JayC

None of the cases before SCOTUS in the last 100 years has raised the issue of the right to bear arms... On purpose attorney's choose to attack the keep part of the right first... and are just now taking the first bear case through the lower courts. BTW, my reading of Heller, SCOTUS left the door wide open to there being a right to bear arms, even going so far as to say there are limits on the restrictions placed on where you can have a firearm, although 'sensitive areas' would still be restricted. We'll have to see how it plays out... the right to keep and bear arms is not given to us by the Constitution nor SCOTUS, but by God... SCOTUS forcing states to allow the right to bear arms is going to be a LOT less painful than SCOTUS ruling that no such right exists. CA, NY, IL aren't the states to be worried about, TX, AK, TN, AL, AR, MS, etc should concern them a lot more if they rule incorrectly.

Well the states largely gave up those rights with a series of amendments between 1865 and 1920... The 14th Amendment basically states (among other things) that rights protected by the Constitution, apply to actions by the State governments, not just the Federal government. I'm strictly talking about the courts (SCOTUS) imposing 2nd amendment case law on all the states whether they like it or not... DaveTN contends they can't and won't make a ruling that the right to bear arms is covered under the 2nd amendment, and only states will grant access to those god given rights as they see fit... My argument is they've already started to impose the 2nd amendment (correctly) on the states, with McDonald v Chicago, and the upcoming bear part of the 2nd Amendment in Palmer v DC... As for the ATF... the solution to that problem won't be popular but is very simple... get rid of the 17th Amendment... Most of the problems involving the Federal government imposing things on the states will go away is very short order.

That was true until the States gave away that right when they ratified the 14th Amendment (and some like would say the 17th Amendment)... They agreed to be bound by the limits of the US Constitution as seen by the US Federal Court system. I suspect the long running argument DaveTN and I have over the right to bear arms will be addressed in the next two years in Palmer v DC... I suspect in the long run DaveTN will be proved wrong that it will be the federal courts who force the right to bear arms issue.... but I could very well be wrong

Lets be clear, the FCC is not trying to make things fair... The soon to be proposed regulation is an attempt to set rules for government backed monopolies. It's a band-aide of the first order.. The real solution is to get rid of the monopolies and the government backing... but until that happens, some regulation of these government created monsters is needed... Exactly how many broadband ISPs do you have access to? 2 at most? 1 government regulated and backed telephone company, and 1 government backed, and regulated cable company? The FCC isn't messing with a free market, they're settings rules to prevent these monopolies from abusing their status as monopolies... Nothing more... Just because a couple of left leaning (ok lso far left they're upside down) groups are supporting this proposal doesn't make it wrong... there are PLENTY of groups on the right who also support this regulation, including many right leaning Christian groups... Just last week Comcast got caught trying to play games with bandwidth for all of it's customers... Without regulation like this, they'll be allowed to abuse their monopoly/duopoly and it will end the Internet as we know it just as fast.

I don't see wikileaks as a 'credible' news source... but I see the information they're posting as news and of the public interest... I don't think tabloids in the check out isle are credible news sources either, but every now and again they come across a valid news story (aka Presidential candidate having love child while wife is dieing of cancer)... This information at least rises to that level. They've already tried the whole Espionage Act in the past, remember a little case called the Pentagon papers? SCOTUS ruled the press can use any information it's given as long as they didn't steal it... There is no evidence that would indicate that Wikileaks had any involvement with the theft of data. BTW, if we're going to charge this one guy, what about all the other old school news papers who leaked the material with wikileaks? What about the New York Times when it gets leaks from somebody in the white house? Where exactly does it stop? What makes this one strange Aussie so special? As for the entire enemy combatant idea... That is just plain crazy... He's not attacking the US's computer systems, he's not stealing any of the data he's releasing to the public... He's not sitting on a battlefield with an ak47 shooting at our troops... The TRUTH can NEVER be "information warfare"... no matter how embarrassing it is to us and the government we elect.

