JayC

Is this just a guns and leather thing or a change from the state?

  Umm are you sure, I thought the age of the stock, or flash hider had nothing to do with the ban, only the age of the lower receiver which is the 'firearm' under the law.   IE the firearm no matter it's condition was either a pre-ban or post-ban firearm, and you could modify pre-ban firearms to include whatever features you wanted, but couldn't modify post-ban firearms except within the limited scope of the law.

He's an out of state resident already...  unless he's coming here to live, a SD permit (or ND, MT, WY) are all recognized by TN, and there is nothing in the law that limits it to permits issued to those 21 or over.   It's a legal way for 18-20 year olds to carry in a lot of states, if they can be SD residents.

  Change your residence to SD and get a carry permit there at 18.  TN recognizes SD permits.   Also, it appears ND would also be a possible good choice...  Both states have 'lax' residency requirements to get a permit.  MT, and WY would also work but have longer periods to become a resident (6 months vs 30 days or less for SD and ND).

I think parents should be making that decision for their own children not the government.  Much like R rated movies, you can attend with your parent in tow.   Also remember that rating systems are voluntary and subjective.  They should not be used as a substitute for a parents good judgement.      

  I'm guessing anybody who received that letter could use it as standing in a court challenge, but you'd have to fund the challenge 100% out of pocket because it would not be covered under the MT AG protection law.   My guess is that group such as SAF who bank rolls the vast majority of pro-2nd amendment court cases is looking for lower hanging fruit...  why attack states rights when you still have a lot of clearly unconstitutional laws at both the state and federal level to go after under the current Heller and McDonald rulings.

TN has basically the same law as MT, but without the requirement that the Attorney General provide a legal defense to any MT resident who is charged.   The problem is the day the law went into effect F-Troop (BATFE) sent out a letter to FFLs stating that if anybody tried to using this law to make firearms or NFA registered items, they would come after them for breaking federal law.  Even though the law has been on the books for years nobody has risked being thrown under the jail yet to test the law in court.      

  Making people members of law enforcement would be a tough road, lots of legal issues with people acting as agents of the state.   The militia route would be a much simpler route to take, it wouldn't have all the liability issues, and would allow members of the militia to bypass NFA restrictions as well as any new AWB.  Now do I see TN doing something like this?  I doubt it.   But, you might see Texas or Montana doing something like this.   And once you have a couple of states step out there, much like the current permitting system you'd see most states add it within 10 years or so.

  So the answer is to roll over and give them what they want?  So we can wait until the next mass killing by a evil doer who is aided by their silly laws, so they can come back and ask for more again?   Where does the appeasement stop in your mind?   As for rebellion being messy, yes you're right...  but I'd much rather that messy misery start while I and you (and all otherwise law abiding citizens) are still armed, and not at the mercy of stronger men and despots.     I don't know if there is anything we can do today to save this country from shattering under it's own weight, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.   But we shouldn't be willing to trade rights for the promise of security, because we will end up with neither.

I agree it only works if the other side believe you are willing back the no up with force.  I think the least we could do is encourage them to believe that is the case, so we can avoid violence altogether.   Because if you're right 1 in 10,000 (I'd put the number closer to 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000), that is still enough to cause a massive problem...  Just remember 1 adult and 1 kid nearly shutdown Washington DC for 2 weeks, and it seems they were dumb as rocks.  

