macville

What is sad is that the law doesn't already protect business owners from being libel for one customer hurting another. I kinda understand if an employee hurts a customer, but even that has issues. What happened to a PERSON being libel for THEIR actions, instead of everyone else being libel? It's like how every gun owner is somehow libel for every criminal's use of a firearm.

This is why the sign posting law is unconstitutional... because the state only has the power to restrict carry "with a view to prevent crime" How does a business being able to post prevent crime? It doesn't, does it? What our constitution does (is only supposed to allow) is the state to restrict really who can carry (criminals), not really where. Allowing businesses to post a sign that is an automatic punishment is unconstitutional (at least in regards to arms.) A business can post any other sign (no shirt, no shoes, etc) and just because you walk past that sign doesn't mean you are automatically breaking the law. Only until you refuse to leave, if they ask, are you breaking the law. So yes, they should be allowed to post, but legally, according to our constitution, any no guns sign should have no more power legally, than any other "no whatever" sign. You understand that most states are like this and because there no legal footholds for a no guns sign, there aren't many posted (look at GA.) BTW, when you actually apply what the constitution says, you realize that school carry ban is unconstitutional, so is the local parks ban, etc. Seems like the only places that crime could be prevented would be carrying inside a jail, and maybe a courtroom.

How about instead of complaining about open carriers, we get our reps and senators to removing the posting law? Heck, it's unconstitutional according to our TN constitution, so let's focus on that!

Umm, just because some people in washington dc said decided something, doesn't mean that's what the founding fathers meant. It's pretty clear that the fathers wanted people to be able to keep and bear arms. The same thing goes for tons of over things. Just because the gov is allowing or restricting things doesn't mean they are constitutional. Heck, about 90% of what the Feds do is unconstitutional.

If it makes anyone feel better, I just had a friend use Regions online bill pay to send me a check for owed money. The check never came, so my friend made Regions FedEx Priority Overnight a check to me. I would guess that coming from Florida, it cost them around $50 for a $200 check!

Something funny I just want to point out. Notice that all articles that are about carrying a firearm ALWAYS show someone open carrying. Notice how many people actually open carry in reality. I understand that a picture of someone conceal carrying doesn't make a great photo, but it's funny when you actually think about it.

I guess my argument is, if handgun postings are legally binding, why shouldn't no shoes/shirt/etc not be also if property rights are to be upheld?

But how does that change anything? By having a permit I am legally allowed to carry a handgun, so that puts me on the same level as anything else that is legal already. Legal is legal, period. Does anyone here think that a handgun posting SHOULD hold legally under the law? Or should it be like any other "no" sign you are able to post?

Okay, answer this one people. As far as I can find, the handgun posting law in TN is the ONLY law that allows a business owner to post a sign that if someone walks by, commits a crime. So those of you who are in favor of being allowed to post, what is your reason for allowing only handgun carry to be illegal just by posting a sign? Because any other sign you post in TN holds no weight of the law, only that if you are asked to leave and don't, you are trespassing. I can understand being allowed to post a sign, but why should that hold any weight of the law when nothing else in TN does?

Here's the thing that bothers me when it comes to the posting law. The gun posting is the ONLY posting in the state of TN that is optional (no smoking is state mandated) but allows for criminal prosecution if you walk past the sign (no trespassing doesn't count because that doesn't mean it's open to the general public.) If someone posts a no shirt/no shoes sign, you are not breaking the law by walking in with no shirt or shoes. All they can do is ask you to leave, or otherwise you are trespassing-which is what you'd be charged with, not, not wearing a shirt. At best, I believe all a business should be able to do is ask you to leave if they see your firearm. Georgia has it much better where signs hold no force of law. I view it this way for two reasons. First, because you opened your business to the public, you "lost" some rights already. Handicap access, certain amount of bathrooms (depending on your business), etc. I think people carrying firearms falls under the same category. Second, I don't believe under the TN Constitution the state has the power to allow businesses to post legally binding signs that you can not walk past. The Constitution says that the state can only restrict the carry of firearms "with a view to prevent crime." Can anyone tell me a way that by allowing business owners to post, crime is being prevented? But that is also the same argument that I use to say that schools not allowing firearms is also unconstitutional. The posting law is a huge issue for me because it means I have to scan every store I walk into every time I go in. I almost walked in to JoAnn's last week like I have dozens of times before without noticing the new gunbuster sign. If I had not noticed, I would have broken the law--even though I was there to peacefully shop with my wife. If businesses don't like it, then they need to decide if they want to do business in TN. I say that we make our state strong for self-defense.

