JayC

I can find the statue that says you must display your permit... I can't find the statue that says you must inform, or tell the officer anything. Even if such a law was on the books (and it's not) it would be a clear violation of the 5th Amendment since the HCP is only a defense to a criminal act.

The point isn't liking to watch football, but the majority of people allowing it to distract them from what is really going on... Alex Jones is way off the deep end... I don't blame anybody for not watching him... but the fact remains once this bill is signed into law we all live in a battlefield where the constitution no longer applies. There is no other way to sugar coat parts of this bill...

It's a tyrannical act... Some would call it a declaration of war against all patriots... but the sheeple will continue watch Monday night football, and dancing with the stars.

Also, you're only required to display your permit on request... law doesn't say you have to answer officers questions... just don't lie to them

And I do believe Ron Paul admits it was a mistake, that he should have been more careful... That was 20+ years ago, made any bad calls in the last 20 years that you learned from?

Just remember Huckabee had the second highest number of delegates in 2008, Romney came in third.

Ok, so you're King, how exactly do you stop Iran from getting a nuke? You can't bomb the targets, for a number of reasons... The air defense systems over Iran are top of the line from us, Russia, and China... even if you spent 10-14 days knocking out the air defenses, and fighting off the fairly minor Iranian air force... you'll then have to spend weeks if not months hitting all of these sites, some of which you'll have to hit over and over again and still might not knock out... At the end of the day an air only campaign buys you maybe 18-24 month delay in Iran getting a nuke. So you're left with a full out ground invasion... Iran is a lot bigger and better armed than Iraq was in 2003, you're looking at needed 350,000 troops to invade, and probably 4-5% causalities, it would probably take us 8 to 12 weeks just to 'defeat' the Iranian army... secure the nuke sites and get rid of everything.... Projected cost... 650-750 BILLION dollars, and that is assuming we don't go into nation building mode and try to rebuild the place after we're done tearing it up. So where do you find 350,000 combat troops with us fighting a war in Afghanistan? How do you keep China and Russia out of a shooting war when we invade Iran? How much trouble does invading Iran stir up in South America? How much terrorism do they start here? What do you do about Iran for the months it takes us to knock out their air force and military? What stops them from firing chemical and dirty bomb tipped missiles at Israel? Or even better yet US troops in Afghanistan, allies in Europe? Even if you talk Israel into sitting on the side lines as they get pelted with missiles... Iran will hit Kuwait, UAE, and SA with missiles, air strikes (maybe), as well as convert action forces... The Iranians will release 10's of thousands of anti-ship mines into the Gulf, and effectively stop oil production in that part of the world. We can win that war... what it costs us in lives and treasures is unknown, but it will hurt us a great deal economically period. At the end of the day, we're not going to attack Iran to stop them from getting a nuke... anybody running for the GOP nomination knows that, they're just towing the party line on Iran to get votes... Ron Paul is the only one up there who says it's not practical to invade Iran to stop them from getting a nuke and we should try a different route... Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with Ron Paul on foreign policy, but his arguments are based on facts and he tells it like he sees it... which can not be said for Romney, or Newt who tell us what we want to hear to get our votes...

Maybe I missed it, but OS's post doesn't mentioned foreign policy at all.... So again what exactly about his foreign policy is bad?

It's not my ruling, blame SCOTUS, you can only search the vehicle if the person is in it for officer safety, otherwise you need PC or a warrant. The database issue is 99% of the time when they take your firearm back to the police vehicle, they run the serial number... that gets entered into a database and tagged to your traffic stop, that then can be shared between police departments and other government agency's... You know how congress prohibits the ATF from creating a database of who owns guns? This is an end run around that... allowing them to create a database of gun owners. I don't disagree there is a law against carrying a firearm in TN... and I don't suggest anybody try and make case law fighting that... but I'm not willing to except the law is constitutional, nor make it right... The courts have repeatedly violated our God given rights by allowing any exceptions to the 4th and 5th Amendments... So, I start off from the stand point that the law is current wrong and needs to be changed... and to disarm law abiding citizens with no evidence of criminal activity is unreasonable in my book... but I understand I'm in the minority here... but that is why we have a Constitution to protect the rights of everybody not just what the politicians can brainwash the masses into believing at any given moment.

Well except, if you're outside the car, there is no officer safety issue... There is now a database entry of the firearm you own that any police department or future government has access to.... oh yeah and that pesky Constitution... But yeah other than that it's just great to have people mess with my stuff with no probably cause of criminal activity.

What exactly is wrong with his foreign policy?

I help run a family business, never been asked about firearms in 20+ years.

It's corporate welfare plain and simple... It only helps prevent people from getting an HCP because by requiring people to waste 8+ hours of their lives and the money it costs to take the class. Virtually nobody fails the current class (much less than 1%)... But this is what happens when you let well meaning idiot legislators give us our 'rights' back. I'm with Fallguy, if you're over 21, and don't have a felony record, you should just be allowed to carry. Leave the permit system in place for those who want to carry outside the state.

The best case all forms of government are a necessary evil, we haven't been at the best case for a very long time. The ability for people to control others tends to corrupt people... not just the politicians or the government bureaucratic, but the population in general. I'm often shocked by some of the comments I read on here, which do not conform to our natural rights. I think it has a lot to do with poor government run education, and the fact we don't teach children to question everything they're taught.

