macville

  Would be good to look at other states that have constitutional carry and show that it doesn't increase crime.

  You still didn't answer my question. HOW does preventing permit holders prevent crime? That is the standard that the view would have to meet. No one I have found has given a "how" and this is what should be pushed in a legal sense. In fact, when you read article about places that use 1359 to ban, they NEVER mention crime. The reason is always, "we don't like guns" or "we are afraid a gun will accidentally go off." Those reasons don't mind the standard of preventing CRIME. 1359 was written with a view of property rights, but certainly not crime. You also have to remember that in a court case today, it's easily provable with TN DOS's own stats on permit holder that the laws don't stop crime and that permit holders are not the ones committing crimes.   I find it funny that in that court ruling the court contradicted itself (which is not at all surprising though.) It held that there is a high standard with a view to prevent crime and then totally ignored that and said the legislature can do whatever it wants. I will read the entire ruling though to make sure I get the proper context.

  You honestly have no clue what you are talking about. It wouldn't go to the US Supreme court because it's state Constitution issue. The max court would be the TN Supreme Court, unless there was some crazy standing that a lawyer came up with (though, I would argue that the 2d amendment should overrule the state constitution since other rights in the bill of rights have been incorporated.)   So let me challenge you with the same question I ask everyone who I talk with about our state gun laws. How does 1359 prevent crime? How does allowing local government to restrict carry prevent crime? Because even if the constitution allowed for local control, the laws would still have to be "with a view to prevent crime." So how does allowing local governments and business in general post with a legally enforceable sign against permit holders prevents crime?   The only reason 1359 is still standing is because no one has come up with the money to sue over it. There are a crap load of laws like this that are totally unconstitutional, but stand because people don't have a crap load of money to go through the system to prove them unconstitutional.

  What are you talking about? Are you talking about 1359 posting law? If so, you are assuming that 1359 is constitutional, but if you look at the language you see that it's not at all. Remember, just because a law is passed doesn't make it Constitutional. The only reason 1359 is still standing is that no one has sued about it.

  Again what part of "but the Legislature shall have power" do you not understand? For local government to have any power it would have to say something other than, "the Legislature."

One, from a English perspective it doesn't have to. The way its worded it means only the state can restrict carry. Second, 1359 is unconstiututional for two reasons. One, because only the state is supposed to have the power to restrict carry. Second, if the restrict carry it has to be with a view to prevent crime. I have yet to have anyone give me a even remotely good example or reason on how it prevents crime.

  My dad used to work at West High School which is right next to where this happened and even from the early 80's that greenway was dangerous. The sad part is I believe there have been multiple murders on the same section. I know from sure there have always been a ton of drug/break in crime at the parking lot.

West Knox here.

Let me put the VA Inspection in perspective of how stupid it is and how they don't follow their own rules. The section that talks about lead based paint talks about, well, lead based paint for houses built before 1978. Our house we just sold had an addition built in 1989, yet we were told we had to scrape and repaint that section also because it's a "defective surface condition." The inspector said any chipping paint, even post 1978 that had to be fixed-even though the rules he cited ONLY talked about defective paint if it was pre 1978 because of lead based paint (the heading was even "Lead base paint defective") and nothing says anything about chipping paint post 1978.  Mind you, the wood siding had holes in it where the wood had rotted through, but that wasn't an issue for the inspector, just flaking paint from 1989... It was stupid beyond belief.   All it did was cost the buyer a lot more money to have a bandaid put on the problem instead of actually having it fixed properly.

  I just sold a house that was a VA Loan. Even though I put in the ad, needs paint jobs and other work, the agent still showed it to the client even though they should have known from the ad that it was not the right house for a VA Loan. A month and half later, and after major headaches with the VA inspector (an independent inspector, not actual gov employee) who doesn't under their regulations we finally got the house sold. If it's an older then 1978, just ignore any offer that is a VA Loan because it's not worth your time and effort to bring it up to the FHA/VA code required (or any house that is a fixer upper.)

I vote we start calling cities like Nashville, Memphis, Farragut, Chattanooga who posted and offer a work detail to come take down their signs for them:)

By far my favorite place to shop for sports stuff. On ammo prices they are 95% as cheap as Wal-Mart, plus they normally have a better stock (or ammo actually IN stock.)

  From past experience, it happens when it's signed. Since there was nothing in the final signed bill that had an effective date, the second Haslam's pen finished, it was legal.

  The second he signed it yesterday you were good to go.

  Yes, but are libraries considered "recreation"?

  Well, it was certainly pretty obvious from the KPD Chief's testimony in Nashville. I've seen random comments from the Mayor in a few articles that I can not find right now. Here's another question... would a library fall under this law? I haven't seen anything in the text that would make me think (unless it was in a park), but I don't know how they are classified. 

  Quotes that I saw from both showed that they had no clue about preemption law from last year. But why does that not surprise me...

Saw this in a "news" article tonight: "Gov. Bill Haslam said Thursday he will announce by the end of this week whether he will veto the guns-in-parks bill or let it become law."

  Although, they (Mayor right down to the police chief) are totally clueless that it's currently not illegal to carry in a City of Knoxville park.

What's surprising is that Thomas was one of the dissenting 3. His argument using the majority's argument was poor at best. Very surprising considering his other writing.

  I actually don't think they do. I think they actually get paid extra for the time over. Wasn't there a stink a few years ago when the republicans came into power that the Dems were running the sessions long because they still got money for the extra days?

  It's amazing how school kids somehow magically override our rights to bear arms... I honestly think there would be a great lawsuit if you were in a park and school kids showed up. But you'd have to document it somehow.

Did anyone see if the Glock booth was running a G41 Tactical video where special ops drive and get ready to take down an airplane at night?

  There, I fixed it for you.   Kinda shocked Haslam signed the "anti-business bill" But why am I surprised? The man has no principles and certainly no understanding of our Constitution.

  I believe it actually goes to the senate first and they have the option to strip their amendment and pass the bill, or keep it and then it goes to committee.