JayC

A 'small device' - which is in the realm of what the Norks can build today - detonated in space would cover a fairly large area...  For example set off over Little Rock, AR it would have a high probability of knocking out the power half way between Nashville and Knoxville, covering all of LA, Houston and Dallas in Texas, St Louis, MO, and as far north as the Iowa border.  Virtually all of AL would be without power as well.   That is from a small device a little larger than the estimated 20 kt device they just tested.  It would result in a lot more than 1 million deaths, it would take months or a year to fully restore power and other critical services to the effected area...  So yes, 4 to 6 small devices properly denoted in orbit could cover the vast majority of the country.   Where as a 20kt device going off perfectly over 2nd Ave and Broadway in downtown Nashville would only have a 5psi blast way out 1.25 miles, maybe killing a 100,000 people.  Anybody at the Airport or outside the 440 loop would be perfectly safe from the blast, more would die due to fall out, but it would be a much smaller problem than the same weapon detonated in space.   And you're right you can cause 'EMP' type effects using more traditional technologies and explosives, but none have any real range.  I've yet to see a device using conventional technology able to fry circuits out past 100 yards, with the exception of for radar/radio jamming equipment the military has but it's damage it limited to radar/radio equipment not the power grid or computers.   I agree, any nuke from the Norks would result in war and chaos...  The chaos would be a lot worse if they denoted the nuke in space is my only point.   On the subject of anti-missile technology...  We do have it...  but it has 'issues' from a physics perspective...  First the best case is to hit the device in the 'boost' phase of flight...  before reaching top speed and orbit...  This would require that we have batteries in position that could hit the missile near the launch site.  While we do have PAC-2's and PAC-3's in South Korea they are limited in range to 160km, well short of the Nork launch sites.   The second best time to take out a missile would be once it re-enters the atmosphere to denote, this has it's own set of problems (like spreading the radioactive material all over your country), but we've developed PAC-3 systems which have a reported 20km range for this task, and some military cruisers also have this ability.  Unfortunately my understanding is that only a handful of military bases and DC have PAC-3's stationed and manned at this time.   Finally, the worse time to try and shoot down a missile is while it's at full speed in orbit, think of this like trying to hit your 9mm round with a 22lr round, it's possible but not easy.  We have a single base up and running in Alaska which has this ability today, their published hit rate is above 50%, but they're really only setup to handle 2 or 3 launches at the same time.  Launch 5 devices and chances are 2 or 3 will get through that system today.   Funding for an east coast site has been delayed by the Democrats and the President for the last 3 years.   And somebody is going to mention the navy's ability to shoot down that satellite a couple of years ago, it's different because they had a lot of orbital data from ground stations to more accurately predict an intercept point...  That is not possible with a sub-orbital missile (or the probability of hitting it is very very low).  

I disagree, it's done a lot without really damaging property rights, or removing the ability of employers to regulate their employees...  It allows customers to keep firearms in their own car in parking lots.  This means you might be disarmed going into the hospital or mall, but you're not violating the law by having your firearm in your car.    

For every expert that says that, there is another that says seeing people carry those types of weapons around is just what is needed to make the public feel safe with people carrying those types of weapons.   We need to stop hiding in the shadows, and start being visible...  If you saw 2 or 3 people with an AR on their person everyday...  After a couple of years it wouldn't scare you anymore, it would become the new normal.  

It's not the nuke that hits us that I'm worried about...  It's the nuke that detonates 200-300 miles above us that scares me.   You need a pretty good space program to re-enter a satellite so that it comes down over a specific populated area, something the Norks are decades from having...   You don't need much technology to place a nuke in orbit and set it off somewhere over the Central US...  EMP is a much bigger threat than a FatMan sized nuke going off perfectly at the center of a major city.    

Or if you store the firearm with the ammo, or have loaded mags that you have 'ready access to'. :)  TN firearm law is bad, very very bad.    

I'm not saying anybody has constructed said database, only that the data exists in an easy (less than a days worth of programming) to build format.  Would it be 100% correct, no, but it can be used to tie possession of a specific firearm to a person or persons in short order.  Unlike HCP (and other firearm related) data, there is no state of federal law prohibiting the collection of this data or the linking of it to individuals.    

