macville

Woman Charged With Taking Gun to 9/11 Memorial Also Had Cocaine, Cops Say - DNAinfo.com Correction people. Bloomberg says it's cocaine, but we know he's rarely correct. I hope it's not since he stepped in a big pile of libel by saying that it was even though it's still alleged at the time the article was written.

Interesting. Wonder how true it is an if we will ever find out if that's true or not. That just seems odd if she was carrying an illegal substance that she would follow the law about checking a gun. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's just remember that what she did was constitutional. It's NY State and NYC that has actually committed the crime.

If you like leather sandals, find Kinos sandals. They are hand made and pretty cheap (I paid $11 for a pair in the early 2000's that I still wear.)

What's interesting is Club Fathom used to be (not sure now) a Christian music club. When I was in high school and college I went to many a concert there. Of course, the people exiting may not have been apart of either gang, just caught in the crossfire.

Read this first: http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/12/quotes-of-the-day-national-defense-authorization-act.html Why is no one freaked out by this bill? It's a HUGE step to loss of rights! I'm starting to sense that we are going to see a war with arms on american soil within my lifetime.

This surprises me about as much as seeing the dear leader out playing another round of golf.

I say crimes with firearms and other weapons, drug crimes, people with DUI's, and people who are being treated with SERIOUS mental illness would be the people who shouldn't own firearms. Felony is a catch-all, feel good thing. I would say that people who did drug/alcohol crimes long ago, and mental illness that's been cured, should have their rights restored.

I didn't include no smoking signs because those are not optional for most places. I believe the only place they are optional is if you limit your restaurant to 21 and up only...which is moronic since you can smoke at 18. What sucks is the only way to get them ruled unconstitutional is to file lawsuits and that costs lots of money. It would just be nice if people followed the constitution and stopped coming up with unconstitutional laws.

Here's the problem. The owner has the right to post any sign he wants. Many do, see the "no shoes, no shirt, no service", "no animals expect service animals", etc. But why have they suddendly been given the right to make their signs automatically have me breaking the law by walking past it? -1359 is the ONLY sign in TN which a store owner can put up that holds legal weight. If you walk past a no shoes sign with no shoes, nothing can be done legally to you until you are asked to leave and then you refuse (no trespassing signs don't count because the property isn't obviously open to the public, you have to be invited to come in.) So yes, anyone should be able to post a no guns sign. However, I should be able to walk past it without fear of criminal penalty. If asked and I refuse to leave, then trespassing charges should be the only thing I could be charged with. The other thing to consider is that -1359 is not constitutional according to our state constitution. Firearms laws can only be passed with a view to prevent crime. There is is no way that posting a store against legally carried firearms could prevent crime. The same could be said about many of our other carry laws. But what do I know? I actually think we should follow our constitution!

Glad the guy is safe and was able to stop some criminals. Would have loved to see their face when he pulled his gun! UPDATE: Attempted robbery victim pulls gun on armed suspects - WRCBtv.com | Chattanooga News, Weather & Sports

Seems hard to be a violation of the 10th, when all the bill is doing is getting us back to close to what the 2d amendment says. The states aren't supposed to have the right to restrict firearms the way that they do. Only a willful misreading of the Constitution has allowed them to. What I would hope is that the bill would get passed, and then sued for and hopefully establish that all states have to allow. Of course, even the pro-firearms judges in the SC don't seem to want to open up that can of worms--even though they know it's right.

Its a state trooper. I've seen them sitting there a ton of times because the speed limit drops there.

What are you talking about? I don't think there is a fine for posting our information.

No. It's not you. All the major newspapers in TN are. Chatt times free press is probably the least, but still.

All it's going to due is cause a lawsuit that's probably going to force CA loosen it's unconstitutional carry laws. So right now it looks like a loss, but there's a national slide downward on gun control.

Where is this sign at radnor? It's a state park so carry is legal with a permit. Is it an old sign that just wasn't updated because the law didn't require to be updated?

I just want to point out that pretty much in everything else, when people push the envelope (sex outside marriage, homosexuality, drugs, to name some big ones) that they become normal in society. Do we expect people to get comfortable with people carrying firearms if they have no clue how many people are carrying them? Is there a way for them to get comfortable without them knowing?

That's because "reasonable" has gone out the window and people only become remotely reasonable anymore if you lawyer up. It's a very sad state of affairs, but hey, this is the way the lawyers designed it through lawmaking (what, you think normal people get elected??)

I am solely going what the TN code says and doesn't say. Except when it comes to weapons, there is no law in TN that makes it automatically trespassing if you walk past a "no whatever" sign (smoking doesn't bring up a trespassing charge though, just a civil fine.) The only way you can tell someone they are not welcome automatically is to put up a no trespassing sign. Otherwise, you have the defense that consent was given, even if there is a "no shoes/no service" sign and you walk in with no shoes on. Nothing in the TN code lists anything that allows any such "no" signs to hold any force except for a "no trespassing" sign--which a no "whatever" sign does not mean "no trespassing." That is the point I am trying to get you to understand. Why should a no guns sign hold force of law when a "no shoes, no lamas, no polkadot sweaters" sign doesn't? Thank you redstategunnut for point out my word error about "liable".

