JayC

How wasn't it a real assault? The congressman grabbed a hold of the student and wouldn't let go for 30-45 seconds... You're not talking about accidentally bumping into to somebody, or reaching up to block the video camera and brushing the hand of the person holding it my mistake... those would be cases of 'not real assaults'... this was a clear case of an assault caught on tape and nothing was done about it.

Have you ever spoken to her? She's much worse than the last speaker... she's just as much a RINO and totally anti-tea party 2nd amendment... It's not just the guns in bar bill that she has voted anti-gun on... She's the one who sponsored (as in the primary sponsor) of the take all your guns away if you receive a protective order... not just your HCP, but the sheriff would come to your house and confiscate all firearms in it until the order was removed. She's just one step to the right of the crazy hat lady in the legislature.

First, the parking lot bill won't help you at all... schools will still be against the law, and therefore it will still be an issue... for the vast majority of people they are only at risk of loosing their job, not possible criminal charges. I agree carrying onto a school campus is an entirely different matter... and my comment was directed towards the vast majority of businesses which aren't legally posted and aren't illegal to generally carry at, not schools. With that said, I suspect that we'll see at least for college campuses a change in the law in the next 4 years... I am hopefully that Palmer vs DC will result in the carry of arms being found to be constitutionally protected, and then at least for adult students the government is going to have a very hard time justifying the ban on college campus carry for permit holders. Honestly, that is going to be the only way IMHO we're going to see the silly school/university carry laws changed.

Not only have they thought about it... they've done it... a recent attack in Saudi Arabia was done with explosives hidden inside the body.

IANAL, but you can decline to have your vehicle search and leave... you might loose your job over leaving, but school administrators don't have some special exception to search non-student adults vehicles.... and a police officer would still require RAS, PC, or a search warrant to search without your consent. I don't know why the employee parking lot is such a big issue... if the parking lot isn't legally posted (which very few are)... they can only fire you in virtually all cases if they find out you have a firearm in your vehicle... and how are they going to find out if you don't make the mistake of telling somebody you have one. It's my understanding even if you give your employer written permission to search your vehicle, when they ask for your keys, you can revoke said permission and leave... you can be fired for leaving, but you don't ever have to allow a private company access to your personal vehicle.

Just for the record, I refused to take my shoes off... taking your shoes off is entirely security theater and doesn't protect us at all, and I refuse to walk around on dirty public floors in my bare feet, or get my socks wet/dirty. Much like the liquid ban.... a total waste of effort.

Since when did schools get the ability to search vehicles of non-student adults without PC or RAS in TN?

Anybody else notice when the field marshall was introducing the full body scanners, she didn't go through it... but had a bunch of volunteers go through instead? Seems very odd doesn't it?

Because of the work that I do, I have access to a Lexis/Nexis account and to better educate myself I have been reading through TN case's involving 39-17-13xx as I've had time.... I've read through virtually all the case overviews for the last 15 years or so, and nothing jumps out at me as being anywhere on point (Yes, I know a very boring hobby to be sure) The VAST majority of 39-17-1307 cases appear to be related to... wait for it... drugs So clearly any case that mentions drugs or armed robbery I haven't read the entire case I'm not a lawyer, I'm just stating my laypersons opinion of what I know. If you're aware of a case which would be on point I'd love to hear about it

4th Amendment Hmm sure seems to be flying without having a naked picture of my body, or somebody sexually assaulting me or my wife is a god given right. Remember this is a government agent doing this, not a private company. What happens when this comes to buses, trains, and checkpoints crop up along the Interstate? We don't have a god given right to move around freely as we wish without being molested by government agents? The TSA has been going way over the line since the day it was started, it's nice to see the American people waking up to it... BTW, the totaly number of terrorists or terrorists attacks stopped by the TSA in 10 years - 0! The number of people killed because people tried to drive instead of fly to avoid the TSA - ~5,000 The terrorists already won.

Place of business clearly covers people other than the owner of said business.... It has for years before there even was a HCP for people to get... And for the record, here is a legal definition: You'll note no where in 39-17-1308a is ownership required... I'm not aware any case where an employee approved by the owner has been charged with firearms possession under 39-17-1307... Under the assumption that this women has no criminal record, and works in a place that has been robbed on a number of occasions, it sure seems to me the Class C/A misdemeanor charge she could face even if a DA tried to charge her (And I seriously doubt this would be a violation of the law), is not worth getting beat up and/or killed while saving up the money to get a HCP. It would be best for her to get an HCP and carry everywhere she can legally... but she has permission of the owner, and GM, it appears it's her 'place of business' as commonly defined, and the place has been repeatedly robbed... have a pistol, hell carry it while at work in your desk drawer isn't probably good enough...

