macville

And I am sure at the time a whole bunch of crazy people said liquor stores would get shot up by people...haven't seen that happen yet...(at least not by law abiding HCP holders.) Matthew

I absolutely refuse to vote for Alexander now if he makes it to the general election (it would be great to see a "regular" person run and beat him!) If it's between him and a dem, I will vote for the dem next time because they can't be ANY WORSE THAN HIM! Plus, maybe in the next election we can get a true conservative in his seat. I wish people would stop voting for people just because they are in a certain party. Matthew

Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone had the stats on HCP crimes and self defense since 1995? Basically, this is what I am looking for. How many people have been killed in self defense while a HCP holder was actually using their permit (AKA: off their own land in public.) How many people have been murdered by a HCP holder, both in public and in their private home. I know that 300 people, on avg, a year in TN get their permits revoked because they committed a crime. It would be great to see the breakdown of why it was revoked. Somehow I think that 95%+ of the revoked are because of non gun crimes. Even of the few "gun" crimes, I am betting that most of those are because of carrying in illegal places, and not because a gun was pulled, or a gun was fired illegally. If this is in the wrong forum, would an admin please move it to the correct forum? Thanks, Matthew

Umm...no. The Constitution is there so that ALL people in the US have the same basic rights. It's about unity in the "essentials" (aka: basic rights), and what's left (what the Constitution left up to the states) we can control in our State. I noticed that in the US Constitution it doesn't say anything about making laws for carrying. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, I agree that it's not good to have guns (or any kind of weapons) in the hands of Felons who haven't served their entire time, mental paients, etc. However, law abiding citizens are not being permitted to use their Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms in certain places-especially places that we paid for with our tax dollars. Something is wrong there. Think of it this way. If states rights trump the federal rights we have, then we can reimpose slavery. Why? Because suddenly we say that we have the right to ignore the constitution. So how do we approach this? It's obvious that our gun laws are not really working and are only limiting good people from protecting themselves. However, to fully use our "rights" when it comes to carrying a handgun, we have to pay over $200 for the class and permit. If you look through the Federal or TN Constitution, how many rights cost you a single penny to use? Free speech is free. Voting is free as I don't remember paying a "fee" to register to vote like I did to drive. Heck, even if you are charged with a crime you are entitled to a free lawyer. However, when it comes to our "gun" rights as far as carrying in public. Nope, we have to pay money to exercise that right. Last time I checked, "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." Sorry for rambling a little. But I think it's important to understand what a "right" really is. Of course, a right is only as good as the people who wish to uphold it. Matthew

The thing is, if someone wants to shoot an official, why would they care what the law is? At least if HCP holders are allowed in with their weapon they could help stop someone who sneaked a gun in. Last time I was there I didn't see many LEO's walking around BTW. Not to mention, why would you bother trying to hunt down some one to kill in the capitol? Why not just go to their house and shoot them there? (not that I am suggesting any one do this, but that would make far more sense if you are wanting to kill some one.) The issue here, and with all the laws we are trying to push forward, is that the 2d amendment says, "shall not be infringed." I'm sorry, but a restriction like this is infringing. If you can't trust me in the capitol, then logic says you can't trust me any where. Think of it this way, if you can't trust me to drive in the city, then why can you trust me to drive in the country? Matthew

I know there has been a lot of talk here recently about Williams showing that he is on our side. However, this article in today's Knox News Sentinal shows that he's not as gun friendly as he's led us to recently believe: Legislators discuss guns in Capitol : Local News : Knoxville News Sentinel Let him know that if permit holders can not be trusted at the Capitol then they shouldn't be trusted any were. Therefore, they should be allowed to carry there! Matthew

