macville

I would say most postings that I've seeing TN (besides gov buildings) are not locally owned businesses, but big corps. I know there are some for sure that are talked into it, but it's a minority. It's lawyers for the corps that are talking the businesses into it for liability reasons. What's really funny is if you go to the same stores in other states like GA or FL, they aren't posted...and I would assume because of no posting laws.

I see what you are getting at, but the word "to" should have been used because double dashes means a comma. From a strict English and legal sense it doesn't make sense. But, once again, none of us are surprised at how poorly most of our laws are written (and State Laws are normally far better written than Federal!) If we really want to look at see how poorly our laws are written, we can simply look at 1359 itself. So the current edit of 1359 is, I believe, from either the 2017 or 2016 session. I know things got re-written to allow banning for events like the TNV Fair here in Knoxville. But in re-writing it about "weapons" in the signage requirement part, they kinda forgot to talk about "weapons" and focused on just firearms. For example, here is the text from the law in 2010 vs the current law So before, to ban other weapons like knives, you had to put "no weapons allowed" and now you just have to put "no firearms" and somehow that bans all weapons...even without saying all weapons? The crazy part is it's way convoluted than the original carry where alcohol is served laws and that got stuck down as unconstitutionally vague. I mean, honestly, can I carry a knife in my local YMCA that has the exact legal sign posted, but nothing else posted about other weapons? I can make a solid argument about intent, but also a solid legal argument that the law is poorly/vaguely written and that a sign that only says "no firearms" doesn't refer to knives and other weapons. This is why 1359 needs to be focused on repealing. It so poorly written and I cannot see banning guns anywhere but inside jails and possibly activate courtrooms and mental hospitals can prevent crime. Plus, by letting property owners post with legal signs (trespassing sign could still be posted by business owners but it would be a trespassing violation if refused to leave) to legislature is shirking it's duty in that only THEY are supposed to be able to ban the carry of arms and with "a view to prevent crime."

I'm a little confused on where you find that a 1359 violation would qualify for a suspended or revoked permit. 1359 says punishment would be a Class B misdemeanor - $500 fine and nothing else. 1360 is about authorizing department of safety to put rules and regs out. 1351 lists crimes as: The only thing I can even slightly see is the two dashes between "39-17-1351" and "39-17-1360" was supposed to mean 1351 to 1360. But that doesn't make sense because that's not what double dashes mean--ie something important or something to be emphasized, a comma on steroids. So what am I missing here?

That doesn't make any sense. If something doesn't follow the law of what it takes to make it illegal, then it's legal. Yes, you may have to go to court to show that it's legal (which is absurd) but the law is very clear of what it takes to make a sign have legal weight (just not constitutional, but that's another argument about the legislature's duty and "a view to prevent crime")

You'd think that would be true but it's not. We bring food in every time and they don't blink twice when they see it. This season we've been 10 times and I haven't seen them wand a single person. It would be harder to steal candy from a baby than to carry concealed past their guards. I did have a guard see my knife clip and annoying measure the blade because I don't think they allow over 4" knives (though, it's only posted against guns, but that's not even a legal posting.) I just slip the knife in my pocket until I am past security and have never been asked again about it. I have noticed that if you go to a line staffer by the older security guards, they tend to do a less through job of searching. For example, we went Friday and I was pushing a double baby stroller that had stuff in the bottom. They've always stopped us before to just quickly peak. The guy didn't even look at me and let me walk right by. It's security theater for sure. But they do have quite a few armed guards walking around the park (probably 5 or 6) and I normally see one every 20 mins or less.

And now the NRA is saying that he's lying. It sucks belonging to an organization that is countering the very people that have been pushing for freedom.

"Should be" is the key word. But the people who write laws are crazy on purpose.

Seems like there should be a burden of proof on the state to show that the parents purposely became destitute before they can touch any property.

So on the drive home a little while ago I was listening to a show called "Beyond the beltway" that comes out of Chicago. They were talking about gun control vs mental illness and what we can do. So the "pro gun" guy brings up about how Chicago has the third toughest gun laws, but one of the highest gun murder rates. The liberal lady says that something like 60% of the guns recovered in Chicago come from Indiana, then the gun guy refers to Steven Crowder from PJ media who tried to see if he could buy a gun at a gun show and was shut down across the board by sellers. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEihkjKNhN8 At that point the lady brought up the "gunshow loophole"-that there are a ton of private sellers at gun shows, to which the guy replied that those people are still supposed to do background checks! So the gun guy had it flat wrong and while the liberal lady technically had it correct, was using it to make people assume that anyone can drive in from another state and just easily buy guns private party (and it is illegal for private party seller to sell to anyone out of state anyway.) But it's situations like this that make it so hard to have any kind of serious conversation with people because they heard people like these two morons and "think" they are educated on the issue. The fact that they can trace guns back to Indiana shows that a citizen of Indiana is at some point is committing a crime (giving them to citizens of IL.) But no, we have people in the media talking about guns that don't know guns, don't know the laws, and obviously cannot think logically....and I'm just talking about the people who are supposed to be the "pro gun" people! The sad part is that this is true on so many subjects, not just guns. The sad part is that things like guns laws are super easy to find the answer on most of the time (unless we are talking about crazy nuances that only a good old TN lawmaker can add to the law;)) )

It does seems a little negligent on the owners part that the only thing between the thieves and the firearms were a couple of pieces of easily breakable glass. I mean, that's the same security level as if they were in a vending machine!

