JayC

How about we stop trading our God given rights away? And keep focusing on getting rid of unconstitutional anti-carry laws? As it's been said in the past, not all open carry folks are doing it to make a statement... many do it because for one reason or another open carry is the only way they can carry day to day... I'd much rather have a gun with the "risks" some complain about, than be completely unarmed. Some of us wear business clothes, where it's virtually impossible to comfortable conceal carry a full size (or in many cases a compact) pistol. I for one refuse to walk around with my shirt tail hanging out like a bum just to cover up my pistol to run into the gas station on my way home. The number of times I open carry a month? 10-12... Last only time I set foot on school property... only to vote a couple of times every 2 years. So for me, I'd much rather have the ability to toss my serpa holster on my belt and hop out of the car without having to get half undressed than the ability to carry in a school.

Read up on the Louisiana convention, the Ron Paul delegate that was voted in as chairman was 'escorted' out of the building by the local police department, and ended up with a couple of broken fingers, among other things. So that part of the blog post rings true.

Not an expert... but have a couple of friends who are reserve deputies... they have arrest powers, and everything just like a regular deputy, only they can't be paid. Under state law they go through a fairly long training program at the department level instead of the state academy. Honestly, I think it would be a lot better for many communities to go with larger number of reserve officers/deputies instead of increasing their payroll...

Depends on how the ID cards are printed up... My guess, they'd work as well as reserve id cards would.

You are joking right? Think about who generally gets these cards... then ask yourself who working for the sheriff in their right mind is going to arrest on a felony charge said person on the technicality they aren't on 'official' business? Ask yourself how is it that Nashville Metro officers are all carrying at MTSU while attending classes there. and nobody is getting arrested?

Not just kidnapping... Where are the color of law charges? Frankly if this guy gets found guilty, he doesn't need to go to prison, he needs to be on death row. When people in positions of trust violate that trust, justice must be swift and harsh, the maximum penalty must be sought in all cases.

The better solution would be to include a persons vehicle in the same legal exception as a persons home... thus solving the problem for everywhere.

You're not looking very hard then.... she fought guns in restaurant bill, fought guns in parks bill, fought the parking lot bill... She prevented constitutional carry from coming up for a vote... She also introduce and passed legislation that requires anybody with an ex parte protection order to turn all of their weapons over to the government. Even if the person in question has never been charged with a crime. Just remember that Harry Reid had a B rating from the NRA at one point not too long ago... Beth Harwell is a RINO, and is blocking a lot of pro-constitutional reforms from coming to the floor.... including repealing a number of bad firearm laws.

I should have known you would beat me to it! Glad we got all this mess straightened out, last thing we need is more bad information running around the community stopping people from legally purchasing firearms.

There is a special exception in federal law having to do with inheritance... I'll try and find it tomorrow, but it's basically an exception to all the FFL transfer mess if certain conditions are met.

Go to an FFL in TN, and transfer the firearm to you, by moving it onto his bound book, and moving it off his bound book via a 4473/TICS background check. My understanding is that under TN law (no clue about SC) that an FFL can transfer long guns to out of state residents as long as it's legal for them to purchase the long guns in their state and here. The suggestion you made was the FFL would have to buy the firearm from you, and then sell it to the third party... I don't believe that to be correct... they should be able to take possession of the long gun, add it to their bound book, and then legally transfer it to the purchaser without having to take 'ownership' of the firearm. A couple of examples of this, go order a long gun from an FFL in another state, you pay the FFL for the firearm, it's shipped to a local FFL, the local FFL doesn't own the firearm, you do, they just have to place it in their bound book, then do a 4473/TICS and transfer the firearm to you. Another example, if you want to sell a number of your guns on consignment, you allow the FFL to move the firearms onto his bound book, and sell them for you to his customers... he doesn't own your firearms, he is just selling them and performing the transfer/sale for you... if some of them don't sell, he would transfer them back to you (4473/TICS)... Ownership never changes, you always owned the guns. (Pawn shops would be yet another example of FFL's not technically owning the firearm, yet still having to do 4473 transfers to give the firearm back to the 'owner'). My point being the 'ownership' of a firearm is different from the transfer of the firearm... an FFL doesn't have to own a firearm to legally transfer it... Now, could there be a TN or FL state law that would prevent the legal purchase of a long gun to a FL resident? Sure, but it would prevent the FL resident from buying any long gun in TN, both one owned by a TN resident and a TN FFL, the ownership of the firearm is not the issue, you can use an FFL to transfer a firearm.