I'm pretty sure it's posted on a publicly paid for road, not at the entrances to the parking lot... Since when can a private business post a public road?

Who broke the law?

Violating your oath to protect secrets, is a crime... publishing news, no matter how you get it is not... Be upset with the military and it's PFC who stole this information, not with a news site for publishing it. BTW a news site not inside the US who has no allegiance to our country.

Guys, he's not a terrorist, he's not doing anything different from other major news papers in this country and around the world, he's just doing it on a massive scale and not smoothing around the edges... How many times in the last 10 years have you read about some leak of a "critical" program here in the New York Times? 100's. How many stories do you watch on news shows that have unconfirmed reports of some secret information? I watch 2 Sunday talk shows, not a week goes by without something be said that clearly was classified and was leaked to the press. This leaking happens all the time, in small amounts... the reality is that most of the 'secret' facts in the Afghan and Iraqi leaks had already been leaked to the press! Wikileaks is a news publication, it's an equal opportunity annoyance, while most American's have only heard about these releases of US Government documents, they've been releasing stuff about governments around the world, banks involved in illegal activities, religious groups with questionable motives, and anything else they get their hands on... Just like how I don't always agree with what I read in the newspaper, I don't always agree with what I read on news websites, but they're both protected.... I don't want to see 'journalists' from the New York Times locked up for publishing a leak, even though I don't agree with a lot of the leaks they publish. We're not going to block the wikileaks website... If we talked Ireland and Sweden into down the websites, they would just move to another country... The data is mirrored in 100's of places around the world already... The world has changed, there is no way to close Pandora's box... Here is the real question... what else are they sitting on, they have this MASSIVE insurance file sitting out there, and the data they've released so far is a tiny drop in the buck compared to the size of that insurance file... what is the next shoe to drop? This release hasn't directly hurt our national security... it's embarrassing... it shows some of the stupid stuff we're doing as a government... but no real secrets were released... no troop movements, specs on weapons, communications technologies were compromised. This is just embarrassing for us and the rest of the world. So, who should be charged? The guy who stole the information and violated his oath... thrown him und3er the bus, he's the only one in this mess that has broken the law. And what should we do to stop this? Maybe not place 'secret' files out on a server where every PFC in every TOC on the planet has access to them.... Why on earth did PFC Manning have access to 250,000+ secret cables from the State Department? You wonder why all of our secrets get leaked to the media in short order, it's probably because so many people who have access, the vast majority of which don't have a need to access such information.

I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit against the state for the unconstitutional $10 tax on every firearm sold (via FFL) over the last 15+ years. I've got a $150+ dollars coming to me...

Some vague posting in an employee handbook doesn't sound like a legal posting under 39-17-1359? I'm pretty sure 3rd shift gas station positions are fairly easy to get... so getting fired, wouldn't hurt your chances of getting hired at another one in short order. As for most jobs don't allow you to carry, I disagree, most small businesses have no policy against carrying a firearm, and if you're lucky you might even find one that supports their employees carrying. I had a very nice job working for a fortune 100 company that had taken some very anti-gun stances... I took a small pay cut and left for a job where I could always carry where legally allowed... It's a question of making your own safety a priority.

It's not just that they're doing it badly, and charging you for the privilege... it's clearly against the TN Constitution... The legilsature is limited to regulating the wearing of firearms to prevent crime, buying a firearm has nothing to do with wearing it. When are we going to say enough is enough and demand TICS is shutdown?

Yet another reason the unconstitutional TICS should be gotten rid of

It's been awhile since I was in M'boro, but I just don't see that many gas stations posted around Nashville (I can only think of one in the last 4 years). Is it really that bad down there?

