GKar

Lamberth has introduced HB 0009: "Public Records - As introduced, makes confidential and not open for public inspection all information contained in and pertaining to a handgun carry permit application or renewal application and the status of a handgun carry permit." Link: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0009.pdf

The bill is HB0010, and is now available on the TN GA website ( http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0010.pdf ). Here's the text: "SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 38, Chapter 3, Part 1, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: 38-3-124. ( a ) On or after the effective date of this act, no public funds of this state or any political subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that becomes effective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United States citizen's ability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state. ( b ) On or after the effective date of this act, no personnel or property of this state or any political subdivision of this state shall be allocated to the implementation, regulation or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation that becomes effective on or after January 1, 2013, that adversely affects a United States citizen's ability to lawfully possess or carry firearms in this state unless federal funding for such implementation, regulation or enforcement is provided to the state or political subdivision. ( c ) For purposes of this section, "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in § 39-11-106. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."

Saw this from TN state rep Jeremy Faison today: "I am proud to have introduced legislation today, along with Sen. Frank Niceley, that no state funds or resources will be expended to confiscate firearms should the federal government order such confiscation or limitation. I agree that it is past time for the state governments to reaffirm their parental responsibilities envisioned by our founding fathers over an out of control federal government."   I cant link to a bill yet - GA website doesn't have any house bills posted yet, and the Senate version isn't up either.

A game? No, there wasn't. But somebody did indeed open a major can of whoop-a** and sprayed it all over the Orange Bowl.

If he "never intended to have anything communicated saying CTD was getting out of firearms sales", he apparently poorly-worded himself right outta a lot of business - or even worse, allowed someone else to do it for him. No tear shed here, regardless.

Interesting...on several fronts.   http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121217/NEWS/312170040/2275/RSS05?nclick_check=1    

And from Thursday, we get this:   http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121214/news/312140117/lt-gov-ron-ramsey-outlines-compromise-gun-bill   "Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey said his office is working on a measure that would require employers to allow firearms in their parking lots. But businesses that provide secured parking for their employees would be able to demand that their workers show them they have a valid permit to carry a handgun and could keep that registration on file."...   "Ramsey’s proposal that workers should have to place their permits on file would apply only to employers who offer secured parking. Businesses that have open parking lots or parking that is shared with the public would not be able to demand permits.   "Ramsey said his proposal also makes no distinctions for educational institutions, which have been among the strongest opponents of guns-in-trunks legislation. Gov. Bill Haslam has said he would oppose any bill that does not allow colleges and universities to ban firearms on their campuses.   “What’s campuses got to do with it?” Ramsey said. “We’re talking about your automobile. We’re not talking about where you are. We’re talking about your car.”

    So, Repub leadership felt it OK to place her in the treasurer's spot after the 2010 race, and are only now getting around to retribution? Don't thnk so...whatever the electorate's feelings might be,the actions by (R) ldrshp seem to be based on something far more acute. And as WM has pointed out, it would be hard to find a better 2A proponent within the current (2012-elected) GA.

Seems retribution is swift...Sen Beavers was replaced as treasurer of the GOP Senate Caucus.  Committed the heinous crime of not walking in lock-step with leadership: she did not support Diane Black, and did not support the redistricting map.   She was a strong 2A supporter, and played a key role as chair of the Sen Judiciary committee - a committee that seemingly always receives any 2A bills.  Bet she loses that position, too.   http://tnreport.com/2012/12/12/beavers-booted-from-gop-senate-leadership-post/  

Reports seem to indicate he was wearing a vest with multiple magazine pockets - ergo, "body armor" to the uninitiated.  Reports also says the gun jammed, then apparently he cleared it and took more shots before he took his own life.  Wearing a hockey-style face mask, too...and yelled "I am the shooter" at one point in his ramblings.  

Cool pic, with similar arches - but these two pics are from opposite ends of Japan, essentially.  Just the fact that either arch survived intact does, however, make you wonder about materials and construction techiques

The opinion actually addresses the idea of New York-style laws versus those in more gun friendly states, and appears to leave the door open for both to exist.  My 50,000 foot takeaway read: the 7th is saying that an outright ban precludes ANY opportunity for a citizen to carry a gun for self defense, and thus they deem such a ban to be unconstitutional.  The degree to which states regulate firearm possession outside the home, however, is left to the states as long as it stays short of an outright ban.

Got an email that Wideners has Russian M44s back in stock.  Picked up a very nice 1944 Tula that honestly looks as though its never been fired - bore is as crisp and clean as any brand new rifle I've ever bought.  Numbers match, very nice furniture with some nice striping...and none of Helga's fingernail polish.   http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=7006    

And so Haslam offers a different take: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12-05/haslam-excluding-campuses-key-to-gun-law-deal Which shell is the pea under now?

