midtennchip

I have started reading the opinion in more detail. However, to answer a couple of questions above, the States have nothing they can do to affect the individual mandate issue. The States are not involved in that part of it. According to Justice Roberts's opinion, the individual mandate imposes a tax on anyone who chooses not to purchase health insurance. A person is free to choose not to have health insurance (i.e., it is not illegal). He also states that the tax "is not so high that there really is no choice but to buy health insurance." So, the tax is just like the federal income tax. You avoid the tax by buying insurance. The States do not (and cannot) control whether or not the federal government can tax its citizens. The problem with this logic (in my opinion) is that taxes always go up. Once the tax becomes almost equivalent to the cost of insurance, it does make it "no choice," and the ruling is essentially worthless. I highly doubt any subsequent case will overturn this ruling simply because the tax gets too high. Whether or not the federal government can control other actions through this type of legislation remains to be seen. Gun control is an act of STOPPING commerce. This legislation is intended to COMPEL commerce (i.e., forcing people to buy something). I guess there's a possibility that gun owners could be required to buy a huge amount of insurance to own a gun, but I think the 2A cases we've already had would make that hard. Specifically, the licensing requirements in DC under Heller cannot be so burdensome as to make gun ownership too difficult. As, adding a huge cost through an insurance mandate would be problematic under Heller.

Huge hit to the Constitution, in my opinion. The Court apparently has held that the individual mandate is constitutional under Congress's taxing authority. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberals (a 5-4 vote) to uphold the individual mandate based on the taxing authority. The Court found that individuals are not really required to purchase insurance, but can instead pay the tax (2.5% of gross income) and such a tax is constitutional. It was also held that the individual mandate (another 5-4 vote, with Roberts joining the conservatives) would not be constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but because it is constitutional as a tax, the Commerce Clause issue doesn't matter. The only other issue the Court ruled on was related to Medicaid funding on the expansion of Medicaid in the Act. Probably not too important to most of you here, but the Court struck down a very minor issue in the Act related to Medicaid funds. Otherwise, Obamacare was completely upheld. The 4 conservative justices voted to strike down Obamacare in its entirety. Had Roberts voted with the conservatives, Obamacare would have been over. The opinion is available below: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

This is becoming more of an issue in Tennessee than it should be. This is the second county I've heard about this week alone where the sheriff is avoiding his duty. The statute (which is a Tennessee statute, so it does not apply in other states and does not override the NFA requirement to get the signature) referenced above does require the sheriff to sign it, but there is caselaw that says the sheriff can mark out part of the language on the form and then sign it. That will cause the ATF to deny the tax stamp. So, there are ways around it if the CLEO is savvy enough. Unfortunately, a sheriff really doesn't report to anyone. Sheriffs are elected, so unless you can impeach him or put enough political pressure on him, there's not a whole lot that can be done to force him (assuming bringing that statute to his attention doesn't do it).

Yes, anything Mas does is usually VERY good. Mas is a board member of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network and almost everything the Network publishes dovetails with Mas's views. If ever faced with having to prove self-defense in court, who wouldn't want Mas to be your expert witness? He's great.

If you are a member of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, you may have already seen this. If not, I highly suggest reading it. Marty Hayes (President of the Network and seen regularly on the Outdoor Channel's Best Defense show) wrote the article in their June Journal. The link below will take you to the June edition. To summarize the article, Marty goes through the forensic evidence that has become available in the case and tells the reader what Zimmerman's legal team is going to need to do with that evidence. Of interest to any of us who care about these things, Marty notes that there is a question regarding whether or not the investigators collected blood and/or skin samples from the concrete at the crime scene. As Marty notes, this could be a significant piece of the defense puzzle that Zimmerman (or his attorneys) should be looking into. Marty also goes into the Florida law regarding an initial "agressor" and how Zimmerman could be barred from even getting the self-defense issue in front of the jury. At the end of every jury trial, the jurors are given "jury instructions" that tell the jurors what the law is. If the judge does not allow Zimmerman's attorneys to include a self-defense jury instruction, Zimmerman may not have a defense to this. Interesting issues and a VERY instructive case for those who carry for self-defense. http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal/267-june-2012

This is a lot of unsupported hype. First, the "special permit" the Infowars article talks about has almost nothing to do with individual gun rights. The "special permit" that could be revoked is a permit that would allow transporters to have approval to avoid certain safety requirements in commercial transmodal shipping. Shipping of guns could fall into that category, but a revocation of the "special permit" only means that the transporter would have to go back to meeting the safety requirements that already exist. Second, the issue of the passport revocation also isn't as easy as Infowars makes it out to be. The passport cannot be taken simply by the IRS "accusing" you of owing the debt. The passport revocation can only occur after the IRS has filed a lien or notice of levy for the debt. Even then, there are some restrictions. IRS liens and levies do not just happen. There is a lot of notice to the taxpayer before any of that happens. Unfortunately, Infowars has become very unreliable on these issues. No doubt the goverment expansion of power is a problem, but this is just not what Infowars says it is.