Once can infer consent because the law doesn't speak (except with regards to weapons due to -1359) to consent being conditional on if you are wearing something, color of your skin, etc. The law only talks about posting no trespassing signs, nothing else. It's pretty clear in that regards. If a business is open to the public and isn't posted "no trespassing", until you are asked to leave you have a defense to trespassing. I disagree that there should be any trespassing charge for carrying past a sign. Since it's not a crime to walk past any other "no sign" in TN (except for no smoking signs due to a statewide law), it shouldn't be any sort of crime either. We need to stop looking at objects designed as weapons as something special and instead focus on people. You can make a weapon out almost anything, and many thing make pretty good weapons in a pinch. Law abiding citizens are that and we need to focus on that. If we can get that through people's thick skulls you aren't going to see any gunbuster signs because people aren't going to worry. So if a hospital is going to set the rules, then why can't they be libel for my safety? If someone comes in and shoots me when I could have defended myself, how are their actions not directly affecting me, therefore making them libel. Come on, we've got people winning lawsuits over hot coffee, why not something even more clear cut like that? The other question to ask is, are insurance companies telling businesses to post. From a few recent stories, it sounds like they may.

BTW, I still have yet to have anyone (on here or anywhere else) who's been able to explain how criminal penalties for walking past a sign, or carrying into a school/park are constitutional when you consider "with a view to prevent crime." When you have laws that require a permit to carry legally, there's no good argument, that I've heard yet, on how preventing a law abiding citizen from carrying certain places amounts to "with a view to prevent crime." I believe that this argument (using the TN constitution) is a good way to help open people's eyes to the fact that law abiding citizens are not the criminals and shouldn't be treated like them.

Sorry, you didn't say you couldn't, you just made it sound silly when it's not. Suing is the far better way to get a precedent over getting a law passed. If it is ruled constitutional, it's much harder to get around than a silly law. Plus, laws have to be constitutional (or are at least supposed to be.) If you got the law ruled constitutional, then you would have easy cases against school/park/etc carry. Instead of fighting multiple battles and gaining very little ground, you fight one big battle that doesn't hurt you if you lose and can still chip away at the small laws. Note that when I am talking about the posting law I am simply talking about the penalties. Businesses can still post whatever they want, but it wouldn't hold any weight of the law until you are asked to leave. Umm actually section A of -405 says " (a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner. Consent may be inferred in the case of property that is used for commercial activity available to the general public or in the case of other property when the owner has communicated the owner's intent that the property be open to the general public." That pretty clearly says that by opening up for public business you are allowing people to come onto your property until you tell them to leave. Read the whole section at mitchie.com and tell me where "things" can be prohibited (besides weapons.) Under current TN law, signs for things like clothing/etc can not lead to a trespassing charge unless you are asked to leave and don't. I believe the only way for signs to be trespassing enforceable are signs like, "employees only - no trespassing." You can restrict people, but not "things" Wouldn't removing the crime of walking past a sign be the accommodation between people with HCP's and business owners? (which I am one myself, BTW) Handguns will be treated just like ANY other object in this world (which they are) and business owners can still post and ask people to leave if they want. They are already force them to treat people they know can't pay their bills. What's the difference? People will say, "it's to save lives" What the crap do I carry my gun if it's not to save a life-mine or my family's? Where do their property rights trump my right to be able to protect myself and my family? I have far less of an issue in places that are posted and are secure areas (like the city/county building here in knoxville.) But all the hospitals I've visited in Knoxville are a joke when it comes to security. When my daughters were born at Park West (where the shooting happened a year ago) this past march I heard one of the guards saying to a nurse that all they would give them was a taser. Yep, still can walk through the front door carrying anything you can remotely conceal (never seen a guard at the front door, only the ER doors) and their guards only carry a taser??? IT's a joke and a half! If they are going to force me to give up my right to self defense with proper tools, then they need to provide a secure area with armed guards, because that's the only way security is remotely close to a firearm on my hip. The question it comes down to are, what's more important, humans or property? Maybe that's a little generalization, but isn't that the reason we can't shoot people over stealing things? Only if our life is threatened?

Umm, so you can't sue about an unconstitutional law? Isn't that what both our TN Supreme Court and the Federal SC deal with every day? The issue is not about suing, but having the money to sue and fight it. Here's the difference, you are talking about private property not open to the public. Therefore, there is no "given" consent that you are allowed to come onto the property. However, when you run a business open to the public, used for commercial activity, consent is given until you ask a person to leave. Nothing in TN Code 39-14-405, or any other part of the TN code that I can find, says that you may post signs against certain things that would then make walking past them criminal trespass. Basically, it's an all or nothing thing. Unless you post "no trespassing" signs, if someone walks past your no shoes sign, then only way they are trespassing is if you ask them to leave and they don't. Otherwise that, and any other sign (except currently weapons signs) hold no weight of the law. BTW, not everything has to do with no supporting businesses. Other states show that when a no guns sign holds no weight, there are less. Plus, there are situations like hospitals. I have visited people in hospitals where I have had to disarm. Or here in Knoxville, there's not one hospital which I have found isn't posted (yet all have poorly trained, unarmed guards.) Do I have to chose between getting treated for stuff or being unarmed?

But how does posting having any intention of preventing crime? If it was a posting with metal detectors at the door and everyone search, it could prevent crime with "traditional" arms, true, but otherwise does nothing. The "view" to prevent crime is in regards to being able to limit weapons from people who have a history of crime, or metal illness, etc. In regards to places, it makes no sense for 99.9% of places because posting won't even have a view to prevent crime if their are no measures to make sure no one can carry. For business owners to post, that's their right, but criminal penalties and unconstitutional under our State Consitution.