JayC

Sorry I agree Congress could get rid of it... But, keep in mind they couldn't even repeal the AWB for 6 years when the republicans had a solid majority in office. I should be more careful to state that the 86 ban was part of a separate act which amended the NFA.

The 1986 Amendment is an outright ban for citizen ownership. I can name a number of popular weapons used by police and military groups around the country and world which are currently banned. I think the tax is an unreasonable restriction... but the 86 ban is no different than the DC and Chicago handgun bans... The federal government refuses to register any weapon made after a certain date.... that is exactly what DC was doing with handguns. I think having to agree to allow the government to SEARCH you home or place of business as part of the NFA process is an unreasonable restriction... If SCOTUS will not enforce our god given right to keep and bear arms which is protected under the US Constitution it only leaves us 1 recourse to fix the problem.

+1 - This is the way to get standing... And there is a case you need to read out of IL United States v Rock Island Armory (1991)... Problem is it's only case law in IL, nobody pushed it up to the appeals court or SCOTUS level. The $200 tax will be very hard to get rid of... You have to prove the tax alone is infringing on your ability to purchase a firearm... The 1986 Act which bans new automatic weapons is an entirely different story since it's a complete ban on said weapons, clearly unconstitutional IMHO.

This is nothing more than a delaying action... It took 30 years for our parents and grandparents to get us into this mess... short of another revolution it will take us at least that long to get us out.

I have a dumb question then... A license from the state is required to drive a car... It's a criminal violation to drive without a license. Yet police officers must have a valid reason to pull you over and request to see your license. Yet police officers can stop and question you anytime they see you with a gun? Even though I'd argue that the % of people stopped without a valid drivers license is higher than the % of people stopped carrying a firearm in a holster not having a HCP. I think that is some shaky legal ground, it would seem to me that the officer would need something more than you carrying a firearm to have reasonable articulated suspicion for a stop. I realize that today that is not the case, I just wonder what the case law will look like in a few years time... Clearly seeing you perform an activity that is generally illegal without some reason to believe that the person being stopped is violating the law seems not to be the standard... not the other way around... I'm also going to mention that I personally have been seen in public wearing a holstered firearm, had police see me wearing the firearm and not been stopped (or even asked for my HCP). As kb4ns said, how you're dressed, where you are, and what you look like probably play a much greater role than just wearing the firearm.

wow, no refusal to allow the search is not going to result in the car being impounded... I'm going to hope you just misunderstood the officer during this stop because what you're suggesting is a major violation if true. As a general rule, if a police officers asks if they can search your car you are free to say no. And they then can't use that refusal as justification to further detain you or the vehicle. If they have PC or RAS to search the vehicle, they don't need your permission. It's my understanding that sometimes officers will ask for permission before a search even when they do have PC/RAS because if the officer ends up being wrong about the PC/RAS the search becomes voluntary and the evidence is a lot easier to get admitted to court, where as if they make a mistake on PC/RAS and you refuse the search the evidence may very well be thrown out. I'd suggest as a general rule to always refuse searches of your person, vehicle, and property... IANAL that is just my layman's opinion on the matter (but one supported but a great number of lawyers).

No the reasons we got the crappy signage law is because the legislature wouldn't just exempt all government buildings from posting. And while I haven't had to go into a state building this month (but I'll point out the capitol building is currently posted)... I often find myself having to go into city and county buildings.

They can search your car without probable cause... on the basis of mere 'reasonable suspension' they can search the car.... We tossed probable cause out the window a long time ago when it comes to searches...

I disagree, Heller and McDonald both state keep and bear is included in the right... Palmer v DC the next case (by the same attorney as McDonald) will address the bear part... I suspect SCOTUS will hear that case sometime in the next 2 years.

Other than secure areas of jails and prisons why should any state office building be off limits? We pay for those buildings, why should we not have just as much access as the next citizen to those buildings while carrying in a lawful manner? We need to hold the government to a higher standard than private businesses that is for sure.

Business may still choose to allow smoking... And frankly the restaurant smoking law is unconstitutional... and while nobody should encourage racism, parts of the Civil Rights act are clearly unconstitutional... private businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they choose. Now, if they receive 1 penny from the government they should be required to not discriminate against any group (including gun owners and carriers)... But private business should be allowed to do what they want and let the market handle it... If people would just stop giving money to businesses which don't respect us as customers... this problem would be solved. HCP holder represent nearly 10% of the adult (over 21) non-felon population in this state... what business can afford to tick off 10% of it's customer base? As Patriots, we must respect every bodies rights, even when they discriminate against us.

