JayC

I assume you refused to take such a non-sense pledge?

I carry a P3AT in my back pocket everyday, never had the mag release on me... and trust me if a large rear end would do it, mine would I'd find a pocket holster that better protects the mag release, I'm using a holster that has a velcro flap to make it look like a wallet if you print... that extra bit of holster seems to protect the mag release enough to prevent it from being pressed while sitting on the firearm.

I'm waiting for a class action lawsuit against the state about the $10 TICS fee, since it's clearly regulating the purchase of the firearm, which is prohibited by the state constitution.

I just don't get the need to go to a movie theater... Just wait 6 months, and rent the movie on DVD and watch it in the comfort and security of your own home at a fraction of the cost. Take the saved money and spend it on more range time

Just wait, we'll be seeing this in a big city near you soon enough My bet is Memphis before Nashville, but it could be either of them.

In a store, with a crowd of people, and pulls a gun? Bad guy is crazy, all bets are off, standing right behind him in line... I'm going to take the tactical advantage that I have instead of hoping to move to cover of leave the building unnoticed.

Last time I checked, the State Constitution prohibits the legislature and all other levels of government from messing with firearms in anyway shape or form except for the wearing of firearms to prevent crime. But hey, why should we pay attention to such an old document

Call them back and ask for the ordinance that was passed, my bet is there isn't one. Otherwise not their call, it's a park and unless the county government has voted to post the park, it can not be posted under TN state law.

Raising revenues is a fallacy.... It's not possible... you can change where the revenues come from, but we appear to be at a maximum of federal revenues for the last 70+ years. For example in 1948 the ratio of revenue to GDP was 16.9%, in the middle of the Johnson Admin 1965 - 16.5%, the middle of the Nixon Admin 1971 16.8% - and G. W. Bush 2004 16.7% - last year? 16.7% There are hills and valley's for short periods of time... spikes for a few years up to 20% and down to 14%, but a tax burden of 18%-ish is about all the country can handle. The only thing democrats and republicans can do with taxes is change who pays them, at the end of the day revenues will stay about the same, somewhere between 16 and 18% of GDP which means we need to reduce the size of government below 16% (and I would argue way below). When President Clinton left office the debt was at 5.7T, when President Bush left office the debt was at 10T, today 3 years after being elected President Obama is at 14.5T, in 2013 we'll be at 17T at the end of his first (and hopefully only term) that is nearly a 100% increase in debt in 4 years (twice the rate of debt expansion in the Bush years), by 2015 the estimate is we'll be at 23T. The entire time, tax revenue has remained about the same between 15.96% and 18.77%, while spending has increased from ~20.4% to 25.1%. Clearly the problem is we're growing the federal government much faster than the economy and the federal government is too large for us to support with the tax burden the American people are willing to accept. The *only* solution to this problem is to reduce the size of the current government, in the short term below 16% of GDP allowing us to have a small surplus to start to pay off the debt we've been racking up since the 1970's. The sooner we do this, the less painful the cuts will be, reducing 25% of the federal work force over the next 18-24 months would hurt, but it will hurt a lot less than 5-7 years from now, we have a real debt crisis (ie we can't sell TBills at a reasonable rate) and are forced into 50% Greek style cuts in a matter of 4-6 months. The Paul Ryan plan, isn't cutting, it's slowing the growth rate so it just kills us more slowly as a country... or as I like to call it, slightly smaller Big government. We still end up in the same place just takes us 10 years longer to get there... Cut, Cap and Balance would work, but the targets are WAY too high, we need a tax policy that promotes growth, that needs to be under 10% federal spending, and it would be even better if combined local, state and federal government tax burden was under 10%. The economy would sky rocket with a tax burden 100% lower than we have today.

They maybe using it as a scare tactic... but the reality is we're going to have to make massive 50-75% cuts in senior entitlement programs just to keep our head above water. We owe more than 130T in unfunded liabilities! We could cut the budget down to nothing and spend (at current tax rates) the next 60+ years paying those liabilities off. Paul Ryan's plan didn't solve the entitlement issues, he didn't even cut a single penny from the current budget level over his 10 year period. And his 'historical' level of government spending is still 2 or 3 times what it should be for a healthy economy. I agree if we had started back down the size of governments 10 years ago, we could have slowly reduced the size, but we're headed towards a real debt crisis, and the cuts we'll have to make will have to be large to continue to fund the last 30-40 years of debt seniors today saddled my generation, and my children's generation with. All this BS you read coming from Washington isn't true, we can't grow our way out of this mess, we need REAL cuts in government spending... Not some game like the "cuts" we just did while raising the debt limit, but real cuts in overall government spending... We need to get federal spending under 2T a year in the short term, and in the long term under 725B... 725B is more the historical norm for this country.... When the economy grows (after reducing taxes and government spending) then we can grow the size of government with the size of economic growth. Now, to get below 2T is spending next year you're going to have to cut 45% of the federal government. You can't do that without sharp cuts to entitlement programs... The truth is we're going to wait until the bottom falls out of the world economy, and then we'll see Greek style forced spending cuts to pay the interest on the 23T we're going to owe in 2015... Seriously, how exactly do we pay off all this money we owe? If we don't impact benefits of current seniors, and lots of federal jobs.