If only such a holster truly existed... I've bought 3 so far, all of them complete junk... including the much praised crossbreed supertuck, CTAC from Comp-Tac, and a Blackhawk... the most uncomfortable holsters I've ever worn in my life.... And don't even get me started on how hard it was the draw the weapon, and completely impossible to reholster the weapon into those holsters. And none of them were truly tuckable... they always prevented me from getting my dress shirt tucked in... they weren't usable for daily wear while working. I've spent well over $200 on 'tuckable' holsters none of them I'd wish on my worse enemy... So I just finally made up my mind that comfort was a lot more important to me than concealment... So I switched to a SEPRA for $35 and stopped worrying about what other people thought... If I can I'll wear something to cover the weapon, if I can't... better to be armed than not armed.

It is possible to design a harden voting system that would be virtually impossible to attack, there is a open source version available for counties and states to use free of cost which has been audited by some of the best security researchers in the country. Most of the current systems are designed on Windows (the same as what you use on your home pc, or mobile phone), and as such as fairly easy to attack. Also, while it's impossible to prove there are telltale signs of ongoing electronic voter fraud there are some very interesting papers on the subject, if you want I'll try and find some links...

This type of fraud doesn't add votes... it changes your vote as you cast it... so on the screen it looks like you voted for candidate Alpha, but on the report printed at the end of the night it shows a vote for candidate Bravo instead. The current 'checks' done at the polling location would not detect this type of attack.

Paper backup in the sense that the voter see a printed paper ballot and agrees that ballot matches what is on their screen. This doesn't violate the voters privacy in anyway shape or form... it provides a paper record that is still completely anonymous and kept like current paper ballots today. I'm not suggesting a receipt that they take home, only that a paper track record to compare to the computer results. Voting has never been based on faith before... That is why we have poll watchers to try and prevent voter fraud... We've gotten pretty good at preventing fraud in most areas (still having issues with felons and dead people) but that isn't fraud at the ballot box as much as fraud in the voter rolls. You're adding the ability to conduct massive and impossible to track voter fraud at the ballot box with electronic voting machines. This type of fraud isn't a theory it's been tested the machines are fairly easy to attack, and any election worker would have enough access to infect the machines.

Have you moved over to electronic voting machines yet? You'd never have a clue if there was voter fraud going on if you're using those. A single poll worker, or in some cases a voter can have a large impact on the results. BTW, there are some very interesting studies showing tell tale signs of electronic voter fraud in many parts of the country in the last presidential election, but without a real time paper backup it's nearly impossible to prove.

IANAL, but the issue is those streets are public streets and not private parking lots where they post... If they posted everywhere there was a parking lot entrance where they owned the property they could post those. As a general rule if you can receive a speeding ticket the street can't be posted per 1359

Correct, but you only have to hit 70%.

I can't stress this enough... Beth Harwell as speaker would be a disaster for the 2nd Amendment cause here in TN.

FOIA is a federal law... so doesn't apply to the THP... But we do have the 'Sunshine Law' here in TN and it does apply to the THP and they will honor requests for public records. And the police report if there is one from this case should be a public record now.

The real question is why you need to take a class to go and hunt? Or to carry a firearm... Exactly how many people fail hunters education class, or their carry permit class? How much money could we be saving the tax payers (for not charging them for classes they don't need)... if we got away from these silly requirements. Sure there are people who probably aren't safe to have a gun both for hunting or self defense, but is the current class requirement stopping any of them?

IANAL but unless it references 39-17-1359 or has a gun buster sign it's not a legal posting.

He is just 1 of the 2 cases I'm aware of... and I agree he hasn't been represented well in this matter If TDOS can revoke a permit for life over acting like a fool in public but not breaking any law, they surely can do it for a violation of 1351-1360 both are covered under the same section of the law and there are no limits placed on TDOS in using 1352a (except if they become aware of a violation they shall revoke or suspend). 1352a leave sole discretion in the hands of a TDOS staff attorney, on whether to revoke or suspend, and while you could appeal any ruling to a judge, it would require a lot of time and money to do so, and frankly IMHO administrative judges are in the pocket of TDOS virtually every ruling in front of one is ruled in favor of TDOS. As far as being convicted: You'll note that it doesn't limit the revoking or suspension to just convictions... any 'sufficient evidence' is enough to revoke your permit. IANAL but I'm willing to bet that a simple letter along with a police report from a local PD claiming you carried past a sign would be enough for TDOS to revoke/suspend.TDOS has way too much power under 1352a, and that is a law that needs to be fixed, before it gets used on somebody other than the person who shall not be named.

Or it could be revoked for life... and it's not a judge who decides which or for how long, it's a staff attorney at TDOS from the documents released in a certain case which shall remain unnamed While there doesn't appear to be any case law, there are 2 reported incidents of TDOS using 39-17-1352a in both cases even though a6 wasn't violated the suspensions appear to have no time limit. I for sure don't think it's right that a government employee can decided to revoke my permit for life, but if I'm carrying illegally I can apply the next day (after my legal issues are worked out) for a permit and not be denied by TDOS.

$500 is cheap compared to TDOS revoking your permit if you're caught and charged for carrying past a sign... which they are currently required to do under the state law.. oh yeah and if they want it appears they can ban you for life from having a HCP. TN firearms law is totally messed up when somebody who is illegally carrying a pistol is at less risk than those who receive a permit.