macville

Jeez, even a $100 wal-mart .22lr rifle would be better for home protection than a maglight (actually, a maglight mounted on that would be ideal for cheap.) But yeah, a used 12ga wouldn't cost much more. I think a ton of people are interested in guns, but are afraid of them because they don't take a little time to understand how to be safe with them. Matthew

Ummm....last time I checked you could chose who to have sex with. Matthew

See, this is where the argument about incorporation of the 2d gets interesting. Why has the Federal Government allowed some of the bill of rights to be incorporated and some (the 2d!), to NOT be incorporated? Seems like fair would be to force ALL states AND the Federal Gov to respect the entire Constitution and not just SOME of it. I say if they they (the Fed Gov) doesn't want to respect the entire Constitution (with all amendments) then the states shouldn't have to follow any of the amendments. Therefore, I say that the state of TN and all the residents of it refuse the 16th amendment, the 23rd, the 24th, the 26th, and whatever WE feel like at the time WE want to respect. My point with that rant is to show that by allowing somethings we are on a slippery slope. The left in this country keep yammering on how it's "not fair" that poor people haven't bothered to get an education, get a job, get off their butts (I'm not criticizing anyone who truly is on hard times, it's just all the poor people I know, including people in my family, are just BUTT LAZY), but is it not fair to say that if we force people who own businesses to put in handicap stuff to not allow us to force the same business owners to allow us to defend ourselves with the tools that we believe are best suited for the job? Matthew

I think we (really pro-gun people) have taken the high road in the past because we understand the constitution as a WHOLE and how the founding fathers wanted to protect people from each others greedy hands and especially the gov's greedy hand. It's one of those things that I don't really like being told, or telling others what to do with their property when they open it up to the public, but that's the cost of living in this society:( If I am having to pay that cost, then I might as well get something for my money and be allowed to protect me and my family while I am out and about. While I don't like cigarette smoke in restaurant/bowling ally's/etc, considering the amount of of armed robberies within 5 miles of my house this year, I am FAR more likely to die from a robbery than second hand smoke. Matthew

Either I didn't communicate clearly, or you didn't understand what I was saying. I'm saying that if we were pushing for dropping -1305 AND dropping 1359, we wouldn't get anything passed. So for right now I feel like it would be better to push for just dropping -1305 (carrying where alcohol is served.) Make all places that serve alcohol legal. That's all I am saying. I would love to see 1359 dropped also because if we are going to force places that are open to the public to not allow smoking, and provide handicap access, then why can't we force them to allow us to carry? Matthew

Actually yes. It's one thing to respect personal property rights (which is another discussion considering what you give up when you open to the public), but since there are private businesses that WANT to allow legally carried firearms on their property and cannot, that makes a difference. If we were purposing dropping 39-17-1359 & allowing carry in all places that serve alcohol, then I don't think it would pass (although, that would be GREAT!) But just allowing carry in places that serves...there is a decent chance. Just make sure your voice is heard by ALL that voted for the original bill. Let them know that it's foolish to ban carry in only some places that serve alcohol. You can get just as drunk at Joe's Bar as Chili's. Obviously, permit holders can be trusted because in the 5 months we were allowed to carry there wasn't *1* incident with a permit holder at a place that served alcohol. So why restrict something that's not a problem. Matthew

You never know...the reps might actually be as mad as us about this ruling since they did go over the gov's head to pass the bill. We need to let them know loudly that we should be able to carry anywhere alcohol is served. No exceptions. Matthew

I'm confused by your post. What exactly is happening. My understanding is that state law overrules so whatever Jackson was to do, they couldn't really do anything legally. Matthew

Ummm... last time I checked we haven't really cleaned house over the past 100 years. In that time things have only gotten worse with tons of unconstitutional laws, programs like SS and Welfare, etc. At some point our government will collapse. There is NO possible way to keep going the way we are. We have only lasted over the past 100 years because some people have kept us from going to destruction at breakneck speeds (unlike our current president & congress who have both mashed down on the peddle as hard as they can.) Matthew

Obvious safety reasons? What's the difference between having one in the chamber on my rifle than in my handgun? Seems like if it's for safety reasons then I wouldn't be legally allowed to carry one in my handgun... Matthew

But you know what, I've realize over the past few months that there is a VERY good chance in my lifetime that there will be another civil war. I just don't see how we can keep going down the path we are going without a war unless one side gives in before it gets to war (hopefully because the conservative side has more guns we will win without much of a fight...) I'm almost ready for the war to just go ahead and happen, and one side win instead of slowly going into bondage. You know...that whole "watering the tree of freedom" thing...hopefully not with blood, but is that's what freedom takes, then so be it. We already did it once and that turned out pretty well... Matthew

I saw screw getting the AG involved and just get our reps to allow carry any place that alcohol is served! It will take less time to get done rather than going through the AG and we will get a better law. Matthew

I saw the "or", but that doesn't make a ton of sense considering -1359 is labeled as "prohibition at CERTAIN MEETINGS." It seems like if you could ban generally, the code should be labeled as posting property. The language really reads that you can ban the possession of weapons at meetings conducted by a company, or on that company's property. Not that they can ban weapons in general, just only at meetings. It probably was meant the way you all read it, but the wording is very poorly written. Matthew

