JayC

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1352479744' post='842505'] JayC, you may count yourself in that number, (as a fence sitter), but having walked the halls of Congress, (where I can remember seeing less than 10 Tennesseans in favor of any firearms issue) and spent my money to fund good candidates and then go and walk the districts to talk with the voters, I will not wear that moniker. Another of Sam's famous quote you can see at the bottom of every post I make, and I believe it with all my heart. I do not like the way things are going in my country, but I lay down at night and sleep, because I have done everything I could to succor a future of as much Liberty as possible for my grand children. [/quote] Worried, As my post said, I'm just as guilt of being a fence sitter as the rest of the people reading this forum. I too have met with both of my legislators on a regular basis about TN firearm laws (among other things), I've donated my time and experience to local state firearms organizations, and contributed money.... But, Samuel wasn't talking about going around and talking in this quote... He was advocating open rebellion to tyranny, which I'm guessing neither of us have taken part in.

I'm not sure you understand what that quote means? It's aimed at people like you, not the 'people' that re-elected the village idiot because he will give them free stuff. It's meant to call fence sitters what they are, cowards. And make no mistake we're all fence sitters.... We're happy to accept wealth over liberty, we're happy to accept tranquility of slavery over a contest of freedom... We continue to lick the hand the feeds us, and hope the chains sit lightly on us. We are the people who this founding father was referring to in this quote. We sit idle and look the other way while very bad things are done in our name to our fellow citizens. And we sit here hoping and praying for some politicians to save us... Samuel Adams was a great founding father, he knew how to say pointed things that were true... His comments are still very valid today, but make no mistake, if he were alive today, those comments would not be pointed at the 'loyalists' who voted for our current 'leader', but at us who are sitting on the fence complaining about it. [quote name='leroy' timestamp='1352467249' post='842376'] [img]http://moonbattery.com/samuel-adams.jpg[/img] This is pretty much how i feel about what's goin on in view of the recent election: Ole Sam wuz right. Let's salute him Link here: [url="http://moonbattery.com/?p=20667."]http://moonbattery.com/?p=20667.[/url] leroy [/quote]

My only concern is the lack of a grandfather clause... sound this get passed it would cause a revolt.

[quote name='Gen. Patton' timestamp='1352472218' post='842425'] I used to carry in a IWB tuckable holster but I figured that in the event that I need the weapon it probably woun't be in the middle of church and if it's in a tuckable holster with my shirt tucked in it would take more time to reveal and draw so I just stopped and started leaving it in my car. [/quote] I disagree, having it even in a crappy tucked in holster is better than not having it at all... while certain situations would pose a problem you never know how things might go down and it gives you choices in those situations. Second, get a better holster, who cares if some sheeple notices the weapon because your jack blows open, or it becomes uncovered (or heaven forbid you carry it openly)... It's there in case you need it, it's like somebody getting mad at you because you have a pocket knife to open boxes on your person

Private property... they can prohibit you from carrying but allow their employees to carry. Also, if that is his place of business, then he doesn't need to a permit to carry there, and therefore 39-17-1359 doesn't impact him, since 1359 only prohibits permit holders from carrying past a sign. I wouldn't do business with him, but just because somebody puts up a sign it doesn't mean the owner, manager, and their employees can't carry for protection.

It's not funny And another reason to call and bug the crap out of your state legislators... We need to repeal more of these silly gun laws that do nothing to protect us, and do a lot to harm otherwise law abiding citizens.

Dave, My only question is a nutcase chief and mayor did, and where are the charges? We're 7+ years past this event, and not a single person who is guilty of these civil rights violations have been charged. How can that be? We have wide spread civil rights violations not seen in such a small area since the 1960's, and not a single person has been charged. Even though there is documented proof of the illegal acts captured on video tape. More importantly, the new law in TN says you can't, but there are no criminal statues if you do... We pass laws to restrict those acting under the color of law, yet refuse to put any teeth to those statues... These laws need real teeth anybody who violates our civil rights should never walk a freeman again.

Ok, lets see if we can get all these questions answered since reading the news reports is too hard from some From the second news story linked on the first page of this thread: http://www.wsmv.com/story/19929662/cookeville-mom-accused-of-having-gun-on-school-property While we don't have a copy of the officers report, I tend to think she was charged with the class E felony from reading this article.

The news report I read the purse with 4 rounds of ammo was found in her vehicle not on her person. I don't see how an officer makes an intent to go armed with an unloaded handgun and 4 rounds of ammo locked away in a vehicle 100 or more feet away. It appears she wasn't charged under 39-17-1307... If she had that would be even more concerning...

Again, it was an unloaded pistol... You don't need a carry permit to carry an unloaded pistol. Nearly 1 in 10 adults without a criminal record have a carry permit in this state... I'm willing to bet a surprising number of them have no idea you can't carry in schools. More importantly it is a BAD law... It doesn't protect anybody... And only hassles otherwise law abiding citizens... Exactly how is arresting this mother serving the public good or reducing crime?