You're right there is largely no difference between your car and home when it comes to self defense... And if you use a firearm to defend yourself you can't be charged with possession. BUT, there is a BIG difference between car and home when it comes to legally carrying a firearm without a permit. Read 39-17-1308a, there is a defense to 39-17-1307 for "Place of residence" and "Premises"... There is no such defense to carrying in your vehicle (without a permit). So unless you've activity used the firearm in self defense (or displayed it in self defense - remember this means clearing the holster under current case law), you can be charged under 39-17-1307a for carry a loaded firearm...

There was a news article just this weekend about a guy in Cookeville having a loaded Jennings and loaded rifle in his pickup truck (along with some other stuff) non of which was on his person.... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/42197-has-anyone-read-story-going-armed.html Note the charge: There is no mention that he is a felon... So I'm betting he's been charged under 39-17-1307a... This is a very common charge for anybody found to have a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Remember even hunters must transport their hunting rifles separate from the ammunition or risk a charge under 39-17-1307a (Unless they are HCP holders). I agree the law is worded VERY poorly, and there are some cases where I'd be concerned about 39-17-1307a being used to charge/convict a non-hcp passenger in a vehicle even though the hcp was also present in the vehicle... The law as written isn't clear on this count IMHO. Trust me the more people read these crazy laws we have, the more they will realize just how poorly written they are and how many loopholes they leave open... Property carry should be extended to our privately owned vehicles.

State managed recreational areas are covered under the same law as state parks... Call the State Parks number in Nashville and ask them who manages the campgrounds, they'll know or can find out for you.

I think if you look at case law you'll see that there are lots of cases each year where somebody is prosecuted for just having a loaded handgun in the vehicle with them. Virtually all of them are charged under 39-17-1307a and b. Also the title for 39-17-1307 is "Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon" I agree the intent to go armed language is somewhat vague... probably if she didn't know the weapon was in the vehicle she might not be convicted... but otherwise having a loaded firearm in the car is going to be a violation of 39-17-1307a.

The short answer, under TN law she could be charged unless she has a valid permit. (IANAL)

I remember the case, my understanding it was a state court in another state...

I'm not sure about AL, but in TN regular speeding violations are Administrative violations not criminal... if they were criminal you'd have the choice for a jury trial (Since the fines are all over $50).

I suspect if she had refused to give the firearms to the officer he would have viewed that as violating a lawful order. I suspect the outcome would have been the exact same whether she refused to hand them over or not. I'm not saying this was a 4th amendment violation, just that when you're stopped on the side of the road and an officer asks for your firearms, it's likely that it's not a request. I'm saying that unlike access to form 4473's (which is fairly restrictive), data retained for serial number checks does not have any of those same safe guards. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy... But the result of many departments having a SOP to run the serial number of all firearms they come in contact with, would allow somebody to build a pretty darn good national "registry" in short order. (As in a good number of folks on this forum could build it with access given to your average police dispatcher) I'll chalk it up to the unforeseen results of good intentions... but the result is, it creates a gun registry which has virtually no safe guards on it.

Sorry but if you're pulled over on the side of the road, and the officer asks you to give him the firearms... it's not voluntary at that point... And the down side is that the serial numbers get tied to her name and placed in a nation wide database that does not have the same protections on it as form 4473's do.

The second case has already been filed, and I'm betting gets heard by the SCOTUS in 2012... By the same attorney in the Heller, and McDonald cases.... As for Dave's thought that states won't abide by a ruling which allows carry... All but 2 states in the union offer some form of licensed or unlicensed carry today.

I know it's a bank shot instead of a slam dunk... but if the McDonald ruling comes down as expected and the 2nd Amendment is incorporated... And the Palmer case is won... Then some form of carry would be the law of the land.

I think you're right, Monday will only change who can own firearms in Chicago, NYC and a couple of other places around the country... But as soon as the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, other cases will be filed all over the country... and those cases will really change the landscape... And yes Daley's head is going to explode on Monday midday

There are 'reasonable restrictions' on other rights... for example a law banning yelling fire in a crowded theater is a reasonable restriction to the first amendment. A law banning the use of the word fire, is not a reasonable restriction. Banning certain types of firearms is not a 'reasonable restriction'... If you can't ban handguns, you can't ban assault weapons... It may very well take another lawsuit to get rid of such AWB's but if the 2nd Amendment in incorporated it will be an earth shattering ruling... Because it will be the real start to restoring the 2nd amendment. I'll point out that there is another case working it's way to SCOTUS by the same plaintiff in the Heller case to openly carry a firearm in DC. A sucessful outcome in that case combined with a successful outcome in this case... means unlicensed open carry everywhere in the country. BTW, it is a SINGLE attorney spread heading all of these cases, Alan Gura... My bet he's going to win McDonald and this new case in Washington DC - Palmer. Plaintiff in handgun case is suing D.C. for right carry firearms in public

It would likely make the legislator regulating wearing unconstitutional.... Since no such restriction is in the 2nd Amendment.