macville

  That's not entirely accurate. We don't allow non-citizens to vote, so obviously not all the rights are "human rights." So the constitution is not fully applied even to a lot of people who are here legally.    The problem is that those "certain people in our society" are actually criminals. We don't trust criminals with guns here, so why should we trust those criminals with guns? I understand where you are coming from with your argument, but the fact that they broke our, I believe justified, immigration laws, shows lack of good judgement.

  Americans have bought into a lie that we can live free and totally safe. Freedom isn't safe, but living under a totalitarian isn't either. There is no way to actually live totally safe. There is always something out there that is unsafe (other people, weather, poor engineering, sickness, etc.) Our problem is that people want no risk and total freedom. Ain't gonna happen.

$45 here (http://www.frontierfirearms.us/#!carry-permit-class-deals-and-specials/cxqg) which is about 1/2 of what I paid in 2008 and that was a steal at the time.   Still not sure how the state can get away with requiring a paid, private class for a right. Seems like at worse case it should be like hunter safety and offer free classes by the state.

Guy passed a background check, so obviously the solution to stop this is....background checks!!!! These people say they want discussions about how to stop this stuff, but all their solutions are already what's not worked. Let me put it simply, these people are morons and are only thinking with feelings ("we've got to DO SOMETHING"), not with any kind of logic.

Seems like for the rotating holder you could probably have a machine shop make one for you for much less than $1,000. It's not exactly a complex design. Then, when they have it designed they can make and sell more to the rest of us:)

  Somehow I don't think that would hold up in court because it's not any more of a reason than, "because". "Reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection..." is the key here and simply not knowing someone is not a good enough reason. They should be able to articulate behavior that is erratic, dangerous, or criminal to meet that standard.

  This. An officer should be able to articulate at the time of disarming why he "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals." If he can not do that at the time, and I believe they should have to give a reason when they do so, then it's just based on feelings and that's not right. I think it's as much protection for the officer as the person because it would help keep them out of trouble if they can give a valid reason when they temporality suspend someone's rights.

Yet, these four men were not caught looting or causing other damage....interesting. Seems like there were there peacefully armed and it stayed that way. If the people of the community don't like the laws, then change them, but they were doing nothing illegal. Of course, if the people of that community focused on the fact that their little "angels" are't, the community would be in better shape.

I am pretty simple. I do 1 1/2 oz Tequila, 1/2 of triple sec (though, I have been drinking midori margritas all summer since I wanted to finish the bottle) and 3 oz of sweet and sour mix. It's good enough for me most of the time, but fresh lime with sugar is always better.   The cheapest, decent mixable tequila I've found is Agavales Gold. It says it's 100% agave and it sure tastes a heap better than even some more pricy stuff. Though, the best stuff I've tasted was $10 liter in mexico ten years ago and that was the cheap stuff!

  Okay, i get what you are saying now and I agree. The odd thing to me is that operating a vehicle without a license on a public road is a crime, but the 4th amendment protects checking for that. Not sure why it doesn't protect the same for carrying a gun since it's actually a right written into the constitution. Oh wait, I forgot, the constitution wasn't meant to be applied consistently across all things and and citizens...   Here's some interesting info. Reading 39-17-1308, it was written totally ignoring the constitution. Our constitution states, "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Maybe I am missing it, but I can't find anything in there that says the state can regulate the possession (keeping) of arms. Any part of 39-17- that restricts possession is very plainly unconstitutional. I also don't see where they can make all carrying illegal, just parts that can prevent crime. I think this next session would be a great time to address simple wording that would actually change quite a bit on how the law is addressed with regards to weapons. Changing the wording would go far more under the radar than big public bills like parks carry.   What's even stranger, and why the entire section needs to be re-written, is 39-17-1307e, "(e)  (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person is carrying or possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition in a motor vehicle if the person:..." Notice the word, "exception" there. It would appear the only place that it's NOT illegal, because it's an exception and not a defense, is to possess a weapon in your vehicle. 1308 would not need to apply because it's already an exception. Am I reading that wrong?

  Place "open to the public" normally means businesses and such. But honestly, who really knows. Vagueness is the name of the game when it comes to laws. It's stupid and just entraps people.

  The law is interesting here. If you are on a public area (street, etc.) it would be a class C, if it's a "place open to the public" it's class A. Our laws are mind numbingly stupid, but what to expect from lawyers writing laws.     (2)  (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).       (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.       (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present.

