macville

I understand what you are saying, but why should he give up the right to what he allows on his property just because he opens up his property to the public. But there are businesses that you can not do business with unless you agree to some things first. Think of white-water rafting businesses. You can not go rafting unless you sign a doc stating that you will not hold the company responsible if something goes wrong. While not exactly the same, I view it that by entering a place that is posted, I am giving up the right to defense myself with my firearm. I don't really like that idea so I won't go into a place that makes me disarm (unless it's a courthouse or school) unless I really have to (meeting in such a place or last min out with friends.) Here's what it really boils down to me for. I know many people on this board disagreed with me about the national carry law. The argument was they didn't want the Federal gov telling the states what to do--even though I said the Feds had the right to tell the states to respect each others carry permit because it falls under the 2d. Well, if you don't want the Feds telling the state what to do, why do you want the state telling a private business owner what to do? As a citizen do you like the Feds/State telling you exactly what to do? The state, I believe, has wisely given people the power to do what THEY want to do with THEIR property. If you don't like that, then change their mind or don't go on their property. What they missed was providing legal cover for business owners from frivolous lawsuits. If you had no choice about going into a place, which to be honest I can not think of a SINGLE reason you don't have a choice, then I might understand making lawsuits okay against places that post. However, that's simply not the case. It's yours, and yours alone, whither you decide to go in certain places. Now, if a courthouse in TN posted and then didn't screen people coming in, I would be all over their butts, since you can get legal requirements to be there at times--or be put in jail. I am sick of being told by the government, both as a citizen and a business owner, what exactly I have to do down to the last little detail. It's my property, butt out. If the founding fathers had wanted as much regulation as we now have, wouldn't they have made those laws when they started the country??? (I know that's a slight exaggeration since they didn't have most of the tech we now have, but it's basic idea still rings true when you think about SS, Welfare, & Medi-care.) I personally think the key to getting restaurants to stop posting (which it seems to be probably under 5% of places in TN from all the posts I see on here saying places HAVEN'T posted) is to educated people. I know that will be hard with the liberal media, but I think around Jan 14 and next July 14 we need to be writing into papers and whatever other media outlets we can hit and make it well known that nothing has happened yet with people going crazy in restaurants/bars. If we can get the avg joe to understand that permit holders are mostly good people, then we will have more people on our side and hopefully in the future get the carry laws loosened more. Matthew

Which is really absurd if we call our nation "free." As much as some people might find it raciest/sexist/etc., I believe that a business owner has a right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. That's what freedom is about. If someone is a racist and you disagree with that, then don't do business with them. It's that simple. I look at my own business of video production and think that I shouldn't be forced to make a video for a company/person who I don't agree with. Think of it this way. Why should you have take responsibility for other people's actions once they step on to your property? I don't understand why owner's rights get trampled when you chose to go on their property. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be a total blanket free run for owners. But they need protection just as much as we do. I think if that was more the law, many places would have not posted, or at least not had that excuse. BTW, personally I think it's MUCH wiser for places to not post. I know the anti-gun people have been very vocal about not going to places that do not post, but probably 99%+ of those people were just saying words and will not follow up with actions. HCP holders, on the other hand, will actually follow through on their words! Matthew

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, it's someone's private property. Even thought their property is open to the public, they still own the property and should be able to chose who they serve. That's what freedom is about. On the other hand, we should be able to protect ourselves anywhere we go. What would be better is a law that would not allow any lawsuits against businesses because they allowed firearms in their building. To be fair, it should the same for businesses which don't allow firearms either (remember, it's THEIR property!) This is not about a business's neglect like not cleaning up a puddle of water. This is entirely about customers hurting each other and no neglect on the business's part. We need to make laws easier on businesses so they can be more competitive and less foolishly restricted. I believe for a lot of small businesses it really didn't have anything to do with the safety of their customers or even being "afraid" of guns. It seemed like a lot of owners were afraid of being sued if someone does use a firearm (legally or illegally) in their business. To be honest, that's probably a fair assumption. HCP holders here in TN can not be sued civil court if we are found to have legally shot someone. Businesses should get even better protection by not being able to be sued period. The only thing you should be able to get charge/sued for is serving someone who you know is carrying (IE clearly open carrying.) Even then, that should only go against the person who actually served the drink(s). To me, this just makes common sense. Matthew

