JayC

No I'm not missing anything here, I as a business owner invite you onto my property under certain terms and conditions, you're free to dislike my terms and conditions and stay off my property...  that includes the terms and conditions of where, how, and what you park in my parking lot.  If you violate those terms and conditions I'm free to ask you to leave and not return.  If you refuse to leave or return after being asked to leave, I can have you charged with the crime of trespass.   First, property rights aren't granted by the government anymore than your 2nd amendment rights are granted by the government...  Life, Liberty, and Property are inalienable rights granted by our creator, and only protected by the constitution.  So you right to self defense (life), is the same as your right to property.   Second, we don't need to restrict rights where equals are free to contract between each other...  This is a problem of convenience not a problem of your rights being infringed.  You have other less drastic options open to you as a permit holder and 2nd amendment supporter...  your lack of desire to select those options should not be a cause for me to loose my property rights (more than they've already been eroded today).   I find companies asking me to wear a tie offensive...  I just hate ties :)  So I should get the legislature to prohibit companies from firing employees that don't follow their dress code just because I don't like to wear a tie everyday?  Frankly, this is the level of silliness built into the current parking lot bill.     You know how I resolved by dislike for wearing ties?  I don't work for a company that requires I wear a tie everyday :)  Just like I don't work for a company that requires that I travel to and from work (or at work in my case) as an unarmed sheep.  Could I make more money if I'd go to work someplace that required I wear a tie everyday?  Yes.  Just as I could make more money working someplace that required that I be unarmed everyday...  but I prioritize my security (and hatred for ties) over my paycheck amount, and take the effort to live below my means.   Put on your bigboy pants, start looking for a job at a pro-gun company (there are a lot of them out there), and make the move away from a company that doesn't have your best interests at heart...  Sure you might be able to shoot a little less often, or have to drive your car for a few more years...  but it's a great freedom to wake up every morning and know you set your own destiny (except for the huge hand of big brother breathing down your neck constantly).   And it's that huge hand of big brother (government) that we should be working against not businesses and their private property rights.      

  Don't forget wasting crap tons of taxpayer money in the process :)

I know I'm tilting at more windmills, but the NRA and TFA are on the wrong side in this legislation.  Private businesses should be allowed to control their property, and you have the freedom to choose not to do business with them.   Just because somebody is too lazy or unwilling to make a tough choice to prioritize their safety over their current job is not a reason to take more rights away from property owners.   We should be focusing on removing gun free zones from government buildings and land because we don't have a choice not to do business with the government.  So government buildings  parks, and other land should all be removed from 39-17-1359.   I know it's an unpopular opinion here but the fact remains YOU make the choice to do business with somebody who doesn't have your best interests at heart, your failure to properly prioritize your safety and beliefs is not everybody else's problem.

Yes, a reserve deputy/officer program, or even a 'special deputy' commission would allow departments to bypass current gun free zones.   But, why would a department do that if they can get more deputies paid for out of our hard earned tax dollars, which means more Sgt's and Lt's to run those deputies...  Remember that most departments in TN are unionized.   The only reason we have POST certification is to increase the paychecks of unions, and schools that teach the POST certification.    It's also the reason we see very few reserve programs around the state, because unpaid volunteers threaten the unions.  We should get back to very small full time departments with a lot more volunteers.  

It's a very small district, and even smaller now...  A large chunk of Bellevue got moved to a different district in this election.        

One small problem, Speaker Beth Harwell(RINO) is trying to keep all 2nd amendment laws from coming to the floor for a vote.

That sign references a law which has been repealed.  But for some reason it's still on the checklist for the ABC inspectors...  So they won't renew your license if you don't have it up.   Yes, the government is just that crazy.   Don't mind the sign, and don't think the owner is anti gun because the sign is up.      

