macville

Not sure how much I believe that chart. Earlier this year my score was over 800. I sold my house April 1st and cashed out almost $70k in equity. Paid off my car loan and am totally debt free right now. So of course may 1st my score goes down 15 points. It's creeped up some, but still under 800. The way they figure things is moronic. Someone like myself, who is responsible, gets dinged because they do responsible things like paying off loans in full. And we wonder why our economy is in the crapper.

  It wouldn't be a federal carry permit, it would be that all states have to honor your carry permit. It's not the full right to bear arms, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

So an opinion has been asked for of the AG about the Childhowee Park situation. But hey, Knoxville has ignored the last opinion, so why wouldn't they ignore this opinion. It does bring up a good question about suing and would public money be used to defend a lawsuit.   https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2426471-chilhowee-park-rep-eddie-smith-ag-request-1.html

  My friend said that it's not what he says, but how he says it and his general actions . One Rep he mentioned was Andy Holt, who is EXTREMELY  pro-gun. The way John treated Andy over the survey last year, in my opinion, did not win us any friends in Nashville. You can speak the truth without being a total jerk.   Again, if we are not willing to take things to court, we are not going to be taken seriously. The Mayor of Knoxville is proving that right now.

  Your thought process is logical, but not political. Since the courts seems to be more political than logical, we will continue to see carry permits restricted.

  Well, according to a friend who helps lobby in Nashville, John Harris at TFA has really pissed off even some of the most staunch gun rights lawmakers, so it's become even more of a battle to get stuff pushed through. I want to put my money where  my mouth is, but I no longer feel that TFA is the best way to do that:( Honestly though, what is the point of getting stuff like the parks law passed and having local government ignore the law? If we don't start suing when they ignore the law, then they will continue to violate the law because they know there will be no consequences. I wonder if removing immunity from government officials would help in any way. Why should the tax payers pay out for lawsuits when the officials decide they don't have to follow the law. I am personally responsible in my job for my decisions, why aren't they?

  What do you think is unclear about the law? The AG, who is only semi-conservative and doesn't seem to be very gun friendly, said in his opinion that, "The language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 in both its prior version and as amended by Chapter 250 is clear and unambiguous."   I don't think this is about being unclear, I believe this is willful disregard of the law by the City Attorney and Mayor. Honestly, I think they are just gambling that no one will sue, and if they do, it will take forever in court. The one thing to notice is that they always avoided using the word "recreation" when talking about the park. It was always, "it's not a park, it's an entertainment, civic, and public assembly facility." They were focusing on one thing trying run one pass the citizens. Really they were trying to avoid "recreation" like the plague because the park is quite clearly a recreational facility. I mean, when was the last time that something was entertainment but recreation? (Hint: never.) Old Merriam-Webster defines recreation as, "something people do to relax or have fun : activities done for enjoyment" If Chilhowee is not a place that hosts events that people do to relax or have fun, then what the crap is the fair then???? Let alone all the other recreational events they host.

  Wouldn't the fact that it's a recreational event in a recreational facility apply???? Yeah, you are making way too much simple logic for those people.

  That's a great find. Thanks for posting that. It really could be argued by that logic that permits are unconstitutional since plenty of other states have shown that the permit system doesn't reduce or prevent crime.

Man, it just gets dumber and dumber. Any way to add Haslam somehow into a lawsuit? Isn't he supposed to enforce state law?    Gov. agrees with Mayor Rogero: no guns at fair NASHVILLE — Gov. Bill Haslam said Friday he agrees with the city of Knoxville’s decision to ban all guns…       

  You mean not just park property? The law currently says all recreational property. It's a pretty thin excuse by the city saying that Chilhowee park is not recreational property. Every definition of the word I can find would include Chilhowee. So nothing will happen without a lawsuit.

  What I am trying to find out is if to having sanding for a lawsuit someone would have to go down there and get turned away? I believe so (which I think is stupid), but wanted to see first.

  I agree. But I don't think there are enough people around here that will open carry and do something like that. I would totally if there are 100, but if you had 15 or under, I think the City would take the chance. But you never know. They may just be playing a weak bluff. I do know that you'd want a lawyer with you and a few unarmed people videoing the entire encounter at the same time. So can the AG go after someone like the mayor or the City for restricting peoples rights and now following state law? Surely he can, right?

