JayC

That's not 100% correct...  If they had a law in 1986 that banned carry in city buildings then they can legally ban carry without posting per 39-17-1359.  Our state preemption law has a massive loophole in it, that many people on this forum tend to over look.   Whether Knoxville does or doesn't have one of these pre-1986 laws on the books I can't tell you, but the vast majority of cities in this state have some form of gun control laws on the books that are not covered by state preemption.  

I am in complete agreement about us loosing our rights, but it's happening because people don't speak out, and work both the court and legislative systems to push back on poorly written or out and out bad laws.   You can be a much more effective in restoring God given rights at this time as a non-convicted person than in court after being arrested.  You'll notice that the vast majority of 'good' case law comes from citizens who have a completely clean criminal record.   So, I'm going to ask, have you personally sat down with your legislators and talked to them face to face about your concerns with current state law and asked them how they justify it with both the state and federal constitutions?  Do you call them often enough that they know your number on their caller id?   Start a pro-gun fund to make well funded attempts at expanding case law in the state court system against stupid and clearly unconstitutional laws?   You're right sitting on your couch and watching Monday night football won't stop the march of the tyranny we live with today...  You have to do something about it, but for right now the answer is to work the system...  There very well be a time in the not too distance future where working within the system will no longer be an option, and pro-God given rights supports should be taking advantage of this time to try and fight that possible future off.    

If that was only the case, they still report everything to the feds.    

The correct target via the court system is TICS, not carry...  chip away at the ability of the legislature to regulate firearms altogether...  then use those wins to build case law to support removing some of the restrictions on carry.   TICS is completely indefensible under the state constitution and if found unconstitutional would result in 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars being returned to the citizens of the state from this unlawful tax.   Next on the hit list would be the ammo tax, which is also likely unconstitutional under the state constitution, and again would result in lots of money being paid back to the law abiding citizens of this state, at least 100 million if not a lot more.   As for the OP, don't do it, the permit situation is a headache but the $300-500ish cost for most people to take the class is much less than a single effort to defend yourself from immoral laws currently on the books from the state legislature...  Take the excess money and donate it to a group which will fight the legislature to further relax our poorly written gun laws... and go bug the ever living crap out of your legislators about their anti-2nd amendment laws.    

I understand the realistic need for training...  I've even volunteered at a couple of different MOUT sites with some very realistic training.   But, exactly what is the military training for here?  It's clear that the training here is for tier 1 operators and air crews.  The 'cover story' is they are training for a deployment in the news media.   Where exactly are they deploying to that they need to use attack helo's and fast rope into high rise buildings?  What theater of operation today is the military operating in today where they need that level of training.  And they're doing it in a bunch of different cities over the last 3 to 4 years?   If they're training for a deployment exactly why are they also training with the local police departments?  It's clear from news reports that the local police are not just providing security for these activities, but taking part in the training.  Why do we need tier 1 operators training our civilian police departments in military tactics and combined operations?   I see a valid need for the military to get the training that it needs to conduct it's mission, and tier 1 operators probably do need access to locations not routinely found at regular training sites...  But, the military isn't supposed to 'operate' inside the US except in times of war, and I'm not aware of any 1st world country we're operating in where a Tier 1 operator needs practice on fast roping into high rise buildings.   What exactly is the government/military planning for?  And why the poorly crafted cover story that doesn't hold up?     I don't agree with the assessment that the military shouldn't be able to train outside of military installations, but I do think the military should not be training anywhere for operating within the borders of the US, and should not be training civilian police officers in military tactics.      

F-TROOP strikes again! :)

It doesn't, that covers security guards working for the school district, not working for a third party.      

The only MH-6's that are known to be flown by the US Army are from the 1st Battalion, 160th SOAR.  If you've seen them flying in and out of Bragg they're probably those guys.  The military only lists 51 MH-6/AH-6 in it's inventory, which is just enough to cover the 2 companies attached to the 1st Battalion, and the training company.   Also, since they're flying MH-60L DAP Blackhawks, and the 1st Battalion, 160th is the only know Army unit flying that air frame, these guys are based out of Fort Campbell.  Also, there are no 160th stationed out of Bragg at this time, but we're all aware that high speed units such as the 160th are flung all over the place on assignments, but these guys call Fort Campbell their home.   Or there is another unit that the government doesn't acknowledge doing high speed training in Miami :)      

