JayC

So two wrongs make a right? I've never seen students prohibited from praying on their own in school, or prohibited from bringing a bible to school... I will admit there are some court cases which upset my stomach on this subject... Cases where the court has prohibited students saying a pray at a graduation ceremony... but since the student in all cases was acting in some quasi official capacity... (Delivering a speech, trying to pray over a loud speaker, etc). I can understand how some might view that as endorsing a religion, I don't fully agree... As long as I have the choice to get up and leave, it's fine by me. Also, I'm not aware of a public institution where bibles and christian prayer are not allowed, but muslim prayer rooms are... can you cite 2 examples of this? There is a simple way to solve all this muslim nonsense in schools... Go to your church, find a lawyer who attends, and together file a lawsuit against the school board for endorsing the Islamic faith over Christianity with lots of zero's behind it... then offer to settle for filing fees and them dropping the Islamic studies from the course.... This is exactly what anti-religious people have been doing for the better part of 30 years and it appears to work just fine for them. Again, if you don't want the mosque built... buy the other building they need... picket and boycott any business who works with them... There are legal and constitutional ways to solve this problem. People can block this mosque without the governments help... Government (all levels) have no business in regulating religious practice and worship in any way shape or form... Encouraging them to do so is going to be the long slow death of the Christian faith in this country. And for the record... standing on principals is not a kwik argument... it's called being faithful to my beliefs. I don't want somebody telling me where I can and can't build a church... so why should I have the ability to force my beliefs on somebody else. And then be surprised when the same is done to me down the road.

So the government should stop all things which aren't prudent? I'm not a fan of Islam, but trust me, if people stop this mosque from being built, the same line of thought will be used against Christians in the not so distance future. This is the problem with a large chunk of the Religious right and Americans in general, they can't see the bigger picture... they are so blinded by outage but can't see that by getting rid of this mosque they only empower the Government to do the same to their own religious institutions in the future. There are plenty of legal and constitutional ways to block this mosque from going in... Don't do business with anybody who builds it... if 60+% (as some polls show) don't want the mosque built... make a website that details EVERY business who touches the mosque site and stop buying products and services from them. There is a second building which needs to be purchased... put together a group, raise donations to save the building from being turned into a mosque and offer to pay more money for the building... $1 from every American who is against the mosque will give you plenty of buying power. Then donate the building, or create a historical site... There is no need to demand that the Government fix this... If you don't want the mosque built do something yourself.

While state parks are open to carry, they're not open to shoot on unless it's an approved range. Finding access to a range shouldn't be all that hard, any government range which was built in part from federal tax dollars is open to all citizens.

6.8 AR, I'm in total agreement, it's clearly covered by the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion (or freedom to criticize somebody else's religion). Problem is that it will take a lawsuit to get the ads run, 4 years from now, and the government employees who deny this gentleman his civil rights won't get in any trouble.... just the tax payers.

They've been on for well over a month now.. I've been recording them every Saturday morning for the last month.

Sounds like you need to find somebody with a last name starting in A, B, C, or D that is pro 2nd Amendment and place them on the ballot. BTW, the comment about 'qualified' council members... really think about what they are saying there and see if that sits right with you... What person over 25 years of age isn't qualified?

Vote the bums out... Find somebody running against them that does support the 2nd Amendment and spend a weekend volunteering for their election... In small towns it doesn't take switching many votes to change the face of the council. Most elections like that are decided by less than 300 votes.

Depending on how long ago that chat was, search warrants may well have still be required... It's a fairly recent turn of events... thank the war on drugs I don't have anything illegal in my underwear drawer... but I still wouldn't want anybody other than my wife going through that drawer

No, they must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed. It's a fairly common tactic that officers will ask for permission to search in hopes that you'll agree thereby making sure the search in admissible... but when you deny the search they go ahead with it anyhow under RAS. The downside to a RAS search is the search may get thrown out... but that isn't much of a downside... This is another example of how our god given rights once protected have been eroded by the Government. Use to be you did need a search warrant to search any vehicle or house, now that is not the case.

If he can hold you to wait for a K9 unit, he should be able to legally search the vehicle without your permission. If they hold you longer than the time it takes to conduct the traffic stop as a pretense to wait for a K9 unit to show up, it's very likely any evidence found would be ruled in admissible per current TN case law.