Just seems like a poor design for a holster. One of the rules is keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire. However, that kind of release system seems like it's way too easy to slip your finger on to the trigger as you are drawing your side arm. I'll stick with my crossbreed or an OWB that has a button strap.

I find it crazy that I can sell another TN resident a firearm FTF, but I can't sell anyone an extra bottle of booze I have laying around. Sometimes I wonder how TN got so screwed up. Of course, I would have any store be able to sell liquor if I had it my way, but I am presbyterian, not baptist;)

I tried to, but it didn't make a lot of sense.

It's Martell VS Cognac. One full 750 ML bottle, and 1/2 a 1 liter bottle. I know it's not amazing cognac, but it's not the worse stuff either. I've also got some other spirits like like a 750ml Ron Bermudez 137 Aniversario, which seems to be a very nice rum from my research (haven't opened it yet.) Some of the bottles I don't know how good they are. They have been opened, but I am afraid that the cork may have rotted and dropped bits into the liquor becuse the top part of the cork has broken off when I tried to open them (like the bottle of drambuie!) I am not a straight liquor drinker, I just like cocktails like whiskey sours and margaritas (I like sour over bitter.) So I tend to try and get more good whiskey and tequila over anything else. Matthew

Only a drunk with firearms;) Probably only want to get rid of 2-3 bottles.

Hey guys, wondering what you all might know about this. I was given/inherited some bottles of liquor, and among it was some liquors that I don't like (cognac.) I was wondering if it was legal to sell those bottles I don't like to buy bottles I DO like (like whiskey!) This is what I found in TN Code 57-3-404, and it seems like it would not be legal: To me, it sounds like I couldn't sell it. But there's nothing that I've found about trading bottles if I found someone who might have what I want and I have what they want. Matthew

Correction, it's not actually courthouses, just active courtrooms. There are just very few courthouses that aren't posted (smaller town courthouses tend to be not posted.) Matthew

Where in the code is that? I'm not saying your wrong, but that seems a little surprising when a party is at fault.

I would vote for him over most of the crowd that's currently running (just not over Cain!)

I am very sad to see that the voice of reason on the USSC was dear Ruthie. I think that was a very very bad ruling that will open up to many rights violated and probably innocent people getting killed.

You shouldn't have to because a good doctor should mind their own business in issues that don't concern them. Does any one know if any doctors ask if you drive wirelessly or tell you that gas shouldn't be used to start a fire? Those things can harm your health also...but firearms get focused on for some reason.

That's because many doctors believe that they are gods due to people just blindly trusting them no matter what. So if they remind people to lock up their guns, then those people will automatically do that...

To be a public or private educational institution in TN, you have to be registered with the state. Just because you tutor kids after school and provide other programs doesn't mean you are an educational institution.

Why? Do you think crime will magically not happen there because it's a place where good happens? If that was the case, there would never be crime at churches, right? I very much doubt that the Boys Club falls under any school. They have to be registered as a school with the state to qualify, and I don't think they are, just a non-profit like churches/homeless shelters/etc. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Well, not all that will probably run (Mitt, Newt) have formed exploratory committees, plus you have to evidently pay $25,000 to be on the ballot for the primary in SC. So it's not that those people couldn't be there, they haven't fulfilled the requirements yet. But Mr. Cain rocked all of them. He is everything we need for our next president and makes Obama look like an uneducated idiot (which reading a teleprompter does not equal IQ as tons of dumb blonds do it every day quite well.)