There are a lot of reasons why police officers have such a high rate of hitting and killing innocents...  A lot of it is because they rush in and have to make quick judgments without knowing exactly who the good and bad guys are...  part of it is poor training, and part of it is a lack of civil liability, among a number of other factors.   But, it doesn't change the fact that police officers with "better training" are much more likely to shooting and kill innocents than your average untrained citizen.   Even if you take that fact out of the situation, you're almost always going to have better security with more armed good guys, than with a single expert good guy.     Nobody is suggesting that police officer wouldn't still respond, or maybe have an SRO along with volunteers...  Only that volunteers who are armed is the only cost effective way to provide the level of security to deter these types of attacks on our children at school.  And that armed citizens aren't that serious of a threat to the safety of children, compared to police officers.   And you can design a program to help better train those teachers and parents (on a voluntary basis) and to build cooperative training between those armed citizens and law enforcement departments.  How many of us would pass up free or near free range time and training with local police departments?  How many would pay for the privilege (to cover cost) to get better training in how to handle active shooter environments?   I'm saying that for the cost of a single SRO, most departments could provide training, and guidance, to teachers and volunteers in all of their schools.  And the level of protection these volunteer programs would provide would be much better than a single SRO in every school.  

Your statement appears not match the facts....   The very fact that a teacher or parent could be armed is a serious threat that will cause crazy's to focus on softer targets...  This is proven by the fact you don't see mass shootings at locations that aren't gun free zones, or in states where teachers or students *might* be armed.     Look at crime here in TN, vs crime in the UK...  The VAST majority of break ins here in TN happen when nobody is home, criminals don't break into occupied homes because of the high risk of getting shot by the home owner.  You look at the UK, nearly 50% of break ins happen when somebody is home, because the criminals there have little to worry about from unarmed victims.   Finally, a single point of failure is never a good choice for security...  You want security in depth, and in the case of protecting students that is placing as many responsible armed adults in the school as possible.   I'm positive here in TN, we could recruit enough armed parents/permit holders to provide security for every school free of charge if we'd just ask.      

Except statistics don't seem to back up your thoughts on an SRO being safer and 'better trained', than your average citizen.  And while they may receive more training than your average citizen, the effectiveness of that training is suspect at best.   Police Officers are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent person in a justified shooting over 'untrained' citizens, 11% vs 2%.   Police Officers are significantly more likely to be convicted of a crime per capita than teachers, or even the population as a whole, much much higher than your average CC permit holder.   Further a single SRO is a very limited resource, where as arming teachers and CC permitted parents gives you much better coverage in the case of an attack vs a single "well trained" police officer.   I'd much rather have 20 adults carrying in a school, than 1 SRO, and it would be safer for the children.      

Well yes, yes she is ;)  Hence the reason she knew my number via caller id by heart :)  But it seems my house was moved out of her district :)        

Correct but in theory the 4473 never leaves the gun store...  The information sent to NICS doesn't include the make, model or serial number, only if the weapon is a handgun, rifle, or other(don't quote me on this part), and then the buyers information to verify they're not a criminal.   You can read about the process here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/nics-firearms-licensee-manual   You'll note on page 16, they only ask for information in Section A of the 4473, and don't indicate that any information will be needed from Section D.   Where as TICS does receive the make, model, and serial number of the firearm in question, and is supposed to delete that information within 48 hours, there is some question as to whether the process in place at the state involving their data center backup results in information being kept on some or all purchases past 48 hours, but TDOS would never knowingly violate the law would they? :)   Since the ATF is generally prohibited by law from computerizing 4473's into a database, and the paper forms are scattered all across the country in lots of different places, the thought process is these "safe guards" would prohibit the federal or state governments from creating a registry of gun owners.   Clearly, in either case, the NICS is a better solution than TICS...  since it's free, it has a lower false positive rate (but still very high), doesn't require that the information on firearms being purchased (make, model serial number) be transmitted to the government and it's generally faster :)   Not to mention that pesky Section 26 of the TN state constitution that prohibits the legislature from regulating the purchasing of firearms ;)  

Worried,   I've been down there and having meetings the different legislators over the last 4 years, although I don't support the current parking lot bill, and have stopped volunteering with the TFA over their pushing to remove my rights as a business owner.   I pushed pretty hard for the 'guns in restaurants' law, to the point Beth Harwell knew my number via caller id when I called her ;)

So, if our state constitution says the legislature may only regulate the wearing of firearms, then how is TICS constitutional?     TICS is a background check system for the purchasing of a firearm, what does that have to do with wearing of a firearm?   The clear intent of of our state constitution is to allow the legislature to regulate the wearing of firearms, to try and prevent crime...  not regulate purchasing or ownership of firearms to prevent crime.   So, if we get rid of TICS, we go to using the national system (which is also bad), but is the lesser of two evils, since under the national system you don't submit serial numbers or anything else about the firearm itself to the FBI.   Again, why should be pay $10 per background check, for a system that is slower, more error prone, and oh yeah unconstitutional?  We don't need to expand TICS, we should be pushing to drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.      