I'll agree the AZ state law is worded in such a way to give you the warm and cozy feeling... but it's basically a show ID law at it's roots... Here is exactly how it can be a problem... Lets say you're riding in a buddy's car and he is pulled over for speeding. (Now keep in mind you're a passenger in AZ so you aren't required to have any form of ID on you, not even for the concealed firearm you're carrying legally) The officer under the AZ law can request to see YOUR papers, if he believes you might be in the country illegally. Even though you have nothing to do with the traffic stop, the contact is covered under the AZ law. Now you don't have ID... and get a free ride to jail while you're immigration status is verified... Nahh no chance any citizens rights can be trampled here. The above situation would be 100% legal under the passed AZ law. So yes you can have your rights trampled as a citizen under this law. Now, do not get me wrong, we have a major problem with illegal immigration in this country... and I'm not some bed wetting liberal that doesn't want it to be stopped. The federal government is failing to protect us, one of the few power they're granted under the Constitution seems to be the one they can't manage to even do right. But, we can solve this problem without having to resort to laws that could further trample citizens rights. How about a law that requires every law enforcement agency in AZ to sign up for the 287g program? How about a law that requires every officer who has been on the job more than 2 years to be certified in that program? How about making the identity theft laws in the state harsher, and providing funding to clamp down on identity theft? There are 3 laws which don't impact citizens one bit, and would result in more illegal immigrants being deported than the current passed AZ law. Trust me if AZ, TN or any other state wanted to solve the problem, they can do so without passing any laws that would further impact citizens and legal immigrants. They're just not being creative enough.

The 287g program has been around since late 1996... There are 2 law enforcement agencies in TN who have signed up for that program... Davidson County Sheriff Office in Feb of 2007, and TDOS in Aug of 2008. Now how exactly is it that we only have 2 law enforcement agencies signed up for this program out of 150-200+ agencies in the state? Are local departments calling TDOS to come pick up known illegal immigrants and TDOS is refusing? Or is it that those local departments just don't bother to call? I know we've detained and arrested illegal immigrants in TN and then turned them loose (look at the repeat DUI offenders who ended up killing people in this state).... I'm not saying that individual police officers are themselves to blame for this situation, this problem is a political and departmental problem - Senior leaders in these departments are turning a blind eye to the immigration problem and the criminal behavior it spawns. And while we're on criminal behavior... while police officers in general can't enforce immigration law... they can enforce state law, and virtually every illegal immigrant working in this state has violated our identify theft laws, which are state laws and people can't be detained and arrested for... Which we can enforce today without changing state or federal law one bit. So yeah, I think there is a lot more the law enforcement community could do today without the need for more laws which further impact citizens.

States have a lot more power than they're willing to admit to... Ignoring a judge's order is only the start of things a legislature could do to foul up the system... Think bigger... For example, where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to claim land? What are the limitations on that power (military bases and post offices)...

Worried, I'm generally on your side on these things... but I think you missed an important part of the bill of rights.. The 2nd Amendment: The 10th Amendment: The 2nd Amendment is a right protected for the people... NOT the states... The 10th Amendment clearly states that rights protected 'to the people' limits the ability of both the federal and state governments to infringe on those rights. Dave is correct, the state currently does NOT recognize our rights protected under the 2nd amendment (nor under the TN constitution). If you're argument was true, then explain to me how TICS is constitutional? We have a god given right to keep and bear arms, or to use more common language to own and carry arms.... Just because the government we currently live under doesn't correctly reconize that right doesn't mean we don't have it. The truth is what the government (both federal and state) does to us as citizens is far worse than what England did to the colonies before the revolutionary war IMHO.

I and you should be free to not require ID to move around the country, it's called privacy and I personally like having the ability to move around without the government knowing my where abouts... How is it foolish to not carry ID (other than because we're required to because of a HCP because I don't go anywhere unarmed)? Having the ID on you don't solve a single one of the problems you described... I make sure the people who love me know where I'm at, what I'm doing, and when I'll be home already, and having a bit of plastic in my wallet with my face on it doesn't change that fact... what happens to you if your wallet is lost of stolen? Having ID on you is not a responsibility issue at all. Allowing a police officer to come up to you and ask for an ID with no probable cause or reasonable suspension that you're violating the law is a violation of your liberty. And what exactly do you get for your trouble? The police in TN today knowingly let illegal immigrants go without holding them for deportation... We KNOWINGLY provide a free education, and free non-emergency health care to illegal immigrants in this state... We are happy as a state to continue to allow illegal immigrants to commit felony identity theft in order to get a job, and/or other government services... We don't need a new show ID law to get illegals to leave TN... We can solve this problem without having to trample on citizens rights further.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin. Again, there are other better ways to solve the problem that don't require that we give up liberty and have to turn this country into a complete police state where you must carry papers everywhere you go. And honestly if the government didn't require a carry permit, I'd be without ID a lot of the time.