I have the hand warmer and love it. My job (video production) requires me to be outdoors often during winter and it's a million times better than the little chemical warmer packets (though, I normally have them on me too)

Except those laws don't apply because of driver's licenses, it's because cars are sold across state lines. So that argument doesn't exactly fly. For example, I noticed this morning under the hood of my F150 that it was not for sale in CA, but I obviously was able to buy it in TN. You are also considering that this law would apply to carrying, not to the purchase of items. Just like the feds cannot make traffic laws, they would not have the power to make certain carry laws. I totally understand the concern, but the bill only forces states to acknowledge all other states carry permits. No more no less. I would be more worried about states like NY simply making it impossible for anyone to carry pretty much anywhere with a carry permit (they would be happy to screw the special people that do currently have carry permits.)

FYI, depending on which phone you use (zipcode may be a factor too) you can either be on ATT or Verizon while on StraightTalk. Also investigate Cricket if you can use ATT. I've been with them a few years and been really happy. Cricket is especially great if you have multiple lines as each line you add takes $10 of, and it's compounding. So second line is $10 off, third line is $20 off, forth is $30, and if you have the fifth line on the $40 plan, it's free. So I have 5 lines, each with 4GB a month for $100 out the door. Pretty hard to beat...if ATT service is good in your area.

What park can't you bring your guns in? There's not a park in TN, local, state, or federal that you can't bring a firearm into either without a permit in your car, or on your person outside your car with a permit. The only way they can currently ban guns is if a area is sectioned off and there is an entrance with metal detectors.

So there is an upcoming white supremacist rally Saturday in Knoxville to fight against against the removal of a monument honoring confederate soldiers (I think the WS are evil, but I also don't think removal of monuments is in our best interest either.) So while reading an article I noticed that they are going to close a street and make it a "no weapons zone." Looking at -1359, I am not really sure that is legal as I don't think the writers intended public roads to fall under "property" in the law. If the local government is allowed to control streets in such a way, we will constitute to see our rights eroded. Of course, this is the same mayor that doesn't think Chilhowee PARK is a park... http://www.wbir.com/news/local/ahead-of-planned-protest-mayor-burchett-tells-white-supremacists-theyre-not-welcome/466656000

Merry Christmas

You'd also think a republican majority wouldn't up a tax when we are sitting on almost two billion dollars, but we have republicans, not conservatives. That's become a big difference.

Okay, now your question makes sense. The former state law said suppressors were illegal, but there was written into the law an exception that if you had the federal tax stamp for the suppressor, it was legal. Now it's no longer illegal period by state law, just still illegal for the feds without the tax stamp. Practically, you are correct. It really changes nothing except that now if you have one illegally, only the feds could go after you. As I said before, it was a bill to prepare for the hopeful repeal of suppressors from the NFA so no one could get in trouble if they are taken off. Whatever the case, I am always for removing "illegal" things from state law when they are pointlessly illegal-even if it doesn't make much difference practically.

You are correct, the quick reading I did the other day I saw defense in the section before (c) and my brain just transposed it. I read somewhere that there was concern that the language which was the issue was, " is in full compliance with the requirements" and that could cause issue. But I am all in favor of any "defense" or "exception" being removed from the law and things fully legal. Honestly, if you wanted to try pushing the TN firearms freedom act you could do so with no punishment from the state, just the jerk ATF would be after ya:)

I am not quite sure what you are asking. This law was passed because it's possible that congress in July may take suppressors off the NFA and if they do, the previous "defense" wording in TN would have actually made the currently legal suppressors illegal in TN. It was really an administrative bill to make sure there are no gotchas to TN residents who do currently have a legal suppressor.

I know that, but what I meant was there ever an actual ban on them (no defense in the law) since 1934? I would guess that sometime in the 60's or later they were actually made illegal by state law. Edit: I am writing a response to the original letter and wanted to include that they've been defacto legal for x number of years.

Does anyone know if suppressors were ever illegal in TN since the '34 NFA act? As far as I've found, they've always been legal since being invented (or at least there was a defense to them written into the law.)

This letter is a prime example of why being a cop or military doesn't make you a firearms expert or even have a gauge knowledge of firearms. http://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/05/24/letters-silencers-greed/340246001/ I may have to respond to this because it's pure fud and nonsense.

Can I just point out that the TICS is unconstitutional? Our state constitution very clearly says what the state can do as far as restricting carry (only with a view to prevent crime) but it is silent about keeping arms. If the feds want to require an unconstitutional BG check, fine. We will deal with that at the national level someday. But considering how clear our state constitution is, we should be able to eliminate TICS if we actually tried.

Anyone have the final text of this bill and what it covers? From what I've read about it, it seems more like a gun control bill than adding any freedom for us.