To be technical, a "bequest" means that a will designated who was to receive the firearm and "intestate" does mean the probate process. That federal exception does not cover a transfer that was not specified in a will or was a transfer to an heir under the laws of intestate succession. So, for example, if grandpa's will left everything to grandma and she says "he wanted you to have it," that does not fit the federal exception. But, I agree, you don't need a lawyer for everything.

Well, here's the first problem with an HOA. You agreed (by buying the property) to all the restrictions in the by-laws of the HOA. Almost no one reads those before buying the property, but it is strictly a matter of agreement between owners within the subdivision. Second problem sounds like a problem with either (i) the HOA board and/or (ii) the management company. If the management company is not doing what it should in terms of enforcing the by-laws, getting maintenance (ie: that which is covered by the HOA in the by-laws) done, hiring lawn care companies, etc., then the HOA board should be dealing with that. However, many HOA boards (like many other organizations) become dominated by a select few and, for the most part, go unchallenged. Unless you are willing to get involved in the HOA (ie: become a board member, attend meetings, stay on top of the board and/or management company), there's not a whole lot you can do. Our HOA has its problems, too. The management company is very reactionary, sending "demand letters" out only when someone complains. So, if you have one or two neighbors who are problems, you get more "demand letters" than other people and the letters tend to be more "nit-picky" than others. My experience is that HOA management companies rarely send people out to look at properties, so they rely on either the board or complaints to dictate what they are going to enforce.

I'll be the contrarian. Ours is probably a lemon, but it isn't what I expected. 1. Suction is terrible (again, probably because we have a lemon). I actually think the hose connection may be faulty, but it's out of warranty so I haven't sent it in. 2. I hate the hose attachment usage. The hose is pointed upward and then you have to turn the attachments downward, which invariably causes a kink in the hose (losing even more suction). Most people like them, but I suspect there are equally good vacuums for significantly less money. My suggestion, if you buy one, is make sure it works as well as expected right off the bat. If not, at least try to see if the warranty will fix any suspected issues. Had I done that initially (unfortunately, my wife insisted that it was working right), I think it may have been fine.

Well, it appears we will have to postpone this one. For those you expressed interest, I appreciate it, but we are a few people short of having a sufficient number for the class. We will probably try to have it later in the year, though. Thanks!

Last call!!! We are probably one or two people short on this. If you are interested and have not contacted me, please let me know ASAP. We'll have to confirm by Monday to make things work. Thanks, Chip

I've bought several guns from them, as well as a number of accessories online, and have always had a great experience.

The weapon and ammunition in the two cases listed above were certainly a factor, according to Massad Ayoob (who was an expert witness in the Bias case).

The biggest issues in my mind are the practical effects on the prosecutor and the jury (assuming it gets that far). At least in Tennessee, there have been numerous self-defense shootings (especially those within a person's home) that prosecutors simply don't want to pursue. But if you add a Class 3 weapon into the mix, I think the likelihood of a prosecutor bringing a case goes up (by how much, I don't know). Essentially the same issue comes up for the jury. The likelihood of a successful defense in court is just diminished, in my opinion. So, if the Class 3 weapon does not provide some additional benefit, I don't see a reason to choose a Class 3 over any other weapon. Obviously, a SBR might be slightly more effective in CQB situations, but is it worth the added risk of prosecution and/or guilty verdict? That's a personal decision everyone has to make.

There aren't many cases in which a Class 3 weapon has been used. The only one I know of is the Gary Fadden case from 1984. He was a salesman for H&K and used a full auto Ruger AC556 in self-defense. It looked pretty clear that it was self-defense, but the full auto defense weapon was a political issue. From what Massad Ayoob has stated in his American Handgunner article on the case, the first 2 prosecutors on the case would not bring charges, but a third prosecutor was finally put on the case and brought a 1st degree murder charge. Fadden eventually won the case, but it was expensive (luckily, H&K paid for a large portion of the defense, even though the weapon was Fadden's personal weapon). As Patrick stated, the type of weapon used doesn't really change the legal arguments. But the type of weapon certainly can have an effect on the prosecutor and/or jury. As for handloaded ammo, Ayoob has argued for years that you shouldn't use handloaded ammo for self-defense. The reasoning is that handloads are almost impossible to replicate for evidence. The most famous case on this issue was the Danny Bias case. That resulted in 4 separate trials (including 2 hung juries, one overturned conviction, and finally a conviction for reckless manslaughter). The GSR evidence (or lack thereof) was the real problem in that case. However, realize that he was charged with killing his wife and he argued that she committed suicide. The lack of GSR on his wife's body was a BIG issue. Obviously, you have to use your own judgment. The question is whether it is worth the POTENTIAL problem.

