and 'good will' and what do they have to show for it?  They spent at least twice the political capitol it would have cost to remove 39-17-1359 completely.   This is what happens when we as 2nd Amendment supporters try and make ourselves a protected classes and cause the loss of rights for others.  It was a bad plan, and set back the 2nd amendment movement in this state.    

I think they're a lot closer to orbit...  Remember one of their favorite trading partners is Iran which has the technology to place small payloads into space.  Norks are maybe 5 to 7 years from having the ability to place nukes into space.  

I've never been a fan of this legislation, it's the reason I'm not helping out at the TFA anymore, hopefully I'll change my mind after this issue is done and over with.   But, in the grand scheme of things it appears the only infringement is on the least concerning of my issues with the legislation...  They're basically removing 39-17-1359 postings from public parking lots...  Since I'm fine with doing away from 1359 altogether, this isn't a big loss of freedom for business owners in my book.   Private lots will continue to be off limits, employers and employees can continue to engage in contracts at will....  in the grand scheme of things this is about the least bad version of the legislation I could imagine.   Not sure it was worth all the political capitol that the NRA and the TFA has spent.    

Yeah, EMP is nasty stuff, it would not only knock out the power grid (by causing virtually all the major transformers to fry), but it would go onto impact just about any transistor based technology (anything with a computer chip in it).   They could also launch the same small device into a higher orbit, this would tend to only impact the power grid instead of the underlining technology (similar to a CME type disruption), but would cover a much larger area.  In this setup, a device denoted over TN, KY, MO border would knock out the power grid from Denver to New York City.   This would be harder for the Norks to pull off today since it would require a higher orbit and therefore better lifting technology than they appear to have, but they're working towards that technology.