  The only problem is that section H1 says, "while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality, or instrumentality of the state, a county, or municipality;" Honestly, I believe it was meant to qualify all the things listed in Section A of 39-17-1311 as a "park" and even the AG agrees (shockingly) with me, and multiple times at that.   http://attorneygeneral.tn.gov/op/2015/op15-063.pdf   I hadn't read the AG's full opinion before, but it's rather interesting and frankly, quite clear. Simply put in the AG's own words, "By its terms, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 applies “in or on the grounds of any public park, playground or civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.”   I do not know how it can be any clearer. I understand that the AG opinion doesn't have any legal power, but I am kinda shocked that they would go so boldly against a very clear recent opinion. Of course, they say it's a "public assembly, entertainment and education venue used for civic events" Maybe my degree in communications makes me stupid, but wouldn't, at the very least, a property that is used for civic events is a civic center??? Let alone that the front page of the Chilhowee website lists these recreational events "Bike Rallies * Fairs * Festivals Concerts * Animal Events * Car Shows * Sporting Events * Tractor Pulls" I think they are grasping a straws hoping that no one will sue them.

BTW, this is what the KNS article updated to say from our wonderful city mayor:   "City-owned Chilhowee Park, despite its name, is not a park but “a public assembly, entertainment and education venue used for civic events and by contractors for special events,” the mayor said in a statement. “Chilhowee Park is not managed as a city of Knoxville park by the Parks and Recreation Department, nor does it function as a park or recreation facility.”   That's a huge load of BS. And honestly, it won't change until someone sues them.

Oh Shoot, I think the question I am asking is, where in the constitution does it specify that they can pass on power that's been vested in in them? I can't find anything that clearly authorizes anything like that.

  I don't believe that's how it works. For them to be able to pass that power on, it has to be spelled out that they can pass such power on. The exact wording is, "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." It seems pretty clear that only the legislature has the power.  Notice the wording of Section 26 HAS to authorize the legislature to have such power to restrict carry. The constitution tells the legislature only what it is allowed do, not the other way around like laws do (everything is legal except what's defined as illegal.) Even searching through the constitution, I can not find anything that authorizes the state to pass on any powers that the constitution has given only to the Legislature. If you can find something, please point it out to me.   The other problem is that it says it has to be "with a view to prevent crime." That sets, while vague, some kind of standard. How is that supposed to be controlled constitutionally if any local government can enact a carry law? What's the accountability for such a law to be "with a view to prevent crime"?

  Uhh, I missed the section in our Constitution that allows them to pass the power that's vested in them on to local government. Would love to see where that's listed.

  Plus,  the TN Constitution doesn't say anything about local gov having the power to restrict carry, only the legislature, and only with a view to prevent crime. Of course, judges don't seem to care what our state or federal constitution actually says...

  Ding ding ding. We have a winner! Yes, their texting is JUST as dangerous as anyone else's texting. Unless I am unaware of training they receive to somehow drive safely while texting, it needs to stop. They are literally above the law. It needs to change during this next session. 

I've got Natives, which are another brand owned by Costa. I had trouble with their N3 technology delaminating and they replaced them after two years for free since I had to replace the lenses twice. I now how just their polycarb glasses and love them. I don't think I will have the same issue since these are not laminated lenses.

  I find that confusing in this day and age of technology. If someone calls in a report, they are using a phone. Since there are very little pay phones anymore, most likely a call is going to come in from a cell phone. So why is it so hard to trace the number for a call? Even if a call comes in as "unlisted", the number of the phone is in a record that can be gotten by the cops. So unless people are doing these calls on burner phones, it seems like it would be fairly easy to figure out who's phone it is. Plus, the majority of people it seems to be pushed towards are middle class liberals and I doubt they have burner phones or other methods of avoiding detection. 

  But who are "the people"? Does people mean citizens? Anyone here legally? Anyone period? Seems like reading of the entire constitution it would imply more to at least here legally.

  Actually, the constitution doesn't say non citizens can't vote ("reserved" as you say.) It only states that a citizen can't be denied that right.   The key here is the 14th amendment and I can't find anything in it that gives any other rights other than, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice that it also only says "state" and nothing about federal government. It's written with very interesting language considering it's talking about states treating people equal. There's also the consideration that "illegal immigration" in the late 1700's was really unheard of because there was no immigration control, at least that I can find. I am not sure there can be a clear picture taken of if the men who wrote the 14th amendment meant for it to apply to only people here legally (which is why they didn't use the word "citizen") or if they truly meant for absolutely everyone here. I think even illegal aliens should get some protections, but only with regards to treatment with arrest and court hearings. What gets me is why this even went to court. If they caught an illegal alien, why wouldn't that take precedent over this?

  Yeah, it's nothing like what you see in movies and TV with blood popping out the front and what not.