Thanks, Mike. I'm sure we see some of the same issues. The biggest heartbreaker I've seen was a grandfather who intended to provide his entire estate to a special needs grandchild (his two children had enough money, so he didn't want to leave it directly to his kids). He used an online service and failed to get it executed properly (had only a notary's signature; no witnesses). His will was invalid and his estate was handled through intestate succession (for those who don't know what that is, it is the "default" that is in the TN statutes). The's guys two kids fought it out in court, but the special needs child didn't get what the man intended. On top of that, the will itself failed to provide for a trust to handle the special needs child's money. So, even if the will had been valid, it wouldn't have done what the guy wanted. Another happened within our family in another state several years ago. Without going into specifics, the wills (both husband and wife) did not get properly executed and the thing really caused some problems between the families involved. Moral of the story - Saving a few bucks now may cause a lot of problems for the ones you leave behind. You won't be here to deal with it, but you may leave a mess. Some of the online services are pretty good, but it's like any professional relationship. Your aren't paying a doctor or accountant for the actual pill or document, you are paying for KNOWLEDGE.

Sounds like you got it done correctly (assuming the notary at the UPS store saw the witnesses sign your will).

The notary is needed to notarize the signature of the witnesses to the will, not the signature of the person who is executing the will. If a will was only signed by a notary (and not by two witnesses), the will is invalid in TN.

I would hope that the life insurance is NOT affected by the will. That's one of those "questions" a lawyer would be asking that an online forms website might not.

Well, this is where using a DIY will can be a problem. I don't know the circumstances of your aunt's estate, so I am not commenting on it specifically. The issues I see with DIY wills (or trusts, or any other legal document, for that matter) are as follows: 1. execution of the will (it requires more than just a notary); 2. there may be other options available that the DIY will didn't ask you (and you didn't know to ask); and 3. failing to include (or exclude) provisions that are specific to your needs. In a case where there is significant debt, a will may not be the best option (or only option). Where there are minor children, a DIY will likely isn't going to do what you need it to do, either. Unfortunately, there are horror stories about DIY wills that easily could have been avoided with one visit to a lawyer. Simple wills (and in the case of minor children, simple wills with a trust) are not that expensive. But keep in mind, you really aren't paying the lawyer for the will. You are paying for the lawyer's ability to ask the right questions and make sure your wishes are actually carried out after your death.

I've had a few guys ask about possibly moving the dates. Please let me know if you would be interested if we moved the date to a Sunday in March.

BUMP - I've had a couple of guys back out, so we still have a couple of spots left. Honestly, I am only doing this so I can actually attend the class (no monetary gain for me, I can assure you). If interested, please let me know. Thanks, Chip

Keep in mind that this is an OPINION piece from one of the Tennessean editors. Someone may have already pointed this out (I didn't see it though), but Glenn Reynolds (the Constitutional law professor at UT) wrote an opinion piece with the opposite opinion that was published in the Tennessean on the same day. I suspect the editor just couldn't allow Prof. Reynolds's piece to run without a "response." Record check an ineffective nuisance | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

To answer your question, yes, I believe a private business could do that. It wouldn't be good for business (not too many of us drive such cars anymore), but it could. The risk (and I think it would be VERY minimal) is that someone could sue that business for "forcing" them to not have an airbag to come onto the business's property (although, I'm not sure how someone could "remove" an airbag -- unlike what happens with a gun). I think your hangup on this (like many other people) is the Constitutional issue within the 2nd Amendment. But, there is also a Constitutional issue for the business owner (the property issue) to be able to prohibit the carrying of a gun within that property. I understand the problem, but you basically have two (2) competing Constitutional rights. Which one gets the nod? Personally, I don't think the government should make that decision (whether for me or against me). The real issue is simply this. The state and/or local government could pass a law saying that a business within its jurisdiction could not prevent legal firearms carry, just as such a government could pass an "English only" law (or vice versa), a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, or any other law. At the state or local government level, this would be only a matter of political will, not a Constitutional issue. In regulating businesses, local and state governments have wide latitude.

First, you need a business license to even conduct most businesses. However, the issue you appear to be most concerned about has little to do with firearms. The issue is the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. I believe (as I suspect most on this forum do) that the federal government has far surpassed what the Commerce Clause was intended to do, but the SCOTUS has interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government to have some regulatory power over anything that affects interstate commerce. But more to the point, the issues you are pointing out (more times than not) are controlled by state or local law. States and municipalities don't rely on the Commerce Clause for their power over businesses. It really just goes to the business license issue. Fundamentally, a business is not a purely private endeavor. By definition, it requires the participation of people other than the owner. Accordingly, there are certain aspects of a business that can (and should) be controlled by state and local government. If a business should be able to do ANYTHING it's owner wants (as I understand you to say), then all the consumer protection laws, usury laws, taxes, licenses (e.g., doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, etc), and any other regulation required to run a business would have to disappear. If you believe that, okay, but I doubt you'll ever see that in any governmental environment ever again.