A regular GAU-19/A is variable between 1000 and 2000 rpm's, the GAU-19/B is supposed to be a much slower shooting weapon, down to below 500 rpm, the US military only owns 24 of these models.   As for GAU-19's being mounted on AH-6's here are 2 different open sourced pictures:   http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZArgCelvVSzuAw6s2yPKvLMX1xabTk_EG9jECAe52HK1VYoak   http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o10/noshpatu/AH6J-33.jpg   AH-6M's can also be fitted with gun pods that are slewed by the co-pilot, so either a slow firing GAU or M230 could be used from level flight to hit targets on the ground in these configurations.  Although it's rare to find any MELB pictures other than the Xray demonstrators.   I've rewatched the video several times, and to my poor ears it sounds as if the reports have a doppler effect to them, since the camera is standing still that would mean the reports are coming from a moving platform.  But, they could be coming from something else, but I'll show you a video below where they're seen using M134 miniguns over public buildings in Miami...  They appear to be over a empty parking lot that is blocked off by police cars right as the reports are heard, maybe they had a secure zone for brass to fall?   Either way it's clear from the video that the helo's are not MH-6 but AH-6 variants from the lack of a full bench seat on them.  While the fire could be coming from another source,    But, here are some more videos from training in Miami:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1BhRNfY1lo   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEK--xJAS7U   You'll notice in the first video they are fast roping in a unit onto the top of a high rise, and you can clearly hear M134's opening up, as well as some type of exploding munition coming from or near the helo out over the city - this video is from earlier training in Miami also with what appears to be 160th aircraft.   The second video is the 720p original footage (which was in the OP's youtube video) showing two MH-6's flying across the screen, then two MH-60L DAP Blackhawks followed on by two AH-6's (on screen when the reports start).  You can clearly see the differences between the first 2 little birds having bench seats and nothing hanging below, vs the second 2...  This would also make sense that transport or assault helo's would exfil first and the attack helos would be the last out.   Either way, without a doubt this is the 1st Battalion, 160th SOAR out of Fort Campbell, as they are the only unit in the military to fly MH-6M's and MH-60L DAP's.   

Why do AH-6 attack helo's need to practice making runs in a large urban environment like Miami, or Dallas. Where exactly are they training to deploy to that has high rise office buildings and apartments?   There is an argument to be made about soldiers training for hostage rescue in high rises, and practice doing insertions onto high rise buildings... but that doesn't jive with the press release that they are training for an upcoming deployment, what is the tallest building in Afghanistan, 5 or 6 stories?  They have access to buildings that tall at MOUT sites around the country.      

The helo that is firing is an AH-6 probably a M variant flown by the 1st Battalion of the 160th out of Fort Campbell, you can see weapons pods, not bench seats on the run by the little birds in the video.  Which would separate them from MH-6's, and to my knowledge only the 160th flies AH-6's in the US military.   My *guess* is the reports are from a GAU-19/B mounted on the inside of the LAU-68D/A rocket pods you can barely make out in the video.  I've never heard a GAU-19/B fire before, but reportedly it has a much lower rate of fire from the GAU-19/A and only 24 of them have been sold to the US Army.   I've never seen a picture of it, but reportedly a version of the M230 can be mounted to AH-6's as well, and it would also have a low rate of fire.   It's clear the reports are coming from the helo's and they're are AH-6's not MH-6's.      

Best investment I make all year long is paying a top notch CPA to do my taxes and provide me advice on how to structure my income to pay the least amount in taxes.      

Dave,   How exactly did he have every opportunity to surrender?   He was never charged with a crime.   There was never an arrest warrant issued for him.   It was some secret operation to kill him, his family on his behalf went to court to try and get an injunction to prevent the government from killing him.  In those proceeding the government would not even admit he was on a list to be killed or captured, and the judge dismissed the suit for lack of legal standing.   It wasn't until AFTER he was killed did the administration even admit on the record he was being targeted.   And even if all of that is true, what about his son being killed two weeks later in a separate strike?  While there was a lot of 'unnamed sources' claiming Alwaki Sr was being targeted, his son was never named, and there seems to be no proof he was ever involved in AQAP, how do we justify the killing of a 16 year old?  

