JayC

Yes, Texas gave in, but it doesn't mean their law would have been legal is passed and they could have started arresting TSA child molesters and sexual assaulters at will.  

Well I wouldn't do any business with Gander then, since those pdf files can be recovered from that computer years down the road...  And since your 4473 probably has your SSN on it, my guess is you can't be sure they are properly wiping that hard drive before getting rid of the computer.  

The ATF agents only have powers granted to them by the states they operate in.  TN could remove one section of law and ATF agents would not be able to legally carry a firearm in TN without an HCP and be subject to 39-17-1359 just like the rest of us.   You seem to think that the ATF magically gets powers from the federal government, but the states are really what gives them the ability to make arrests, serve warrants, and carry firearms.   If the states give them arresting powers, they can remove some or all of those powers, and place criminal sanctions on them if they violate those provisions.   A perfect example of this is Texas, they were going to pass a law to prohibit certain types of pat downs and make violating that law a felony...  What did the feds do?  They threatened to prevent any flights from out of state into Texas if they passed that law...  You'll notice they didn't try to make a claim that the TSA federal agents couldn't be arrested for violating Texas law...      

  Except there is a federal law prohibiting that ;)  Congress wisely has limited the ATF to having to work with paper alone when it comes to 4473, no computerized databases.

  They don't store the 4473's on computer here, it's still a physical bit of paper...  they submit the TICS background check via computer in many cases.

  I'm not sure that is true in this case, federal agents get their "police powers" ie the power of arrest from the states....  While the federal government can charge you with a crime, and issue a warrant, a state can remove federal agents powers of arrest altogether if they wish.     So it would leave the feds with only one option, which is to request that a local sheriff make the arrest, and it's up to that sheriff to "prioritize" their request at that point :)   Frankly all the states should just go ahead and remove police powers from federal agents altogether, which would also revoke their ability to carry a firearm in public without an HCP in this state.

  So we're only supposed to arrest the kingpin's of drug cartels now?  Since when is a criminal act supposed to be overlooked because they were only following orders?   Nobody is stopping them from doing their job...  finding criminals and getting warrants issued...  but their arrest powers within the states (outside of federal institutions) is regulated by the States, and that power can be revoked at anytime.

  Unless it's changed the grounds of the capitol aren't posted, only the building...  It's not clear if anybody short of the legislature could post the grounds of the capitol as it appears to fall under the 39-17-1359(f) exception.  Not that I would suggest testing that theory if they do post the grounds (but I seriously doubt they will).  People have been seen carrying on the grounds during other protests in the past and there haven't been any reports of problems.   Also, just FYI a single signature by Beth Harwell (R)INO could remove the posting for the Capitol Building.  She is the only reason it's still posted.

Show me where the Constitution grants the federal government any police/arrest powers?   Those are powers reserved to the state, so the states allow them to arrest people, and we have a law here in TN (a couple I believe) that grant police powers to federal agents, I'm sure Wyoming does as well.  So the state legislature can revoke those powers at anytime or under any conditions...  If the FBI or ATF want somebody arrested and they don't have police powers, they can forward their warrants to the sheriff and ask them to pick somebody up.   But, there is nothing the feds can do if the sheriff places said request in a low priority bucket that his deputies never manage to get to :)   If a police officer arrests a person on a charge that the legislature has forbidding police officers to have arrest powers for, then said police officer can be charged with kidnapping just like any other citizen (since they lacked legal authority to arrest the person).   So exactly why do federal agents who have no (or limited) police powers not have to follow state law?  f they violate state law, why shouldn't they be arrested and charged, and convicted of a crime?     And the Feds, have all but agreed that the states can do this...  Texas 2 years ago almost passed a law that would have made TSA pat downs a crime in a limited set of situations...  The Feds answer: If you do that we'll stop flights into/out of the state of Texas.  The feds know that 'agents' of the Federal government have no powers in a state except those granted by the state.

Not to be rude, I'm aware of what most of us think incident to, and other lawful activity is...   I'm looking for case law on the subject, case numbers, rulings, opinions etc that deal with 39-17-1308(a)(4).

  The legislature appears to have already given us the tools to do just that.

I'd say that the 10th amendment further restricts both the federal and state governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.         Since the 2nd Amendment is a right 'to the people' that right is reserved from both the States, and the federal government IMHO.   But then again the only Amendment SCOTUS ignores more than the 2nd, is the 10th.      

There is a lot of bad information in this post...  Thank you for your service, but please don't spread mis-information.    Under TN Law Militia units VOTE for their own line officers, there are no requirements in the state law for minimum education of those line officers.   58-1-303       Only staff officers are appointed by Governor in line with National Guard eligibility.  Further, officer commissions under law for the national guard do not require a degree. (58-1-210), and it's common practice in the "TN State Guard" for line officers 2nd and 1st LT's to not have a 4 year degree, and my understanding is that if you look really really closely you'll find a couple of officers (and a crap ton of cadet officers) in the TN National Guard today without 4 year college degrees :)    The Militia can not be handed over to the National Guard by order of the President, only the Governor can assign the militia to the National Guard under provisions in the National Defense Act (which does require the President to issue an order), but the transfer happens via the Governor.   The militia can be called into service "any time the public safety requires it" (TCA 58-1-301).  Not just in times of rebellion/invasion.    You might also note that the Governor can only call the militia to 'active service', that no state law prohibits the 'militia' from self organizing and training on their own time and own dime.  So technically speaking these rumpfests that call themselves part of the militia are perfectly legal under current state law - unless you can identify a real state law they are violating?   Further you might not be aware of this little tidbit of law:    Chapter 87, 1885 Public Acts of the 44th General Assembly for Tennessee State: "An Act to establish volunteer militia companies"   Which authorizes the setting up of volunteer militia companies by the citizens on TN.   So it seems your extensive "first hand experience" maybe somewhat lacking in respect to the law ;)   For the record, I don't belong to any group or organization that calls itself a militia, just a well informed citizen ;)

I'm curious if any of the lawyers, or us arm chair legal beagles are aware of any case law involving TCA 39-17-1308(a)(4):       In particular I'm curious what all is included in "other lawful activity".   Is there any case law on this?  Is there any case law on "Incident to"?    I've done some basic searches and I'm not coming up with anything...     Any help would be appericated.