Pulling a firearm and pointing it at somebody is a threat of deadly force under TN law, and you may only legally threaten deadly force when you are authorized under the law to use deadly force. There is no exemption to that for law enforcement officers - they have a couple of cases where they can use deadly force where an average citizen can not, but none of those exceptions seem to apply here. Also, as told many times, the first person to call is considered to be the victim, HCPer should always call the police and stay put if safe and wait for the responding police officer... I seem to recall you giving that exact advice a number of times on these very forums. Still doesn't explain why as a police officer would feel threatened with seriously bodily injury or death (otherwise they legally can not pull their weapon) would allow the person guilty of a fairly serious crime get back in their car and drive off, yet not stick around and wait for uniform officers to respond. Unless you're claiming they were scared so they put their weapons down, climbed back in their car and ran away from the scary man with no weapon whom they were holding at gun point, 2 vs 1?

Just think how much easier that would be if you didn't have to pay the government for your rights, and we reduced the amount of corporate welfare? You would be able to afford $200 at the drop of a hat

Still doesn't explain using the threat of deadly force, yet climbing back in their car and leaving the scene... remember the rule, first to call the police are seen as the victim, guess that doesn't apply when the other car is full of off duty police officers.

I'm sorry, I can see everything going down as you described until you get to the point where they just got in their cars and drove off. If they were threatened with serious bodily injury or death, then Estep assaulted them. Here you have an apparently unstable man (in your possible theory) that they stop at gun point... Yet they choose to get back in their car and leave? That just doesn't jive in my book. In your theory you have a man who has committed a serious misdemeanor or felony, being held at gun point by 2 off duty officers, and they don't arrest him, or detain him and call for uniforms to come to the scene? They turn their backs to this aggressive man who was just a minute before threatening them with serious bodily injury get back in their car and drive off? That just does not pass the smell test in my book.

That is a huge problem, all public servants should be required to live within the same laws as us 'regular' citizens. You can bet if a police officer in uniform had to disarm everytime they went to the post office, the law would be changed in short order.

Again, rights do NOT come from the Constitution, they come from our humanity. Go back and re-read the Federalist papers, the one of the concerns about the Bill of Rights was that people would think those were the only rights the government could not infringe upon, and clearly that was not the case... The right to freely travel was considered so basic, nobody thought they had to include it in the Constitution, they thought if the government became so bold as to try and regulate travel the people would rise up... they clearly didn't count on our current crop of sheeple. One of the reasons that travel isn't included in the Constitution, is not even the British crown tried to stop freeman from traveling, that goes to show you just how much tyrannical our current government is than the British crown was before the revolutionary war. As for your question about driving cars... so I don't have a right to drive a car, but I do have a right to drive a horse drawn carriage? Rights are not tied to technology... the form of travel doesn't give the government the ability to restrict the right. I'd also argue that your right to life liberty and property without the due process of law part of the Constitution clearly covers your ability to travel freely without being detained by the government, or regulated by them.

I agree there is overhead and profit in the classes, it's corporate welfare for gun ranges, and firearms instructors... Try to repeal the class, or make it much shorter/less expensive, and see who complains the loudest, it won't be the anti-gun crowd it will be the people receiving corporate welfare from the state in the form of mandatory classes. I think ranges and instructors should be able to teach any class they want without the need for government approval, or paying a special tax... just don't think the government should be forcing a class on us and all the cost related to that class when the class doesn't do anything... virtually everybody passes the class that attends. And that is only one form of corporate welfare in this system, look at what it takes to setup a HCP 'school' and all the corporate welfare attached... look what it takes to become a HCP instructor and all the corporate welfare attached... And the taxes involved... it's one big money grab by the government and businesses who got this silly stuff added to the law for their own benefit.

If my choice is between having to do background checks, and paying taxes to the state to own and carry firearms, I'm willing to risk felons carrying firearms. Frankly if they're so dangerous we can't allow them to own a firearm, then we probably should keep them in jail. How about we assume that all citizens are responsible? Until they prove otherwise? I shouldn't have to bow to any man unless I'm causing harm to my fellow citizen (physical or fraud)... Further, it's not a right if I have to ask the government for permission, and then prove whenever they ask that I am allowed my 'right'. My rights come from my creator, not from some government worker bee, or the legislature.

Dumb question, but how exactly did this guy know the two people in front of him were police officers and carrying guns in there wasn't an incident similar to the one he described? How exactly do 2 off duty police officers end up in a situation where the threat of deadly force is authorized, but the don't make an arrest, nor do they call it in and wait around for uniform officers to respond? Estep's version maybe wrong, but I just don't see how an incident unfolds where the officers involved weren't in the wrong. So help me out here.

We only need laws to punish criminal behavior, we need few is any regulations for a civil society. Laws are not there to make you safe, and even if that was their intent, they fail completely at it. I've said it time and time again, our current permit system is nothing but taxes and corporate welfare... How many people who take a HCP course fail it? We hear cases of a person here or there failing it, but the fact is it's much less than 1%... All that time and money because some small fraction of 1% of people who can afford the class can't pass it? That is an awful lot of liberty I'm giving up for very little safety. How much worse do you really think it would be if we allowed anybody without a felon record to carry? I suspect there would be very little increase in shootings in the street... States which have completely done away with permit systems (AZ) haven't seen a sharp rise in otherwise law abiding citizens being unable to control themselves and shooting people. All this type of government regulation does is make it harder for somebody to protect themselves, and does little if anything to protect the rest of society... If my choice was between paying the government to keep a TDOS open to issue drivers licenses or doing away with it completely? I'd be happy to do away with it completely. Parents allowing their 15 year olds to drive cars scares me a lot less than government bureaucrats.

Umm just curious but what official police business was he conducting in line at the post office? My understanding is only as part of their official duties are police officers allowed to carry into federal installations.