I think his issue is with the "Papers please" impact such a law can have on regular citizens. Who could be subject to detainment if they don't have the correct documentation on them. I'm all for solving the immigration problem in this country, but there are much simpler methods to solve it without requiring all citizens to carry around papers. We currently don't have a stop and id law in this state for a reason... This law would change that. (And that is not a good thing)

I'm concerned about the next Dictator... errr.. President more so than I am about the current one. This country is just as bad now if not worse than the US during the late 60's... Then it was teenagers and college aged adults willing to riot in the streets... now we have housewives and regular citizens who are marching in the streets (tea party). The current situation is a powder keg that wouldn't take much to set off. Also, keep in mind that many of us are labeled possible terrorists by our own government.... So yeah I can see situations cropping up "emergencies" that would require the "federal" government to send troops in. BTW, all it would take is for 1 state to say no more to the federal government over some key issue and they'd try and arrest the Governor of that state... for example if the Governor of AZ stated we're going to check ID's anyhow, no matter what the federal judge says... Or the Governor of MT arresting an ATF agent over their Firearms Freedom Act for kidnapping... Trust me the current mood in the country is just as bad as the late 60's... if not worse IMHO.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf It appears as if carry inside a restaurant is legal, but carry inside a bar or the bar area of a restaurant is not.

It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility if the Federal government does send troops... Remember what happened in the deep south during the 50's and 60's.

Center of mass is defined in the document below, along with why the "traditional" center of mass is not a perfect target... The entire goal behind shooting center of mass is to stop the attacker by causing serious damage to vital organs, as you can see the vital organs are only in the upper half of the traditional COM zone. Terminal Ballistics My recommendation is to train focusing fire on the upper part of COM (between the armpits) which will lead to better stopping than hits in the lower half of the traditional COM. (Truth be told any hit inside the COM is better than a complete miss... but I believe hits in the upper chest will tend to be more effective since those hits will be to the lungs and/or heart, while kidney's, liver, etc in the lower half may very well kill you, won't stop you as quickly.)

Not to side with the Brady Campaign.... I can't stand them anymore than you do... BUT, it's true that in TN minors may own handguns, and in limited cases carry loaded firearms including handguns without supervision. I'd suggest you read 39-17-1319 for the details... So in this case, I hate to say it the Brady Campaign is telling the truth... but context matters and they fail to put this bit of information in the proper context, generally minors can't carry loaded firearms, but in a handful of situations they are allowed to with their parents permission while doing certain activities.

Can you show me where it says that in the law? Last time I checked, at least here in TN the standard for when somebody can legally use deadly force (or serious bodily harm) are pretty much the same for citizens and LEO's. There are a couple of cases where LEO's can use it and civilians can't, but none of those exceptions involve a leveling of training requirement. Maybe US territories have different laws, but I find it unlikely that the law dictates that you must resolve a threat of serious bodily injury differently depending on your level of training. Either the mag light posed a serious threat or it didn't, you ability to try and fight the person in hand to hand combat doesn't make a difference under the law.

Yes, it's illegal to pull into most ports with any weapons on board, including many if not most US ports.

Sure, what amendment protects my right to own and drive a car? While McDonald (and Heller) don't address the bear part of the 2nd amendment (Palmer v DC will), the $115 is probably unconstitutional under our own TN Constitution, which limits the legislature to regulating the wearing of firearms only to prevent crime. My guess is once the dust settles over the next 3 to 4 years (maybe sooner) we'll see HCP's become a right not a privilege. The only reason it's called a privilege now is because some groups wanted to be able to restrict that privilege if you fall behind on child support payments under TN law. Those restrictions are almost for sure unconstitutional under TN and the federal Constitutions but we'll have to wait for the next case. Also another reason TN's HCP fee is probably unconstitutional (and this also applies to Chicago's new law) is the level of fee's are more than the administration cost of registration. As a general rule it's against the law for rights to be taxed... For example SCOTUS recently heard a case where door to door salesmen were required to register with the city and pay a $15 a year license to sell door to door, the court ruled this unconsitutional because it placed a tax on the right of free speech. It's very likely that TN can require a HCP (shouldn't be allowed but it's unlikely the courts will overturn the entire program), but the cost of the program will likely be found to be too high and therefore unconstitutional (Since the current program is making a profit!). The real mind bender is under our state Constitution... how is the TN background check and $10 fee legal?