But, that isn't what we're talking about here...  in a traffic stop, a driver hands the officer his drivers license and valid HCP permit, then from a legal perspective the assumption is the permit is valid...  The officer receives no reasonable suspension of a threat because some astronomically small number of permit checks result in finding invalid permits - again some small fraction of 1%.   Now that doesn't preclude an officer from having some reasonable suspension that a specific permit maybe invalid, but that would require some other tangible reason other than some small minority of permits are found invalid during checks.   I agree if an officer finds a person carrying a firearm they may very well be in the right to disarm the person...  but lets be honest how many officers who find somebody carrying a firearm in a holster, their first question isn't "may I see your permit"...  and the instance the person produces a permit, then the disarm law kicks in, and the officer must have a reasonable belief that a threat exists.   I'll give you a further one to wrap your head around...  It doesn't appear officers can legally disarm permit holders who have loaded long guns in their vehicles...  since the carry of a long gun with a permit is an exception not a defense to state law, and the disarm law only provides that police officers may disarm handguns.    

Re-read 39-17-1307a again....   It's a crime to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed, that would include in your own home...  And you have a defense against that crime via 39-17-1308a.   It just increases the criminal penalties if you're carrying a firearm in public, which for example if you're in your own business which is open the the public, again covered as a defense under 39-17-1308a.   Technically speaking all gun owners are committing a crime anytime they handle a loaded firearm in TN (except if they have a permit and are carrying a loaded (but not chambered) long gun in their vehicle), that is how badly written our laws are!  A simple change of 1 word in 39-17-1308a from defense to exception would remove this crazy logic.      

I agree, the negligent discharge rate among police officers is a lot higher per capita than the rate at which permit holders in this state are killing police officers.   For officer safety we shouldn't allow them to handle permit holders firearms unless they're placing the permit holder under arrest.  

But permit holders can have a loaded firearm in their vehicle...  And what does that have to do with carrying one around outside of a vehicle?    

That is not exactly true...  Once the officer has a valid HCP in their hand, the assumption under the law is it's valid.  It's not reasonable to think that one permit isn't valid because some small number (fractions of 1%) of permit checks come back invalid.    Just like if I see a man wearing a uniform and a badge that says he's a police officer, I'm legally obligated under the law to assume he is really a police officer, unless I have a reasonable suspension he's not.   I contend that any officer who automatically disarms every permit holder he comes into contact with for 'officer safety' is doing so unlawfully under current state law, because no reasonable person can believe every permit holder he comes in contact with is a threat to him or others.    

TCA 39-17-1308a :     It's illegal for you to have a firearm in your home under state law, and you only have a defense in court if the police arrest you and charges are filed.  HCP is also listed as one of the defenses.   TFA and NRA are spending tons of money to push the 'parking lot' bill, yet we can get any pressure to change this single word from defense to exception.   If that one word was changed then it would remove a lot of 'legal loopholes' that are used to disarm or otherwise harass law abiding citizens.    

It's not perfectly legal under state law to remove every permit holders firearm for officer safety.  What % of permits are ran and found to not be valid?  Much less than 1%, and 1% doesn't make for reasonable belief under the current law.   The law doesn't deal with officer safety, it deals with a reasonable belief this permit holder is a threat to the officers (or others) safety...  any officer who feels that all permit holders are a threat to his safety no longer holds a reasonable belief.   And your thoughts don't account for the departments that have a SOP telling officers to disarm all permit holders, how does that jive with current state law?    

Well, the disarm law is being broken on a daily basis...  Some departments, and a number of individual officers have stated it is their SOP to disarm all HCP holders they come in contact with at a traffic stop...  That is clearly unlawful under current state law.  I'm not saying that every disarm is unlawful, only that some significant percentage are.   "For oh so many reasons" lets detail some of those reasons...   1. The officer might damage the firearm   2. The officer might have a negligent discharge while handling the firearm   3. The officer may very well run the serial number - which in turn is creating a defacto computerized gun database.   I don't see the harm in a consensual search either, I'm just not going to give consent.   And there is a harm beyond maybe the firearm I purchased might be stolen.  First, the government is prohibited by law from computerizing firearm purchase records...  The only place that lists your name and what firearms you purchased new is sitting at the individual stores where the purchase was made.  And in theory after 20 years those are being destroyed.   By running your firearms serial number, make and model  there are creating a de facto computerized gun registry, when your pistol or rifle is ran, it ties that to your ID and a record is kept every time...  That information is not covered under current federal law...   So if an officer has probable cause to believe a firearm has been stolen, then they should be able to run it, otherwise they shouldn't.   So, yeah I don't want my firearms ran if it can be avoided...  The fact is I haven't been pulled over in nearly 20 years, I seriously doubt that I will have to worry about this happening to me anytime in the near future.  But, it's a bad law and it's being abused on a regular basis.    