So you don't want the Feds telling the states to respect our 2d amendment rights? I don't understand your logic there because that IS the Feds job according to the Constitution. The law wasn't going to change everything to be perfect on gun carry, but it was a step in the right direction. Matthew

And I would totally move to one of those states if it were not SO BLASTED COLD!!! Too bad AK has full days of light/darkness which makes for crazy people. Too bad VT has too many commie liberals. Matthew

I'm not saying the law would be perfect, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction. It would maybe make more states fall in line with what's been happening over the last 20+ years with legal handgun carry. Personally, I don't think those of us in freer states would lose anything. What I think would happen is states that have crappy carry laws would be forced to loosen them. BTW, it is the Fed's job to enforce the Constitution. The 2d say I can keep and bare arms. Didn't say which states only. Of course, this law wouldn't be like AK's almost 100% Constitutional carry laws. But baby steps forward would be better than nothing. The real problems would arise in places like KY and OH which allow you to open carry without a permit. It will be interesting to see how that works out. I think this actually has a good chance of passing. I don't think many people thought the National Parks carry would pass, but it did by a pretty wide margin. Matthew

Hey guys, I don't know if you know, but the law does not create (at least not from all the information I have seen on it) a national carry permit. All it does is make other states that have any kind of carry permit let people legally carry in other states. So if you have a permit here, you would be legally allowed to carry in NY or CA since they do have a carry permit. IL still would be a no go since they have no permits period. Here's why it is GOOD and totally Constitutional (at least more Constitutional than most current laws.) I know some of you think it's the Feds telling the states what to do. Well, how many of you think the states are going against the 2d Amendment when they don't allow you to carry or require a permit (like here in TN.) This is congress saying that hey, maybe we need to follow the 2d a little more than we have been. It's not perfect. That would be the Supreme Court telling the Feds and our states that the 2d means what it says. But until then, this is a step in the right direction. Here's another thought. Since CA and NY are hard states to get carry permits in, it might actually help tear down those laws. How? Well, technically it would be easier for me to carry in those two states than a resident because I can get a permit easier in my state. Therefore, a resident might be able to sue the state saying how come a non resident can carry but I cannot. I am sure that would go to the SCOUS and maybe we could win. Just a thought. Matthew

Since carrying is a "right", I think the state should be allowed to issue a permit (which is good because you need a permit to to carry in other states), but should not be able to charge for the permit and should offer a free class to any one who wants a permit. Truly, how is this any different than charging someone to vote? (a poll tax) The government is MAKING you pay a lot of money to exercise your right to bear arms. It's just funny how driving is a privileged and yet it costs a lot less to get a license than to get a permit for my right to bear arms. Matthew

If that's the case, then maybe contacting corporate might help. It might help to push from the top that they are losing business for a reason that they don't have in any other state. Matthew

I posted about that on TFA forum yesterday. As far as I can tell, the revoked permits can include people who simply don't renew their permits (which could be anything from dying to forgetting to renew it.) It can also include people like you who move out of state! The stats need to clearly list the permits which have been revoked because people no longer qualify for them and people who can legally still have one but have some reason for not renewing. I also want to know if all permits are suspended before revoked. If that's the case, then there was around 60 people in 2008 who had their permit suspended but not revoked. How can we truthfully see what's going on if they won't do an accurate breakdown of the stats? Matthew

His heart is on the right track, but he's not totally accurate. While there has been almost no gun crime committed by HCP holders, there have been a few incidents. Last year weren't two people killed in two different incidents in Memphis by HCP holders? I'm sure about one (parking lot incident with hummer), but can't remember the other. It would be great to keep a list of stats about how many times a HCP holder has committed a "gun" crime in TN and how many times a holder has legally used their gun in a situation where they need a permit (off their property.) That would be a FAR more telling statistic than how many permits were revoked. Matthew

If a true majority of people were aggressively against carry in restaurants or parks then we would see more public protests. Instead, what we really have are the majority of people who really don't care one way or another but if asked (depending on the question's phrasing) would say they are against it. What I would love to see is simple yes or no question. Then, if they say they are against it ask them if the fact that 39 other states allow carry in restaurants and there has been almost 0% issues with it, would they change their mind... You'd get a few people who wouldn't change their mind even if the stats show legal carry in restaurants/parks actually make it 50% safer, but I have a feeling that the rest, when educated, would actually change their minds. Matthew