Way to rosy of a picture you're painting there... you have to figure in unfunded liabilities which are not counted as current debt. Even if we stopped over spending today and just pay what we've promised to seniors, we're 130T-ish in the hole. That is a little over $1 million per tax payer.... If we stopped spending money on anything else (including national defense) and only tried to pay down the debt and commitments we've made, it would take us 59+ years as a country, not including the interest due on the debt between now and then. It's not fixable, unless we're willing to drastically change as a country. 14% of the population works for the government (federal, state and local). They'll riot in the streets when you start taking away their comfy for life jobs... and that doesn't even count what happens when we cut grandpa and grandma off with no social security or medicare.

I'd be curious who put that sign up... It seems unless Wilson County voted to ban the park, it can't be posted by anybody else.

They don't apply to anybody, that section of the law was repealed last year.

Whats free checking? I pay enough in checking fees a year that many people here would quit their day jobs for it

Well except that you're missing a few steps, businesses are already paying for writing the checks... Even if the check is not cashed at a Regions bank. It costs Regions less to cash the check themselves than it does to receive it from a third party bank and pay it (at least in theory it should). So your argument doesn't hold water on why they're charging to cash checks drafted on their accounts. I'll also point out, most other "for profit" banks don't charge a fee to cash checks drafted on their own accounts... maybe if Regions wasn't trying to nickle and dime their customers to death they wouldn't be looking for somebody to buy them out right now. As for overdraft protection/fees, trust me it's not something you aim for, but it sucks when they receive 30 sub-$5 pay checks and 1 large purchase check, they deduct the large purchase first then hit you for $35 a pop on the sub-$5 payroll checks. And don't even get me started on how often that little game happened because the ACH transfer didn't get added to the account before they started deducting checks for the day. And for the record, we switched banks, and haven't had a single over draft even though we haven't changed a thing... the new bank just isn't playing any games like Regions. We receive our credit card deposits 1 to 2 days quicker, our overnight investment move happens without a hitch, and the money is always back in time the next morning to cover all the checks... and they process them in the order in which they receive them. All and all Region just sucks IMHO.

Just to add to the list, we moved all of our business checking away from Regions last year. The games they are playing with deducting written checks from your account should be down right criminal. Not sure if they're doing this on personal account but there were ordering checks from the largest to the smallest in hopes of drawing the account below balance and making $35 fees more times on the smaller checks. Also they started holding electronic deposits an extra day about 2 years ago (ie deposits from 3rd party banks/credit card processors) to try and force you to use their credit card service (more expensive too). We just up and moved everything one day to another bank that doesn't post and doesn't play games with our money. I can't see how anybody is still with Regions after all the games they play.

Already done: Handgunlaw.us click the state you're going to visit and read/print.

I disagree, people just need to say no to bad laws in mass all at once. We have a nanny state run a muck... the sooner people just say no to bad laws the better off we will all be. Even more so victim-less crimes such as seat belt laws. Now personal I wear my seat belt because I feel I'm less likely to be seriously injured if I'm involved in a car wreck... but I think just like sky diving, adults should be allowed to evaluate risk and make up their own minds.

If 100,000 people take to the streets of Washington, DC with firearms in tow, it won't matter what the unconstitutional law of DC says, there is no way you round up and arrest 100,000 people for violating the law, let alone put them in jail, and provide trials for them all. Frankly anything more than a thousand and the government will just sit back and watch powerless to do anything to stop it.

The firearm really wasn't confiscated... It was secured while he was being detained, and was returned to him as he was released from the scene. Which is in line with current (bad) state law.

We'll have to wait and see... My personal opinion is that we'll all be old and grey before it's settled law. Although I disagree that laws prohibiting carry on federal property (most of which is also unconstitutional) somehow helps protect them from being overthrown. My gut tells me anybody willing to take up arms against the tyranny of our Federal government would not much care about some silly law prevent the carry of firearms on said property as they're in the process of eliminating the traitors involved But, I could be wrong that law might be the whole reason Revolution 3.0 doesn't get started

Not to condone such behavior, but clearing the use of racial slurs is protected speech as noted by last weeks SCOTUS ruling where somebody advocated the benefits of killing a certain presidential candidate, using very colorful language including racial slurs. You might get arrested for it, but you'll have a pack of ACLU lawyers to defend you in short order. Either way there is a reason we have a first amendment to our Constitution and it's there to protect unwelcome speech such as racial slurs.

OhShoot, sorry to disagree with you, but while the court didn't take up the issue of bearing arms, it's not for the reasons you've outlined. SCOTUS didn't leave the right to bear arms up to the states, the lawsuit before it specifically didn't raise the issue of whether or not laws banning the bearing of arms in DC were unconstitutional. This was part of a plan of attack by the lead attorney on the case... That same attorney is currently working another case through the court system which should end up at SCOTUS sometime in the next 2 years which will address once and for all whether the right to bear arms is protected under the second amendment or not. While I'm in agreement, SCOTUS should have gone farther in the Heller ruling, my hope is that over the course of the next 20 years we'll see more and more protections under the 2nd Amendment of our God given right to self defense. Palmer v. District of Columbia - Calguns Wiki

These "laws" are just as unconstitutional as trying to force businesses to allow carry on their private property. We shouldn't use force to mess with private contracts between people, and the peoples right to freedom of association. I know that won't be a popular thought process, but it's government meddling in private business that has caused a great deal of societies issues over the last 50-60 years. * Fore the record, just because I don't think any level of Government has the right to dictate how or why you discriminate doesn't mean I condone the discrimination, only your right to be closed minded

Detain yes, but 2 to 3 hours in custody is a little bit excessive... Once they determined he had a valid HCP and no criminal record, they should have let him go... If a couple of hours later they had found something to charge him with, it's not like they didn't know where to go and find him.