Alwaki was never a member of Al Qaeda, as I explained in the post above.  He was 'at best' a member of AQAP (again the administration has provided no proof of his membership in AQAP).  AQAP wasn't even formed in 2001 when the attacks happened on the WTC and the Pentagon.   AQAP's state goal was to overthrow the Saudi government, and didn't start targeting the United States until AFTER we started bombing them.  And Alwaki's direct ties to helping them carry out those attacks as a stretch at best.   I never said that soldiers could not target valid military targets/enemy combatants and kill civilians in the process, only that it's unlawful to intentionally target civilians.  And our ROE has never allowed that, as it would be a war crime (or at least that is what they taught me) back in the 90's.   And I can provide you the example my instructor at Maxwell provided us, you may target enemy combatants at anytime you can find them, but you may not target non-combatants of the opposing force.  For example an unarmed medic or a medical tent is NOT to be intentionally targeted at anytime on a battlefield, as the intentional targeting would be a war crime.  Chaplains fall under the same exception.  For that reason you'll never see a chaplain in the US military ever touch a weapon while in uniform.     So Alwaki was an enemy combatant?  Where is the proof? There is no public documentation showing he provided anything other than religious advice to members of an organization who were carrying out attacks on the United States.  By the way, nobody in the current Administration has stated that they believed Alwaki was an enemy combatant, and they still haven't released the document that outlines how they determine who is or isn't an enemy combatant.    But, lets pretend for a second you're right, Alwaki was an enemy combatant.  How on earth was his 16 year old son an enemy combatant sitting around a campfire 1,000's of miles away from any battlefield?  What about the other American's that have been targeted and killed by our drone program?   The bottom line is this...  The President has a 'secret document' that outlines when US citizens can be killed without being charged with a crime, or an arrest warrant issued for them.  We're not talking about the document that provides evidence against Alwaki (they won't release that either), but the document that spells out the conditions you can be killed far away from any battlefield by our military.  And, the current administration won't even give us the simple re-assurance that they will not use this new found 'power' on American soil.   Tell me exactly how that jives with your understanding of the laws of war and our Constitution?      

At least one of those might be a little correct ;)  Our failed war on drugs is the cause of a lot of death.  How can any rational adult say that our continued prohibition against drugs isn't causing more damage than the use of drugs at this point?   The murder rate is only high in cities over 250,000, and the vast majority of the murders (and other violent crime) in those cities can be linked back to the prohibition on drugs.   The price for a kilo of coffee in Nashville, about $16, the price for a kilo of cocaine $34,000, and yet we wonder why people are fighting over street corners, and robbing people to provide for their drug habit.  When was the last time a house was robbed by a caffeine addict?   

Except Awlaki wasn't in a foreign military, wasn't on a battlefield, and wasn't carrying weapons and shooting at American soldiers.   It's perfectly legal for American servicemen to defend themselves from an armed attacker, or even to engage armed individuals on the battlefield that happen to be US citizens.  Under the rules of war, it's perfectly legal to kill civilians when targeting a military target or installation.  It is NOT lawful to intentionally target foreign civilians, let alone US citizens.   But, Awlaki wasn't any of the above, he was 1,000's of miles from any battlefield, driving in a vehicle in the middle of a country that is not at war.  The Internet videos you'll bring up if you listen to them, are sermons teaching his faith and what he believes were instructions from his god.  None of that could have been used as the basis for a criminal charge here in the US.  From all outward appearances he appeared to be a preacher providing religious advice to people who were taking up arms against the US, which *might* have been criminal under US law.   Now as for AQAP, it's not Al-Qaeda anymore than your kids little league team named the Cubs is the same thing as the real Cubs in Chicago.  AQAP didn't exist in 2001, didn't get money or support from Al-Qaeda, had it's own leadership, etc.  Does that mean AQAP were a bunch of good guys?  No, but there is some question as to under what legal authority the President is targeting members of AQAP.  At first AQAP's only stated goals were to overthrow the Saudi government, and their operational activities through most of 2009 appear to bear this out.  It wasn't until AFTER we started dropping bombs on them that they started to target us.   But, lets return to Awlaki, the DOJ says he was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks.  The same DOJ who in the same month sat before congress and under oath told them there had been no "gun walking" to Mexico.  But lets go on, Awlaki was never charged with a crime, no warrant was ever issued for his arrest, we didn't even ask Yemen's government to arrest him.  Yet he is some mastermind guilty enough that the President of the United State had to order him executed while providing the American people no proof of his 'operational' activities.    Awlaki may very well be a bad guy, and should have been tried, convicted, and put to death for his crimes against his own country.  I'm not going to stand up here and claim he's a saint, only that the legal justification for killing him is suspect at best.  Here we are 2 years after his killing and the President won't even release the legal justification it uses to determine who is placed on the 'kill' list.  Nor will the administration commit to not using the practice inside the borders of the United States.   Think about that for a minute, there is a 'legal document' out there that says if you do, X, Y, or Z the government without even charging you with a crime, or issuing a search warrant can kill you anywhere in the world, even inside the United States of America.  And the government won't even tell us what X, Y or Z is.   Lets pretend that the government got it right in the case of Awlaki Sr.  Much less known was the killing of his son two weeks after his fathers death.  'Unnamed' sources in the current administration announced his killing, and at the time described his as a 'military-aged male' of 21 years old, therefore justifying the killing of his son.  But, it appears his son wasn't 21, but had just turned 16 a month before and was in the company of his 17 year old cousin (who was also killed).    Now, the administration attempts to confuse the American people by saying that the boy was killed in the same 'series' of strikes that killed Ibrahim al-Banna, but there were 3 different drone strikes on Oct. 14th, 2011, the one that killed Ibrahim al-Banna was miles away from the one which killed Alwaki Jr.  The strike that killed him targeted a group of teenagers around a campfire on the side of a road.   So explain to me exactly how targeting a 16 year old kid, who couldn't have had any operational control over any terrorist group, unarmed sitting around a campfire is justified?  