I'm sorry, but I've seen just as many drunk people in places like Applebee's as bars. But maybe that's because I think I've only ever been in one place in TN that's actually got a "bar" license. I have been to plenty of "bars" (they act like bars, but are on on a restaurant license) and never drank (I'm cheap and it was a gathering of friends). The issue is....if you can get alcohol at the place, then why does it matter if it's a "bar" or "restaurant"? You can get served at either just the same and drunk just the same! Just because one serves more booze doesn't make it ANY different because alcohol is alcohol. Personally, I believe you should be able to to drink up to the legal driving limit while carrying. They say that guns an alcohol don't mix, but neither do cars and alcohol, so why do we let people drive with ANY alcohol in their system???? Not to mention that people use "oh I'm drunk" to excuse their responsibility away. I've been drunk before and while I may not have been able to walk that great of a straight line, I still knew exactly what I was doing. It's really a cop out unless you so drunk your almost ready to pass out. Matthew

So in a discussion over at opencarry.org, someone pointed out that the TN Code for posting against weapons (TN 38-17-1359) started out with wording that refers to posting for "meetings". The code is as follows: 39-17-1359. Prohibition at certain meetings — Posting notice. — 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360, at meetings conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. In addition to the sign, notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain language substantially similar to the following: PURSUANT TO § 39-17-1359, THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROHIBITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL ACT UNDER STATE LAW AND MAY SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500). ( Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property. © Any posted notice being used by a local, state or federal governmental entity on July 1, 2000, that is in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section may continue to be used by the governmental entity. (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations. (e) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311. [Acts 1996, ch. 905, § 11; 2000, ch. 929, § 1; 2009, ch. 428, § 4.] ----- So here's a very interesting question.... What defines a "meeting"? Websters defines it as "1 : an act or process of coming together: as a : an assembly for a common purpose (as worship) b : a session of horse or dog racing 2 : a permanent organizational unit of the Society of Friends 3 : intersection, junction" If you take those definitions of the word, none of them really mean you can post in the way that most of the time buildings/property is posted. A meeting is normally put in place ahead. Even if it wasn't, it still doesn't make sense in how you can post a building considering what the first part of the law says. The way I read it is, if the City Council wanted to ban weapons at their bi-weekly meeting, then that would be legal. However, it doesn't seem like they should be able to ban me going into get my tags renewed because it's not a "meeting" by a dictionary definition. It would be great to talk to the people who crafted the wording for this law. At least we could get a better idea about what they meant. Matthew

I have a shirt that says, "No, I'm not on steroids, but thanks for asking!" which is really funny since I'm 6"4 and 145 lbs! (I've been told by a PE instructor to not bother with a body fat test because I won't register!) So should I make a shirt that says, "Why yes! I do have a permit for the gun I am carrying under my shirt."? Matthew

No, the best idea would to remove carry restrictions on where alcohol is served period! Plus, not allow them to post either. There are tons of places that are not "bars", but are not restaurants either...like any banquet hall! The issue is, if a permit holder is going to break the law and drink while carrying, they can do it just as well at a restaurant as a bar. So is the restriction really going to help since it's on the honor system anyway???? Matthew

Why shouldn't anyone who's served their time not be able to own a firearm again? Let me put it this way... If they can't be trusted with a firearm after serving their time, should they be back out on the streets? It's really the same argument as for permit holders being able to carry anywhere. If you can't trust us in schools/federal buildings/etc, then why can you trust us carrying at Wal-Mart? There's no logic in the anti's arguments! Matthew

Funny. I disagree. The Constitution is quite clear. In fact, when you read the Federalist papers, you are pretty reaffirmed by what it says. However, we have, over the lifetime of our country, elected people who take one word out of the Constitution and out of context (words like "welfare" or "commerce") and said they mean they can do all of this other crap. We the people were not CLEAR by voting out the idiots. Ignoring what was written is not the same as something not being clear. Matthew

I agree!!! Disposable income is not going to be my life considering I am building up a business, the economy is bad, and I need to be saving for the kids I've yet to have... In fact, we've waited almost until the last week my wife's class certif. is valid because we haven't had the money to get it! If you consider ages only you might be right as there are more people in the 40-60 age bracket that get permits than any other bracket. However, that really means nothing in reality because it doesn't take into account the areas of where these people are from. If it was from south FL, then yeah, probably more money... Matthew

Wow. In my dreams I don't think I could have said it better. The only thing I think could have been better was the transparency in gov. If the Federal Gov actually followed the the Constitution then we wouldn't need transparency because it would be so small it would be painfully obvious where the money was going... Matthew

Guys, if you want to make the restaurant/"bar" owners pay, this is what I suggest.... Write EVERY SINGLE Rep/Senator who voted for the bill in the first place and suggest that they support a bill that removes the restrictions on EVERY place that serves alcohol. Then suggest to them that if a business owner complains to them about it, tell them that they have the right to post via TN code 39-17-1359 and that's EXACTLY what that part of the code is there for. That way it takes pressure off the the rep and puts it where it should be...on the blasted business owner who wants to restrict your rights. Also remind them that you vote, and that other gun owners vote, and we will support them in every way we can. If you want to get the jerks back, help push forward a law that hits them harder than the law that they were against the first time. Payback is a *itch! Matthew

First the Constitution doesn't say I have to do ANY crap to bear arms. It simply says I have the right to bear arms. Second, if they were to require that crap, then I should be able to carry in all those places because if I can't be trusted in those places with yearly training, then I can't be trusted ANYWHERE. Maybe we can get a new law passed in Jan that will allow us to carry ANYWHERE booze is served. There are a lot of places that are not "bars" that are also not restaurants (such as concert venus, banquet halls, etc.) that should not be off limits. Heck, I believe that bars shouldn't be off limits because surely there are people there who don't drink...otherwise we have people drinking and driving, right? Matthew

So what the heck does this ruling actually mean for us today? Does that mean it's now illegal again for us to carry in Applebee's? Matthew

The funny thing is I've gotten much better service from FedEx and far more help from FedEx employees than UPS. The only thing that drives me nuts is that FedEx and FedEx Ground are two different companies. Matthew