I think you just hit the nail on the head... why would they threaten a suspension for a search they could do without your permission? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count This is a perfect example of whats wrong with our public school system, it teaching future adults that they must submit to the government even when they're not lawfully required to do so. I'm not saying the school police officers violated the law... police officers are allowed to trick people into giving them consent to search, many departments around the country receive special training on how best to get this consent... it's part of their job to try and keep contraband away from children. That doesn't mean they can search your vehicle without RAS/PC that a crime has been or is about to be committed. I'm guessing in the 3 or 4 years you were at school nobody refused consent to these searches... Truth is, the school administration could do the exact same thing to an adult, "consent to the search or you're fired"... it's a valid threat, but in many cases it's a lot better to just get fired, than to get caught with a firearm, charged with a crime, and get fired too.

The opt out day folks may very well cause enough damage to solve this once and for all... I saw an amazing number... It takes about 15 minutes to screen 100 passengers with the new 'porn machines'... it takes about 6 hours to screen that same group with grope searches... So 10 or 15 people per major airport refusing the porn process, getting groped, then filing complaints, and/or criminal complaints against TSA agents could grind screening to a halt tomorrow. If that happens, it will make the airlines hurt a lot more than if those 10 or 15 people had chosen not to fly.

News flash, they tell you this so you'll consent to the search... not because it's true

Let me get this straight... they called you down to the car and asked you to unlock it so they could search it? And you unlocked the car and therefore consented to the search... That is a common method for police officers to get consent to search a vehicle, lifting the requirement they have RAS/PC for the search. Since they were searching for tobacco products, and that is a "civil offense" I'm not even sure they could search a vehicle without a warrant to begin with even if they knew for a fact the contraband was in the vehicle (I'd be curious to hear from one of the lawyers on the forum) because it's not a crime. In all likelihood if you had declined the search, they wouldn't have forced the issue. But, all of this is mute, as you're describing activities directed towards MINORS on school property, unfortunately SCOTUS has ruled that minor students give up many of their constitutional rights when at school.... but that has no bearing on non-student adults, unless somebody can cite a law that says different, non-law enforcement officers do not have the right to search you vehicle without your consent, if they break into your vehicle they have committed a crime... law enforcement officers are generally prohibited from breaking into a vehicle unless certain well defined conditions are met as well... this doesn't change from being parked in the lot of Walmart vs a school parking lot. Mdunntn, it sounds like you're a fairly recent graduate from the public prison system... err I mean public school system... there is a reason why they don't teach constitutional rights in school anymore... Hopefully you'll never be treated like that again in your life, but don't think just because you had to submit to those types of rules that grown adults must do so for the rest of their lives.

And what makes somebody with a HCP any less dangerous than your average law abiding citizen who doesn't have a permit? Exactly how many adults are failing the extensive training required to get a HCP? I'd make the argument that the average TN citizen who is 21+ who wishes to carry a firearm is no more dangerous than the average citizen with an HCP.

As I've said, the worse possible RINO that could have been elected to the speakers position.... The people spoke, we want the government to get smaller, not larger, and that means the legislature should be reducing laws, especially those which infringe on our rights... like the 2nd amendment, but this RINO doesn't understand that.

Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths That document is fairly well cited, many sources used to create that document are backed up by FBI/BATFE crime stats or peer reviewed research... It should be a good jumping off point... Also this book is will cited in the footnotes: Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (9780226493633): John R. Lott Jr.: Books Between those 2 you should be good to go

It won't stop it completely... but it will make it a lot harder, and when the catch you, you get a free trip to a reeducation camp How do you think the government in China keeps it's people under control? By limiting their ability to get information outside the official government controlled news media... and it works very very well.

They're not going to shutdown the websites... they're going to force all US ISP's to block those websites... Here comes the great firewall of the united states.

It's much the same this time around.... but with one major difference the last speaker didn't vote against any gun bills, or introduce anti-2nd amendment legislation like Harwell has.

This is a very bad bill... it will be abused if turned into a law... The government should not have the right to shutdown a website... not even the courts should have the right to shutdown a website... Courts should be able to order the removal of copyrighted material from the website, but not shut it down. We'd never even consider a law that would allow courts to shutdown printing presses at newspapers... why on earth would be consider a law that allows websites and web servers to be shutdown?