Worried,   I'm not going to argue that a couple of guys in black robes will say this law if passed is perfectly legal.  Doesn't make it constitutional and not a violation of our God given rights.   Remember for years in this country, men in black robes said that 'separate but equal' and slavery was constitutional, the court has a horrible track record when it comes to upholding God given rights.   The fact is, this law might pass and it's unlikely to be overturned in the courts...  doesn't make it anymore right than when bad gun laws are upheld.      

Your freedom of speech is a limit on government NOT private entities.  You can be fired over protected speech, you can be denied service over protected speech, and you can be discriminated against over protected speech by private entities.   And yes certain parts of the Civil Rights Act is clearly unconstitutional, and while I don't in anyway shape or form condone race based discrimination, I think the market could and should resolve those issues, not a law which causes many more problems than it solves.       

I'm not telling you to quit your job...  But, you're choosing to stay in a situation that compromises your safety (whether this is a serious or minor compromise is something only you can answer), and prioritize your employment and retirement...     I think you should be free to do that, you need to do what is in your best interest, and sometimes that requires hard choices.  I'm not going to try and tell an adult what is in their best interests, only a fool would do that (ie the government).  I'm not insisting you (or anybody else) do anything, only that you recognize that you are making a choice for your own personal reasons to stay at your current employer and be unarmed, nobody is forcing you to do anything.   Just like you shouldn't be forcing an employer in this state to prioritize your ability to keep a firearm on their property over whatever they feel is more important.  Even if we both agree their belief, that somehow you being armed is a safety risk, is complete crap.   There are a couple of times a year that I'm forced to go unarmed in my job, I'm required to go into government buildings to file various forms (the Internet has made this a lot better), or to request public information.  I am truly forced to go unarmed on these occasions, because I'm required by law to file this paperwork (and in some cases can't electronically) but there is NO alternative.  I'm not sure I could find a line of business where these occasional face to face interactions with the government aren't required, so I'm forced to prioritize my livelihood over my security in those cases, but I do go out of my way to minimize the amount of time I'm unarmed.   And we SHOULD be passing laws that restrict the government (at all levels), because we have no alternative to the one government we're stuck with.   But, unlike the government, there are almost always other choices with private businesses...  don't like the food at McDonald's go to Taco Bell, don't like Walmart's policy on abortion, go to KMart...  don't like Randy Rayburn's anti-2nd stance, go eat at Jim n Nick's which isn't posted.   If you go into Randy's restaurant at this point and complain that it's posted, is Randy making you go unarmed or are you?     As I've said, repeal 39-17-1359 altogether...  then carry concealed everywhere...  but don't pass a law that interferes with the employer/employee relationship.      

I'll make you a promise, show me a SINGLE person in TN that is unwillingly forced to go unarmed by a private business, and I'll support this law to remove that roadblock.     The problem is you can't, no such person exists in this state, and since everybody behind kept from carrying on private land is doing so willingly, there is nothing to be fixed here.  Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will unlike the examples you used.   Nobody can imprison you against your will, nobody can just kill you without cause...  Duhh.   But, an employer can fire you for speaking your mind on your own time, they can fire you for failure to follow a dress code, and they can have you arrested for trespass if you refuse to leave their property.     But, somebody shooting you for simple trespass isn't the same as you voluntarily entering into an agreement for employment that restricts your freedom of speech or your second amendment, you are ALWAYS free to decline said agreement and not take the job.   And we have case law in TN that backs this line of thought up...   Landlords in this state may prohibit you from having firearms in your home, even in your private car in the parking lot of your apartment building.  Yet somehow your employer can't prohibit you from keeping a firearm in your vehicle at work?      