There was nobody to disarm... the weapon was unloaded, and therefore was disarmed without any help from the police officer in question... Nobody here is saying that the police officer was wrong to respond, or to even have a chat with her about how she was mistaken... but it doesn't serve the public good to arrest her... and by not having the common sense to see that IMHO this officer shouldn't be on the job anymore. And if the officer had not arrested a real 'perpetrator' carrying an unloaded firearm the result would be the same, nobody gets killed by an unloaded gun unless it's used as a club. Dave, you're kinda right... the news says she was charged with the intent to go armed, how do you carry an unloaded firearm with the intent to go armed? There is another lesser charge for carrying any firearm onto school property... which you'll note I mentioned that part of the problem here was the BAD law written by our own legislature and not repealed by them.... Just so there is no confusion on the subject, both parts of the law are bad, the intent to go armed, and the just carrying a firearm. This just shows we need to repeal this section of the law... It's already against the law to carry a loaded firearm around... it's against the law for minors to carry a loaded firearm or unloaded except for a very limited set exceptions... why do otherwise law abiding adults need to be hassled and left defenseless just because they go to pick up their children at school?

Don't need a permit to carry an unloaded firearm... If she had been pretty much anywhere else in the state other than a school, she would have perfectly legal to carry an unloaded firearm. I suspect, and this is purely a guess on my part, she wasn't carrying an unloaded pistol for protection, but rather still had it on her from the night before.

I'm sure somebody has beat me to it... but yes 39-17-1309 requires that the grounds be posted... First, the law as written is BAD... We don't need it, otherwise law abiding adults should be able to carry everywhere with very few exceptions. Second, the firearm wasn't even loaded, and therefore doesn't meet the standard of intent to go armed. Third, the officer should have used some common sense and let her go with a warning... he should be looking for a new job today because his obvious lack of common sense. So yeah I blame the officer for not using better common sense... the legislature for passing and refusing the repeal a law that only causes there to be great risk to children. This woman clearly wasn't a threat... she wasn't there to commit a crime... It's very unlikely that she would have knowingly violated the law... Yet somehow it's her fault... Dave you're a perfect example of somebody who tries to be knowledgeable about TN gun laws, and how often do you get it wrong? I can't count the number of times people have had to post a statue on here for you... Yet you're active in this community... a 'gun' guy... you can't get it right how do you expect some woman who isn't a 'gun' person to know all the firearm laws? Here you have a mother to appears to be concerned that says the building wasn't posted and didn't know not to carry in a school... I don't think we have any reason to not believe her when she says that... So yeah well meaning otherwise law abiding citizens carry unload guns around all the time, and it doesn't surprise me, I personally don't see any criminal behavior here... I do see a bad law that we should all be working to remove... because the only people who suffer under this law are otherwise law abiding citizens.

The problem here isn't this woman, she posed no threat to anybody... It's a stupid law that does nothing to prevent crime, and only hassles otherwise law abiding citizens. The firearm wasn't even loaded, it was no more dangerous than a large paper weight. From the news reports she probably didn't even violate the law... First, the new article says that the building wasn't posted, as required by state law. Second, she didn't carry a weapon with the intent to go armed, because the firearm was not loaded. (The bullets they found were in her car separate from the unloaded firearm by a great distance) Third, give me a break, this isn't some master criminal here, who in their right mind thinks arresting and charging this woman serves the public good? The good citizens of Putnam county should be running this officer out of town, for lack of common sense. And the rest of us should be using this to pressure the TN legislature to remove the silly no carry law for HCP holders at schools and colleges... The law only impacts otherwise well meaning law abiding citizens!

Ok, just to clarify, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat... but you can kinda understand where people like this are coming from.... Our President has already made himself a dictator who is willing to throw the law out the window when it suits him... Here are a couple examples: 1. Executive order amnesty for illegal immigrants - aka Dream act light 2. Letter telling businesses to disregard the WARN Act, even though it and the budget cuts are the law of the land. 3. Issuing kill orders on American citizens Now just how crazy does somebody have to be to think the current President might do whatever it takes to stay in power? I don't think Obama is going to suspend the elections, or run everybody into FEMA camps... but I can see how somebody who is of sound mind might be worried about the length this president is willing to go to stay in power. Clearly after Libya, flat out lying to the American public isn't a line to far.

Umm since when? I'm pretty sure any hit inside the black of the 'body' counts for the HCP permit test.

Our "job", and national security concerns were done in Afghanistan 8 or 9 years ago. Since then we've been trying to do nation building, which we suck at... A good President would have a simple foreign policy, mess with us and we'll place your country back in the stone age, no power, water, or bridges left standing... then you're on your own to fix the mess. If we had followed that policy, less than 200 troops would have been killed, and it would have saved us almost a trillion dollars of our grandchildren's money.