  Robert,   I don't think they can go door to door to confiscate the firearms.  I don't think drawing a line in the sand is 'manly' or 'patriotic'....  but, I think it's time for gun owners, and 2nd amendment supporters to say in a clear voice, "never again, no more".   I don't subscribe to childhood fantasies, that it's somehow patriotic to die in a blaze of glory, and who wants a civil war to start?     But, I'm not blind either, I believe that a civil war (revolution 3.0 whatever you want to call it) is at the very least a possibility in my life time, if not a probability...  So if this is the straw that breaks that camels back, then so be it.  Probably better this than waiting until a sovereign debt crisis hits.   Let me ask you some questions, and they aren't rhetorical :)   What is it that these folks want?  Do you think they will be happy with more red tape, and never ask for anything else again?  Or will they continue to chip away at this right?  Why do we as gun owners continue to even negotiate with people who have made it clear their end goal is to disarm all law abiding citizens?   Our grandparents and parents pushed this fight onto our shoulders, and that was unfair of them...  They knew the 'progressives' wanted to disarm us, and instead of making a stand they continued to 'appease' our progressive "friends".  We've had to spend the vast majority of our adult lives fighting to take those rights back...   It's not fair of us to continue to push this 'fight' onto the next generation or the generation after that...  We must say in clear terms, NO. We're not going to continue to give an inch, on these stupid feel good laws that violate our God given rights.  That there is no middle ground on this argument, that there will be no compromise, period.   History has taught me what happens when you give up these rights...  I know what is at stake, and I'm willing to draw a line in the sand and say NO.  My hope is that no is enough, because the only place I want to die, is in a warm comfortable bed surrounded by my children and grand children many years from now.  

  Since when has this been the case?  I'm positive that isn't the case...  The NRA was offered a veto on the Hughes Amendment and they said no, we'll take it out next year...  That was 25 years ago!  Has the NRA even gotten a bill introduced to remove the Hughes Amendment.   The NRA may very well fold like a cheap suit on this issue...  but I'm not willing to give up my God given rights, let them pass a ban and see how well that works out for them.   We've spent 20+ years working to repeal all of these non-sense laws from before I was born, there is no 'retreat' to win another day in this fight, it's for our freedom for our God given rights, and I'm not willing to barter those away on feel good laws.

Robert,   I'm not willing to compromise anymore of my rights away, period.   I won't support a law that would have done nothing to protect the children in Sandy Hook from this evil man, and would continue to do nothing to protect children in the future from more mad men, while taking away my God given rights.   I know this is going to sound cold, but even if a law would have saved those children in Sandy Hook, I'm not sure I would support it...  The fact is in a free society good people die, and when evil people kill good people we need to punish them...  I shouldn't have my freedoms taken away because some evil doer goes nuts and shoots up a bunch of innocent kids.   It's time we draw a line in the sand and dare them to cross, let them pass a ban and see how well that works out for them.   I agree it's time to come together, this insanity needs to end now...  Never again should we allow a feel good gun control law pass in this state or in this country.     But then again Robert you have to remember I'm one of those "crazy" God given rights people :)        

I'd urge people to instead of donating money to the NRA look at these two great organizations:   GOA - http://gunowners.org/ They have a no compromise approach to gun control, and have a very strong track record of defending gun owners. Membership is just $20 a year   SAF - http://www.saf.org/ Second Amendment Foundation - They have brought us the victories in court of Heller, McDonald and the current IL appeals court victory on the right to bear arms.  If a ban is passed, it will be this organization not the NRA fighting it in court.  Membership is just $15 a year.

  We're roughly 10% of the adult population...  when you remove those under 21, that number jumps up closer to 10%.

  So you're ok with having to run all private sales through an FFL?  How would that have stopped the shooting in CT?   We need to make a line in the sand, more gun control will only place law abiding citizens at greater risk...  Law abiding citizens must have ready access to the best self defense tools on the market.  PERIOD   I don't believe any amount of gun laws would have prevented this evil man from doing what he did, show me something that would have, and I might be willing to discuss how we can implement that and that alone...  but giving up private sales is a non-starter, this guy stole the firearms, a ban on private sales would increase the cost $35-50 per firearm transaction, plus another $10 to the state in the unconstitutional TICS fee.  That is $45-60 more for a $200 22lr?  pass.

  I'm pretty sure Republicans held the House by a fairly wide margin...  We didn't win the Presidency but republicans in the house who almost to a person agreed to support the 2nd amendment won.