  Huh? Operating a motor vehicle on a public road without a license is a Class C misdemeanor. Just like a carry permit, a drivers license is a defense to that crime. So explain to me again how they are different? Anyone driving a car in a public right might be breaking the law, but how is a cop supposed to know?

  Here is something I don't understand. Why can an officer stop someone if they see a firearm, but can not stop someone to see if their license is valid? It's illegal to both drive without a license and to carry without a permit (outside your car) and they are even both Class C misdemeanors. Yet, why is one protected by the 4th amendment and the other is not? Why can't a cop stop anyone that's driving just to see if they have a valid license? It's illegal to drive without a license, so everyone who is driving could be doing so illegally. It makes absolutely no sense.

  Strange, my wife at home with u-verse internet have full service. I even skyped her fine because I couldn't make a regular phone call on Cricket.

I don't think most of the politicians from certain parts of cities in TN even are aware that we have a state constitution that doesn't allow the state or local government to ban the wearing of arms unless with a "view to prevent crime." The fact that the fast few years have proven banning guns in parks (see parks that allow carry vs parks that banned) proved that banning carry doesn't make a lick of difference in stopping gun crime in parks.

Pisses me off that one of the soldiers had time to send his girlfriend a text that said, "ACTIVE SHOOTER." If you have enough time to send a text message, you have more than enough time to pull a gun and return fire. Sick of our government forcing the military AND civilians to be sitting ducks.

  Let me tell you a story about that. Our home alarm system has a distress code that we can put in that will "turn off" the system, but report to the alarm company that we are in distress. Well, early last fall, one sunday morning while my wife and kids were getting ready for church I decided to try and change some setting in the menu. So I tried and tried entering the system code to get into the menu, but was having no luck. Very confused I finally quit and found something else to waste my time. About 10-15 minutes later, my daughters (almost 4 at the time) said, daddy, two men are at the door. Turns out the code that I thought was the system access code was actually our distress code and two Knox County Deputies were at my door. I guess I need to actually figure out what the distress code is because I can not remember what it is!

This happened about a mile from my house. When details (or lack thereof) first came out I reminded my wife she needed to carry her gun more often. Then when it came out that it was the same MO as one that happened a few months ago, I figured we were pretty good since we don't work at a bank:)

Switch from post paid Verizon to cricket and haven't looked back. Their network is native att, so it's as good as verizon for calls and data coverage. I am now paying a flat $100 month for 5 smartphones, each with unlimited talk text, and 2.5gb data (speeds reduced after you use that up.) It is the best deal or they right now.

I swear gun owners are some of the worse at eating their own. People are NOT going to get used to guns in public, or guns in general, if guns sit hidden in our safes at home (no one in history has gotten/expanded rights by saying home and being quiet.) Yes, it will scare the sheeples at first. However, it's truly amazing how fast people get used to things, and how some of the loudest people at first will quickly shut up because they are lazy about following through. Look at the "gun free dinning" org, it lasted about 6 months at best. This is also a good opportunity to help people understand that simply having a gun in public does not mean you are out to hurt people, but that what you are doing with it makes a difference. Someone who is peacefully carrying is a gun is not a threat, someone who is walking around pointing a gun or yelling they are going to kill people is.

  You know they make F150's and F250's with 4x4...just saying...

Shockingly enough, the town of Farragut has already removed their no gun signs at the entrance of their parks. Kinda surprised since they couldn't get the wording of the signs right in the first place, but happy that they did so as not to confuse anyone.

We honestly need to find the money somewhere to take this to the courts to see what might happen. We have nothing to lose since they are already restricting our rights.

  Just because it's placed in Title 39 doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's the issue in your logic. They can say that something will prevent crime, but if they can not articulate HOW it will prevent crime, it's unconstitutional. Yes, it will take a court to say that, but you and I know that it is. Heck, they could pass a law that says we can't wear silver guns. We all know that would be unconstitutional because there's no way restricting silver guns only would prevent crime. Don't accept gun control laws in TN as constitutional unless they can say, "this is how it will prevent crime." The problem with your argument is that I can't find one person who can explain how their aim or intention is going to actually prevent crime. That's why it's unconstitutional.   Ask this, how does preventing people, who have gone background checks and proven they are pretty dang law abiding, from going into a store/park/etc prevent crime? This logic fits perfectly with the 1871 case.