I'm not sure that is what the law says... it just says the transfer (purchase) must take place at the FFL's store, and the sale must conform to TN and FL state gun laws. When I purchase a gun from out of state, the FFL here in TN doesn't 'own' the firearm, he just transfers it to me. No reason under federal law the FFL must purchase a long gun from me, to transfer it to a third party. While I'm not very familiar with the FFL's rules and regulations, I'm not awar of any state (TN) or federal law that states an FFL must own the firearm to do the transfer.

Yeah, ll those armed robberies people are doing to get smokes and beers sure make this country an unsafe place.... The reason druggies steal is because of the high cost of drugs due to prohibition.... Make it legal and the costs go way down... The number of property thefts go way down because addicts can get gorked out of their minds for a few dollars. How muh does a cheap pound of Colombian coffee cost? Why would a pound of coke cot anymore?

$150 dollar fine... big deal...

That would be an unconstitutional law, states must offer all privileges to all citizens of the united states. Article 4 of the US Constitution: Basically even if the law says it's legal for a resident to do without a license or permit, it's legal for all US Citizens in that state. Otherwise states could pass laws saying you can't own property unless you're a resident. There is a ton of case law on this clause

Which store? I'd make a few suggestions.... First, if you tell us what store, we can find you the owners info and see what other stores he owns, so it can be published which stores to stay away from (also there might be stores owned by this operator in TN as well.) Second, I would call the 800 complaint line at McDonald's corporate that will require the operator or his staff to contact you.

Really I thought the Memphis airport case was a TN resident? And they dropped some or all of the charges? I might be mistaken I didn't follow it too closely.

I disagree, just because you toss a shovel onto my property, doesn't give you the right to come onto my property against my wishes and take the shovel back. My property is still my property, if you leave something on my property, and I deny you access, that is a civil matter for you to take up with the courts. It doesn't give you the right to come onto my property anyhow, lay hands on me when I attempt to stop you... The power company has plenty of things they can legally do, if denied access... 1. cut off the power, 2. go to court and get an order giving them access to remove their property, 3. refuse service until the owner agrees to give them access they need. You *might* have a case if the meter posed a threat to the public, but that isn't the case, if the meter gets changed out today or 5 years from now, doesn't really matter... just some company (which is at the very least a government backed monopoly, if not a government owned agency) wants to make a change... They don't have the right to trespass against the wishes of the homeowner just because they want to.

Only known documented cases of a person being charged with a violation of 1359 involve airports and weapons being found in the security lines. I believe there are 2 such cases, although I'm not aware of the outcome of either of them.

I don't know, after watching the news report, it seems she only got her gun after he was told he was trespassing, and put his hands on her. The property looks to be legally posted, and clearly indicates she did not consent to the 'smart' meter being installed. While the electric company (in this case may very well be a government agency) may own the meter, it's attached to her property... Sounds like if they want physical access to her property that is a civil matter and doesn't allow them to violate no trespassing laws (which in Texas aren't a joking matter), let them go to a judge and get a court order for access... There is no public safety issue in this case, they didn't have a right to trespass and possible assault this woman when they were asked to leave.

It did.... Instead of 750 a year... The license can cost as much as 4200 if you only have 15% gross food sales. Just a big money grab by the state.

They do now... they created a tiered licensing scheme the same year they passed the new carry laws removing the prohibition against carrying in establishments which serve alcohol by the drink.

I have no clue why people go to the movies... much cheaper to wait until the video comes out on DVD or even pay per view, and watch it at home... save the money you would have spent at the movies on overpriced tickets, drinks, and food... buy yourself a new large screen tv... My wife and I haven't been to a movie theater in 6 years, and we don't miss it at all, my recliner is a lot more comfortable, the food is cheaper, and there is a pause button when I need to run to the bathroom. Oh yeah and I don't have to worry about no carry signs. All of that for a lot less money... normal movie outing for 2 adult is $40-50... my house, $4-5... no lines, no loud cell phones... Why do people go to the movies again?

As many have said the class is very easy... If you can fog up a mirror you're going to pass.... It's nothing more than corporate welfare for ranges and instructors... The fact is I've seen guys how are blindfolded pass the shooting test, and far less than 1% of the people who take the class fail... All that time and money wasted to stop some fraction of 1% from getting their carry permit.

Why would he be facing charges if he shot the armed robbers? This is a clear cut case of a justified self defense shooting. You have two armed robbers both armed with deadly weapons... That is clearly a threat of serious bodily injury or death to this guy, and others in the room. You'd be hard pressed to fid a more clear cut case of self defense or defense of a third person on video.