All the articles I had read so far were very unclear about permit holders carrying in what most people would call "bars". Glad to see it passed. I noticed that the Knoxville News Sentential article quoted this, "Rep. Frank Niceley, RStrawberry Plains, said 32 other states allow “guns in bars” and allow pistol-packing patrons to drink alcohol. “They’ve not had any problems. I don’t see any problem here,” said Niceley, noting that Tennessee law will continue to prohibit alcohol consumption while carrying a handgun." I know that I would have the restraint to only have one beer if I was out (like having a dinner), but I'm not sure about other fools (kinda like the guy here in the greenway the other day...) Matthew

Well, how does a sign that says, "by entering this property you consent to searches" work? And I would bet that if you did sign something when first employed, that provision is in there. I'd say that if your not an employee that's signed something, but a sign like above is posted, that if you refused a search, then they request you to leave asap. The whole problem with ANY of this is that for some reason people think law abiding citizens are the ones who are going to go crazy and start shooting people. Maybe if these people focused on keeping drunk drivers off the road instead of crazy, stupid gun laws, we'd have less deaths each day. Matthew

It's they CAN search it. The 4th amendment only applies to government. Once you enter someone's land, you give up your search right. Kinda wish it were not that way, but it is what it is. Matthew

BTW, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. I am just saying that just because the government says they can do something legally, doesn't mean they actually can. I had an issue when I first started my business dealing with sales tax since what I do can kinda be considered a service and kinda considered a product. I called up the state office and asked the guy who supposedly "reads" the law and he told me one thing. A few months later I found out the TN AG had issued an opinion that was the exact opposite. When I read the law myself, I agreed that the AG and not the guy from the TN Sales Tax office was reading the law correctly. Of course, it would take a case going to the Supreme Court to get the Census, or any other part of the Federal Government, to actually stick to what it says (which is one reason many laws are made so vague!) Matthew

I'm just reading what the guy quoted from the law. In the legalese, it doesn't seem to say anything that would apply to them coming onto your own land you live on. While that may be legal, that part of the code doesn't seem to support it. BTW, just because I am younger, doesn't mean that I am not smart and have not been around the block. By the time the first census had rolled around in my life I had already helped my parents build one house (and actually build it, not just hire people to do it) and been to Europe once. I now own my own business that even in a sagging economy has had the best first quarter in it's 3 year history. To keep the business going smoothly I have to deal with all this "legalese" and understand how to read it clearly. It's not easy, but once you get immersed in it, it tends to make far more sense on how these laws are written. Oh, and I do actually remember both the previous census's and helping fill out the forms. I hated the MMPR as I much preferred Andy Griffith or a show on how things were made. Matthew

Yeah, I was wondering about that! I looked at my other house the other day on M$'s live street and I could tell who was even visiting me at the time the photo was taken! Simply put, I don't want people coming onto my property who I don't invite. The LEO's have a legal right to come on if they are investigating or serving something, but pretty much no one else has any legal rights to come on. Heck, the property appraiser seems to be able to figure out how much they want to up my property value with out ever stepping onto my land! Hey feds, mail me the form, you've got my address. Stop wasting OUR money paying people to do a job that I could do in 10 seconds online! Matthew

BTW, I think this law applies to people who are landlords and not to private citizens who are living on their private property. Of course, it could say that pink pigs can fly and the government would say that means that they can come on to your land and probably have a BBQ! Matthew

While that may be true, somehow I doubt that they are going to bother with an LEO since the worst thing they can do is fine you $100. The Constitution says that the feds can do a census every 10 years. I'm sorry, but it's not 2010 and therefore they don't have the right to come on to my property yet. They can also confirm my address by looking at the mailbox at the start of my driveway. All you need to answer is how many people live at the address. If you look up the word definition of "census" (census - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ) you'll find all it is a count. The other questions, I believe, are unconstitutional, and I will refuse to answer them (I think I saw a number tonight that only 68% of the people in the US actually responds--so that means they ain't going to bother with a $100 fine because it would cost more to collect that from 128 million people than the fine!) The GPS thing is also very annoying. I really don't see how that data can be used for anything good.