Strange, carried in Olive Garden tonight and I didn't shoot anyone! Heck, I didn't even get shot at! I find all the anti's argument pretty funny since they act like people only get drunk at "bars" and not places like Ruby Tuesday, etc. (although it is MUCH cheaper to get drunk at a place that's less restaurant and more bar.) So it's less of an issue to carry at places like RT's than places more bar like. They are ALL ignoring the can not serve enough to get them drunk law... Matthew

I got 2 boxes of Federal 9mm today at Turkey Creek. They still even had some of the 100 value packs of WWB 9mm. Now if I could just get some .380.... Matthew

I guess that leaves Ramsey up on the block then. The guy from Memphis (sorry, can't remember his name) said he didn't support the guns in restaurant or parks bill, so he's already out for me. I hope that 2d amendment supporters get can more chances to talk to Haslam (write him a letter!) explaining what the founding fathers meant by the 2d amendment (maybe show them what was originally drafted for the 2d, it's a crystal clear understanding!) You need to do this because I'm 98% sure that he will be the next Governor. He's done a good job here in Knoxville of improving the city and has the deepest pockets of anyone on either side. So educate him! He really is a good guy and could be a good Governor, but needs a little help seeing the truth. Let's be honest, how much do you really focus on "gun" laws when you are running for mayor? Matthew

Too bad I am using it in a bolt rifle that I don't even have a magazine for! It does fire nicely and there's nothing like the crack when the round goes super sonic! Matthew

While I was having my tires rotated at sams this morning I walked over to the Walker Springs to see if I might luck out on some 9mm ammo. The shelves didn't have any on them, but the sports counter lady walked by and I just flippantly asked if they had any 9mm. She said they had plenty and reached under the counter and grabbed 3 boxes for me. I also asked if she had any .22lr bulk packs and she had some Federal 325 count boxes for $14.99. Not the cheapest .22lr you can get, but it was available! Matthew

Yes, but that would make sense Constitutionally..... Personally, if I were on the stand and a lawyer asked me if I was qualified on the gun I used, I would say yes even if I didn't test on it. Why? Because since the state doesn't require you to only carry the gun you qualified on, then by state standards you have qualified to carry any handgun. Pretty simple. Matthew

Coal Creek here in Knoxville has it posted on their door that if you bring in a loaded firearm it MUST be holstered and you can not take it out unless you are on the range. Even for unloaded firearms, I believe it says they need to be in an open slide state for you to handle them when you come in. I think that's the correct way to do it. Matthew

Reread fallguy's post: And looking it up all the websites I found said it was not illegal in TN to sell a handgun to someone under 21, but 18+ in a private sale. Matthew

Interesting... I thought you had to be with someone who is 21 to be able to posses a handgun. Seems strange that you can legally buy a handgun from a private citizen if you are over 18 but under 21, but you can't buy one from a FFL. Maybe we SHOULD change the law....to allow anyone 18+ be able to buy a handgun from a dealer or a private citizen! The thing is, even if she couldn't buy a handgun at a FFL, she could have still bought a rifle! Considering how she shot him (he was asleep on the couch), either one would do the job the same. It wasn't like she was trying to hide the firearm long enough to get close to shoot him. Matthew

Are they sure the gun was even a "legal" gun? AKA, was it bought from some gangster on the street, or was it from someone who had legally bought it and could even legally own a gun? I wouldn't be surprised if everything about the gun was illegal. Which would be another example of how LAWS ONLY WORK IF SOMEONE OBEYS THEM! Matthew

Just a question...what's the difference between a normal belt and a gunbelt? Matthew

The only thing is almost no place that serves alcohol has a TN "Bar" license. Most places have the restaurant license because it's far easier to get. I have yet to go in a "bar" in TN that doesn't serve full meal food--aka more than appetizers. Matthew

You know, it says "firearms", not "loaded firearms." Seems kinda odd since you can legally ship a rifle and a FFL can even ship a handgun. I understand not being able to carry inside a post office building (not really since the feds keep ignoring the 2d amendment), but it seems absurd if you have a legal right from your state to carry that you can't really even come onto the property with a loaded firearm. It would seem that you'd at minimum need to have it totally unloaded from the gun and the magazine. Matthew