I'm involved in a number of family owned businesses here in Middle TN and in Southern IN, my wife and I happen to own 2, one a consulting company, and another an outsourced payroll company.  None of our businesses are posted, and unless required by contract or law we don't have an anti-firearms policy in our employee handbooks.  I eat my own dog food, I'm a pro-2nd amendment supporter, and have butted heads with some liberal leaning members of the family over firearm policies in the past  :)   But, we do have a dress code policy, and policies that restrict the employees speech...  In my personal opinion if I have somebody on staff that their carrying of a firearm concerned me, I'd just fire them outright, since if I can't trust them with a firearm why should I trust them with my business?   The open sign is an invitation, along with the rules posted on the door, no shirt, no shoes, no service.  While it is an invitation, it does come with clear restrictions.   I wouldn't want to frisk customers (or employees for that matter), but we have private businesses in TN which require employees to submit to random searches as a condition of employment, and I think that is something a business should be allowed to do, as long as the employee is free to decline and suffer the consequences.   You'll note I have no issue with complete repeal of 39-17-1359, which would turn make no firearm signs into the same thing as a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign...  I don't feel the repeal of that law would infringe on a property owners rights.   But, most of the companies that are fighting this law tooth and nail don't have open/welcome signs on the door, they don't have customers or members of the public coming into their businesses...  They largely only have employees Volkswagon, FedEx etc aren't open to the public.  They don't want a law (and I don't as well) which infringes on their employer/employee relationship.   And neither do I, if an employee carrying a firearm concerned me, even if they had a permit I'd want the freedom to fire that employee without violating state law.  

I'm not sure about that, KY is a strong Republican state, so whoever wins the primary is almost guaranteed to win the seat...  This is also the same state in 2010 that elected Rand Paul.   Paul has access to his election organization, as well as access to his fathers organization from the 2012 republican nomination.  They could back a strong candidate with a conservative/libertarian bent that could easily threaten McConnell from the right, but still be moderate enough on social issues to win the general election.   McConnell has to worry about a primary challenge from the right, and this letter is designed to stave that off.  

  There are a couple of others, Robert Lee from Utah for example won't sell us out on gun control.

The constitution restrains the government, not individuals, groups, associations or businesses.   You'll note you have a right to the freedom of speech, which restraints the government from using your protected speech against you, or punishing you for exercising your right to free speech.  But, that does not extend to private sector....   More importantly, there is a fundamental right, freedom of association which allows individuals to form groups or associations (ie business).  This right is violated when the government attempts to force somebody to belong to a group (or business) against the wishes of that group. IE the government can't force the NAACP to allow members of the KKK into their organization.   Also, we have the fundamental right to property, which is enshrined in the declaration of Independence (also in the constitution under the taking clause) , which is also a God given right as well...  Again this natural right is violated when the government forces you to do something with your property against your wishes.   So yeah IMHO me asking the legislature to pass a law banning company dress codes is on the same level as you asking them to ban anti-gun policies.  They're both silly and unconstitutional. That is not to say the government won't pass this law and some court may very well uphold it as constitutional, only that we should not be asking the legislature to pass it in the first place, it's a bad law that violates the rights of others to treat us as a special interest group.   There are LOTS of bad gun laws in this state that we should focus on, and the repeal or modification of which would not violate God given rights...  including removing governments from 39-17-1359 or removing 39-17-1359 altogether.  Removing exceptions to park carry, or removing laws covering the wearing of firearms in schools and universities.  Providing for true constitutional carry (whether limited to open or allowing CC).  All of these are laws when repealed would not take away rights from individuals, associations, and businesses... but would further constraint government, which is a good thing.    Finally, we're all members of a loose group which supports freedom and God given rights, it's a fundamental violation of our core principals to fight for taking others rights away!  The same legislature (or the federal one) may one day pass laws to violate our rights to own/carry firearms...  and courts may very well uphold those bad/immoral/unconstitutional laws on us.   We must have core principals as supporters of the second amendment, and the key to those principals is to not infringe on others natural rights in the process of restoring our rights to keep and bear arms.  Supporting this law is incompatible with that core principal!  

So why doesn't every county in the state have a reserve deputy program then?  It's very low cost to setup, and in most counties they could place a reserve deputy in every patrol car with a full time deputy...  That sure would make things safer wouldn't it?  Just from a stance of vehicle accidents and basic backup you'd think every department would start up a reserve program...  but they don't...  while at the same time complaining to the county board they need more money for more full time deputies and officers.