Yes which is why we need to keep reminding the public that 'trained' police officers are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent person than a untrained citizen in a justified shooting.    

If you feel this way, why is a President sitting in the White House who has admitted he has the power to sentence any American citizen (whether inside the US or 1,000's of miles from any battlefield) to death with no review or oversight, and has ordered the death of at least 3 US citizens.   A lot of us are guilty of picking and choosing which liberties of other people we're fine with the government stomping all over...  I agree we need to take a hard line, but it needs to be a hard line including our own sacred cows that violate the Constitution.    

Just remember the NRA was offered a veto on that bill, and turned the offer down.    

  TNDOS would be wise to not use that one again for a long while...  Too many eyes watching them over the Yeager HCP squabble...  They start going after otherwise law abiding citizens who make a simple mistake with life time bans, they'll likely have the law changed in short order.   And lets be clear, this is a simple mistake...  There are a lot of members of this very board that don't totally understand all the TN firearm laws...  it's very easy to see somebody being honestly confused over when you can or can't have a loaded long gun with an HCP.   He could also argue he understood 39-17-1308a4 (otherwise lawful activity) to include protesting for his 2nd Amendment rights :)   And why is it the legislature bans long gun carry?  How does this guy pose a more serious risk to the public than an ar pistol or any other pistol?  Maybe it's time we start pushing the legislature to lift the ban on long gun carry?

Being as I don't want anybody handling my firearms, I won't be informing the officer I have a firearm on my person unless I'm about to be pulled out of the vehicle.  It just drastically reduces the chance the officer will take the firearm and run it...  For oh so many reasons...   Hopefully we can get the silly disarm law changed to prevent the firearms from being ran unless they have probable cause the firearm is stolen.

Unlike the rest of these guys I'm going to answer the question you asked :)   But, I do have a couple of questions for you...   First, how quickly do you want to be able to get out of the house?  Is this a bag that you're going to grab as you head out the nearest 'exit' on a run from your bed?  Or is it a bag you'd grab as you were tossing on some clothes and take some time to walk out the front door?   Second, how long/far does this bag need to take you?  Are you just looking for something to help you get to your next door neighbor, or something to go 20 miles to your buddies house?   Without having a little more information on the use of the bob, or go bag it's hard to make recommendations on what to put in it or what not to put in it.  Can you provide a little more insight into what you see the use of this bag being?  

I was not aware they voted on the Belle Meade change, only that it was proposed and then shelved for a couple of months, are you sure they passed it all 3 times?     But, I completely agree they aren't enforcing the law at all, so why have them on the books...  It screams selective enforcement opportunity, which is a bad thing IMHO.     

I think it depends on if he's been charged and convicted on the robbery already too...  Otherwise double jeopardy may have already attached.    

Yeah who knows...  the problem with asking the wrong city employee about it, they m ight do the research find out there isn't a law and post the building you're asking about.   I know Belle Meade and Brentwood have 1870's language from a state law in their city ordinances that technically prohibits HCP permit holders from carrying inside their city limits, although that law has never been enforced to my knowledge.    

Almost none of them have been law for more than 30 years, which is how long it took to challenge the first handgun ban :)  Also, virtually any case law will be pre-McDonald so it was a challenge against the state constitution not in federal court.   For example here in TN, a state law requiring the state to perform a background check is clearly unconstitutional because our state constitution only allows the legislature to regulate the wearing of firearms, not the purchasing of firearms.  Many states don't have this restriction in their constitution.   Either way, we're at the start of the gun civil rights movement, just in the last 5 years we've had more positive case law than in the last 70 or 80 before that...  It's going to take us a generation to peel back all the bad laws that have been passed, if the republic stands that long.    

There are police officers who still think it's against the law to carry into a store that sells beer, and that law was changed 10 or 15 years ago.