As I read the law yes.... A non-permit holder could be convicted of a DUI and the very next day apply for a permit and the state would be required to issue the permit. It is a double standard.

If you found the DUI conviction then one would assume TDOS did as well (otherwise why waste all of that money on the 'background' checks their performing - oh wait that is right TDOS HCP process is make work). Either way, the only people who can take away this guys HCP is TDOS, your local police department can't do anything about his HCP even if they were interested. So sending TDOS a copy of the DUI conviction is about the only thing you can do.

Dave, You keep saying that carry is settled law, but it's not... We don't know how SCOTUS will rule, but there are a number of cases working their way through the court right now that will determine if our God given right to carry a weapon for self protection is protected by the 2nd Amendment or not. Palmer vs Washington DC is one such case that has been working its way through the court system for the last 3 years, since the 2nd Amendment now impacts the states any ruling in this case would directly impact the states. Who knows how the court will rule, but the lawyer in the case is the same lawyer that was on Heller and McDonald, and he has spoken that this case in his opinion has a much greater chance of a favorable outcome than either of those two cases had... You're right we fought a civil war over states rights and the states lost... If SCOTUS rules bear means to carry and is therefore protected under the 2nd Amendment... The states will have to come inline... A perfect example of this is Brown v Board of Education.... It may take 2 generations to correct the misdeeds, but it's coming... As for the related concerns by others about changing the youth, they have a long way to go... go into a gun store today and really look at who is coming in and buying Glocks and AR's... They aren't grandpa there are a lot of 20's and 30's buying weapons today... The anti-gun lobby is 3 generations away from being able to educate away guns, worse case. And I think Dave is correct the real battle sitting infront of us is a government (at all levels) that has grown out of control... which is taxing a lot, and spending even more... and instead of waking up and realizing we can't afford to these 'entitlement' programs anymore, we continue to throw good money after bad... money which isn't even ours, but money from our Children and Grand Children. It's much more likely that we see an economic collapse, and a break up of the US over that long before anybody tries to come and take away any of our firearms...

Dave, I'm missed this earlier... Why exactly was the case against you dismissed? Did it have anything to do with qualified immunity?

I think you missed the tongue firmly placed against my cheek on that comment

I'm sorry but I thought the TSA had the market cornered on unemployed pizza delivery men being given badges and guns

Well, most insurance agents are independent, and not employees of an insurance company... so in this case you likely wouldn't have a case against the insurance company, but would against the independent agent. But even if the insurance agent was an employee, you may choose not to sue them but you could, and the case would be allowed forward. If you could prove the insurance agent failed to do something, and that cost you damages, you would win and in theory the agent would have to pay damages. (again you make a great point about deep pockets, but at least then it would be your choice). Well, you can sue but there is a completely different standard for a government employee and the rest of us... I don't even have to show malice in a traditional civil suit, only that your actions or failure to action violated civil law... An insurance agent failing to file paperwork would be an example of that... The reason I use this as an example, is because I'm very familiar with a certain case in this area... An independent insurance agent mailed out a cancellation notice, after the cancellation date there was a loss which the homeowner thought was covered... it turns out that while the agent could produce the letter, it was not dated and therefore the agent was ordered to pay the claim out of his legal umbrella policy... The insurance company in question, didn't pay a red cent, only the agent because he made a mistake and didn't properly date a cancellation letter. That is a fairly minor mistake, I think we could all agree... But lets look at trying to sue the government... If I try and sue say a court clerk for failing to file the proper paperwork, and that failure causes me to be arrested on a bogus warrant... I can't win a lawsuit because of qualified immunity... qualified immunity is a VERY high standard... Even if I can show the clerk acted with malice, even if it was an unlawful act... qualified immunity protects the clerk from damages... currently there is a "reasonable person" standard... You must show that a reasonable person would have known that the action clearly violated established statutory or constitutional rights.... So basically a simple error, always covered under qualified immunity. People who are public servants should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one... therefore we should completely remove qualified immunity for ALL government employees. As for your claim that people will continue the sue the government instead of the clerk... that is simple, keep qualified immunity for the government (aka the tax payers), and place all of the risk on the part of the public servants who violate the law.

Umm who would take a job where they can be sued personally? Virtually everybody who doesn't work for the government! We all can be sued for our mistakes in day to day life, unless you have some form of immunity as a government employee. If I'm an insurance agent, and you come in and sign up for a policy and pay your bill, and I forget to file the correct paperwork, and the insurance company refuses your claim because of my mistake? I'm for sure on the hook for your damages. But, if a clerk in a court house forgets to file some paperwork, and their mistake costs you a lot of time and money, it's oh well too bad, you're out of luck... People make mistakes.... but, most of us have to deal with those mistakes, unless you are employed by the government, then who cares you won't loose you house, you job, or your freedom like the rest of us. So yes, we should remove immunity from the court system, and the rest of the government.