Unless it has been changed in the last few weeks, the grounds are not posted but the buildings are posted.   I'm not sure they can post the grounds of the capitol without amending state law - I believe at some point in the past they designated the grounds some type of 'park/plaza' which means it's not covered by 39-17-1359.  Don't quote me on that, but either way the grounds aren't posted and it is perfectly legal to carry there.  

  The issue is the state is prohibited from taking any action that would have a 'chilling effect' on his first amendment rights....   None of us have a right to a drivers license, but if the state denied or revoked a drivers license based purely on content of protected speech, that would be a clear violation of Yeager's first amendment rights.  (note it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment).   If the only reason Yeager's permit was pulled was because of the video, and IF that speech was protected speech, then any negative action by the state because of that speech would violate his first amendment rights.  Since the speech in the video doesn't appear to rise to a level of criminal behavior under TN law, then the speech is by it's very nature protected.   A perfect example of this would be the KKK, and their desire to 'adopt a highway'...  Sponsoring a highway is not a 'right', yet it is a violation of the first amendment (and others) to prohibit them from 'adopting a highway' because the state (or employees of the state) disagree with their protected speech.  Before you say, oh that isn't a violation, 8th circuit ruled it was, and SCOTUS let the ruling stand.   So, do you see the logic behind the potential violation?  

  I didn't see any fire sales going on after the 08 election, and other panics we've seen over the last few years...  have you?

Thanks!

I'm guessing that little tidbit right there is the reason he'll get his permit back next week..  The DA in Benton County is going to drop this quicker than we can all blink.   Anybody want to take bets on the DA in Benton County agreeing to restore his permit the instance the case is filed in general sessions court?     I just can't see a DA in rural TN wanting to take this case to court and argue against Yeager, and probably secure his (the DA's) defeat in the next election.  

Because current case law from SCOTUS going back nearly 50 years gives a wild berth of what is or is not considered protected speech.  I've cite cases and provided links in previous posts that go much further than Yeager did, and were considered protected speech by SCOTUS, including a test case involving the NAACP from 1966 where their leader made threats to 'break the necks' of anybody crossing the picket line.     That is a much more direct threat than anything Yeager has said on the referenced video.      

  Well, I'm trying to be hopefully that it was some lone permit puller at TDOS, that would be the BEST case.  If you're right and somebody placed political pressure on TDOS to pull Yeagers permit that would be much more of a concern than a lone idiot doing it of their own accord.  That would be a possible conspiracy now wouldn't it :)   And yes I advocate that public servants who overstep their authority granted under law should be held to a higher standard.  

  Yes they did, and got very little in the way of convictions, a couple of minor gun convictions on technicalities, on 2 people out of the entire group they charged.  The government ruined the lives of 6+ innocent people, and nothing happens to the government bureaucrats who knowingly created this 'circus' by planting a government agent in the group to stir up trouble...  Trouble that didn't even rise to the level of a crime.   I never agreed with the Hutaree's world view, but they weren't a threat to anyone until the government dropped in an agent provocateur, and even then all they could do was sit around having teenage fantasies about shooting blue helmets ;) 

I think private businesses can and should be free to remove people from their property if they say things which the owners disagree with....  No disagreement there...   There is precedent, in that speech even speech that promotes the overthrow of the United States government is protected speech...  I'd be happy to give you lots of examples, bet lets look at the other side of the aisle for some of the most clear cut examples...  Communist Party USA, La Raza, the christian identity movement...  All advocate for the removal of our current government in one form or another...  all of which I personally find disgusting...   Yet none have been convicted under sedition laws, because judges have time and time again thrown cases out of court because the speech is protected speech.   I don't care for what they say, but I do believe in their right to say it.   I don't think unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats at TDOS should have the ability to revoke/suspend permits "because we say so"...  I'm even more concerned because Yeagers permit being revoked APPEARS to be politically motivated...  Which is the exact reason we have freedom of speech protections listed in the constitution, to prevent the government from retaliating against us for speaking out again the government.   If Yeagers words violated the law, charge him, I may disagree with those charges but then we have a system that has some form of checks and balances before he's punished by the government...  but here we have a law that appears to have been used twice to silence critics of the government.     And again, if like you said he'll probably get his permit back, because he doesn't really pose a material threat to the public, then what happens to the employee at TDOS that revoked his permit, do they loose their job?  Are they sent to prison for violating Yeagers constitutional rights?  No, they go home with a full paycheck the next day, and that is the real problem.      

Find a single person ever convicted under this law...  Remember the Militia case up in MI/OH and how they attempted to charge them under this law? Those charges were dismissed...  Talking about something is protected speech unless it's a direct or specific threat.       Read some of the transcripts from that case, and you'll see what Yeager said wasn't all that serious ;)      

  I love the Appleseed project, but lets be real...  Appleseed is for people who at least have a passing interest in guns...  A large chunk of the population doesn't have any interest in firearms and are never going to hear about the Appleseed project let alone go to one....   Why don't people freak out when they see a police officer with a firearm?  Because they've gotten use to seeing police officers with guns....   I know of no better way to 'condition' the public to thinking carrying a firearm is no big deal, other than seeing otherwise law abiding citizens carrying a firearm around them day after day with nothing bad happening.   How does that logic not work?