Why do we have to let them pass anything?  I'm not for giving up anymore of my God given rights...  I already put up with too many violations of those rights.   Somebody who has been diagnosed with a "mental illness" can own a firearm today.  It's only if they have been found by a court to be mentally defective...  So, the entire point of your idea is mute.   We don't want this changed, because then a VA Doc saying a Vet has PTSD is enough for the Vet to loose their rights to firearms for life...  Or if a child is mislabeled as having ADHD they would be banned from owning a firearm for the rest of their lives.  It's like a felony conviction without anyway to defend yourself or get the ruling overturned...  I think that is a horribly bad idea.   Finally, this kid reportedly had Aspergers which is NOT a mental illness...  people with this "disorder" aren't anymore violent than the population as a whole...  This kid did what he did not because of the syndrome, but for some other reason altogether. Something in him snapped and he 'went to the dark side', his Aspergers may have been involved in his methodical planning,  or his apparent lack of empathy for the children he killed - we'll likely never know....   But, a lot of this guys who are mass shooters showed no sign of any mental illness or disorder before shooting up these schools...  We can't screen out 100% of the evil people in this world, all we can do is effectively (including cost) protect our society from the threat they pose...  Adding another checkbox to form 4473 isn't the answer to any of these problems.    

The last thing we need is to give the government more power to regulate our lives...  Evil people will do evil things, give law abiding citizens the ability to carry the most effective form of self defense available.  Oh and that is pretty much what the 2nd Amendment says :)

It's time now to start calling your congress critters everyday and bugging them everyday that voting for any form of gun control will not only loose your vote, but you will spend every day of the next 2 years working to make sure they don't get re-elected.

I'm not saying that unmarked cars have their place...  just not for traffic enforcement.  

Everybody really should look at SAF, http://www.saf.org/   They brought us the Heller, McDonald rulings...  They're the group that brought us the recent IL suit that found a right to bear arms, and they're pushing a lawsuit called Palmer v DC through right now towards SCOTUS to find the 2nd amendment does cover the right to bear arms.   SAF does a ton of good work for us gun owners, and I am I member and send them a check each year.  

  I don't know it's really ragging so much, more like pointing out the elephant in the room...  The NRA has a spotty (at best) track record of agreeing to compromises that take away rights from law abiding citizens.     Making sure that other gun owners aren't fooled into thinking that the NRA is a white knight on shining armor here to save us...  isn't ragging...   Now with that said, I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and I did send them a check on Monday for their LAC.  I also talked to GOA in DC and am in the process of making a donation to their foundation.   But, just because somebody speaks truth to the questionable choices the NRA has made over the years in supporting anti-2nd amendment legislation (Hayes Amendment anybody?), and their opposition to ground breaking 2nd amendment lawsuits (their attempt to derail the Heller suit)...  Doesn't mean their trolling the NRA on the internet.   Dollar for dollar, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and GOA does a lot more good for true 2nd Amendment rights IMHO.

Passing bad ideas, is worse than doing nothing...  I refuse to support bad ideas, just because they may advance a cause I believe in....  Increase the cost of government by adding a single SRO to schools is just about the worse option to protect students.  Why should we supposed bad choices?   How is this pro-2nd amendment legislation?  It creates yet another protected class that with the governments permission can carry a firearm where the rest of us can't?  It only provides for a single person per school (what happens when that teacher is sick?)...  And it's about the least effective method to really protect students.   It's a bad plan, and doesn't increase the rights of law abiding citizens in TN, why on earth would I want to support that?

  I wouldn't, a single SRO per school costs more and provides less security than virtually any other option other than doing nothing.   The best solution is to allow all HCP holders to carry on school and college campuses, this provides a lot of security in each school at no cost.   The second best solution (which would not require any changes to current law) is to have departments start a reserve deputy program to provide plain clothed parents and HCP permit holders as reserve deputy/officers having at least 1 per 250 students.  This should not cost more than $1k-$2k per school a year.   Finally, allowing all teachers with a carry permit to carry on school grounds, and provide them a little extra training in active shooter situations, probably would cost $4-6k a year per school.   All of these choice are less expensive, and would result in a better protected school.   As far as this proposed bill, where a single person whether it be an SRO or a randomly selected teacher is a bad bill, it provides very little security over what we have today.