Trying to stay on track with the OP and not get derailed like the other thread did... Just playing out some paranoid scenarios in my head. Taking this amazing change of heart, and combining it with some rumblings about committee realignments (particularly some possible chair realignments), and its not too much of a stretch to this conjecture: this bill (as he's described it) is indeed intro'd, but is predestined to be neutered in various committees on its way to the floor. The altered version manages to gain approval by the supermajority, but is nothing more than a weak resemblance of the bad versions seen in the last GA. Senate and House ldrshp can then hide behind the "we tried and got a pkng lot bill passed" rock, thus avoiding (for the most part) the groundswell of anger that consumed Maggart, The villains in the scenario become the committees...which, in that they are a group of folks, make a much more difficult target for voter anger...so those who oppose the watered legislation basically are left poundig sand. Businesses aren't too upset, cause the passed bill will give them numerous outs. See - politics at its finest! Then again, I may just be a bit paranoid...

Wow...what a difference 8 months makes. This sounds like 2010 all over again. Of course, in that time, I've also learned the truth in "Fool me once, shame on you..." We'll see.

[quote name='JAB' timestamp='1354040912' post='851427'] Well, I am no lawyer nor am I any kind of legal expert but it seems to me like that should be a pretty simple issue to solve. To my mind, the 'boundaries' would work just like any other property boundaries. In this case, for instance, the exterior surface of a person's vehicle would constitute the 'boundary line' so that anything inside that boundary is in protected, private space. [/quote] Pretty much my thoughts as well, which the proposed bill did in essence. Others dont agree...

[quote name='JAB' timestamp='1353960527' post='850909'] And that is the angle that should be taken. Screw 'parking lot' bills - simply recognize the interior of a person's car as being like the interior of a person's home. Off limits to searches by anyone but police with a proper warrant. Declare any other 'right to search' employee agreements, etc. to be null and void. Recognize that it is none of anyone else's business - including employers - what people keep in the confines of their [b]own[/b], [b]private[/b] property. It really shouldn't make a bit of difference where that private property is located at the time - in a driveway, at Walmart or in an employer's parking lot. [/quote] At one point last year, I see to recall Ramsey actually postulating something kinda close to this during a discussion we were having. Never heard anything else about it afterwards. To me, this approach strikes at what I perceive as a real central issue - how do you handle co-location of property of different ownership (ie, the personal property consisting of the interior contents of the vehicle I own when sitting on another's real property).

Not good. Not good at all. Which of the muppets did the Harwellians reward?

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353698930' post='849831'] ...Employers will still be able to fire employees for any reason... Dolomite [/quote] In theory, true...but i practice, its not quite that simple. I've worked with HR departments several times on matters of the dispopsition of "less than ideal" employees, and quite frankly, IME its easier to scrape barnacles off the hull of a ship than to let employees go "for cause" unless they make some egregious violation (ie, deliberately hurt someone at the workplace, steal a significant amount of company money/property, commit a violent crime while in the workplace, etc), . Its far easier to simply relocate them within an organization to where they do the least damage, or wait until there's a downsizing and let them get caught in the outward flow. I've actually had the theoretical conversation about an employee possessing in their car in violation of a company policy (where property is NOT properly posted) with some HR folks, HR attorneys and security folks at several businesses. None could tell me why the policy is written as such, other than to say that it came down from corporate legal management. None could tell me that such violation was, in their opinion, a "firing" offense unless the company was already looking for a reason to get rid of someone...and even then it was not likely to be singled out as the reason for departure, but instead used to substantiate looking further for more tangible demonstrations of insubordination. So no, I don't think you'll see many counterclaims, just as you do not see many/any firings for violating said policy. Disclaimer: this is based upon my experience in the NE corner of the state...all bets are off for points west, who largely consider themselves to be the real Tennessee anyway.

Dontcha love the ugly interfaces where "what should/could be" meets "what is"...

Slight, but I think important, correction: the bill as proposed would allow storage of personal property within a vehicle (also personal property) that is "operated or parked in a location WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO BE." Seems that language clearly contemplates the owner/entity/possessor has otherwise allowed vehicles access to the location...which may mitigate the "no rights to the property" idea. If, however, you are saying that the employee has no rights WHILE ON an employer's property...

Took mine to the range for the first time yesterday...very nice. Evaluating various possibilities, and a can for it is way high on the list.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353361424' post='848384'] A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance. [/quote] Again - how does "no right to even be on your property" equate to the actual language found in HB3560?

Yeah, I dumped the Campfield amendment from my brain...wish those on the hill had done likewise. Seems there were attempts to attach a "hopstials" exclusion, as well as one other...but those weren't posted to the website until after the close of the GA (strangely). There is some interesting language RE schools in the original bill summation, IIRC. Made reference to other legislation that governed schools: a couple of TCA references and a Federal statute, perhaps? So you believe the punitive language for employers that violate the requirements will be stricken? If so, does that leave the bill with any teeth?