Not really...  I may very well be tilting at windmills ;)   But it's clear that the TN state constitution prohibits the legislature from regulating the purchasing of firearms, yet we put up with this silly money grab from the state that we shouldn't have to...  At the facts are TICS has a higher false positive rate than the national system - which has a very high false positive rate to begin with.   So we must pay $10 for a background check the legislature isn't allowed to create, which is slower, and more error prone...  and for some reason I can't understand why the gun culture in TN is just happy to put up with all of this?   So, in hopes of getting more people to think critically that TICS is a bad thing that should be done away with, I will continue to tilt at windmills :)      

I stand corrected...  So they could sell them to the public but wouldn't have to....  Still doesn't make this a bad law for keeping your hard earned income in your hands and out of the hands of the Federal government.

We do it here in TN ALL the time as well...  And the fact is police officers and former police officer are convicted of crimes at a much higher rate per capita than HCP permit holders, and even the public in general.   Yet, people are afraid of us having firearms on us :)      

  I don't think that is right...  http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2012/09/sorry-memphis.html from one of the legislators who passed the law...  And Nashville doesn't destroy it's buy back guns because of this law either.

  I disagree, I think we should support this bill here in TN.  You turn in ANY firearm that meets the requirements and you get a full $1000 this year and $1000 next year credit on your taxes.   And if you turn the firearm into any state of local law enforcement in TN, they can't destroy the weapon, so if you pick a sheriff or PD that sells their weapons it will end up right back on the street a few months later.   This is a win-win-win...  Buy a $100 lower receiver ..  Turn it into your local gun friendly Sheriff getting a receipt that you turned in an 'assault weapon'.  Take $1000 off your TAXES (not income) this year, and another $1000 off next year...  You make $1900 profit ;)   Plus your local sheriff who sells the 'assault weapon' back onto the street gets whatever it's worth as money for his department!  You might even get him to give you a donation receipt as part of the deal, and get to take the price off again as a charitable deduction ;)   How exactly is this not a win-win-win? :)

  It's a refund, the tax payer doesn't eat anything...  you the tax payer pay fewer taxes ;)  That is a good thing :)

TICS is unconstitutional, the only thing we need to be doing with it, is getting rid of it.      

  Get rid of social welfare schemes and the budget would be fine...     Tenncare and other out and out welfare programs account for 32% of the current budget.   In 2011 we spent 10.6B on 'work programs'.   Metro Sports Authority - 7+M   Lets look at the Department of Transportation:   68M on "Administration" 28M on "Headquarters"     There is so much waste in our state government that cutting 50% wouldn't be a problem at all.

  Well except for at least one of them are against the law.  #14 is a violation of federal law because congress prohibits the CDC from using any funding for gun related studies or research.

  All but the last one, that one could be abused all day long.  

  Sorry it was late at night for me ;)   Yes, but what do you play chicken on if they remove police powers from ATF agents, then arrest them when they violate state law?  Threaten to shutdown their airports?  That might work for Texas, but would it have worked for Wyoming?   The federal government can only play that card once, and if the state calls them on the bluff, they're done...  Worse their bluff might cause other states to go ahead and call their bluff as well...     States are like annoying teenagers, you can only keep them in control because they believe you can...    SCOTUS has ruled they can't withhold other funding sources because you fail to comply with parts of a new law (ObamaCare ruling last year), so if you remove police powers from some federal agents, and then arrest them when they criminally violate your laws, there is nothing the Federal government can do.   BTW, how is the Federal government fighting back against Colorado and Washington State violating federal law?  Refusing to arrest people who buy, sell, and smoke dope against federal law?  Oh wait the Feds rolled over on that one.