midtennchip

Gotcha.

Threeshot, not sure where you are going with that last post.

Okay, let's clear some things up: 1. Article's Unstated Facts -- the article says Judge Martin sentenced the defendant. I know both Judge Martin and the defense attorney, but haven't spoken to either. However, I think a jury found the defendant guilty. If that is the case, Judge Martin's comments only infer what he believes would have been helpful in the eyes of the jury.. 2. Appellate Opinions -- the appellate opinion and the concurring opinion both state the the original judge committed reversible error because the judge (Judge Easter) made a factual determination on the self-defense argument before the trial. That is a problem because the jury is the one to decide the facts (i.e., the jury weighs the evidence). The appellate opinion and concurring opinion did not say that the self-defense argument was a bad argument, just that the jury should determine whether to believe the argument (not the judge). Practicing law in Nashville and living in Franklin (which is where the trial occurred), I know the judges and the attorneys. Unfortunately, the reporting in the Tennessean is worse than anything done by the attorneys or the judges. If a jury decided the guilt of the defendant, the problem is with the jurors, not the attorneys or the judges. This case should serve as notice to all of us that juries are VERY unpredictable. Just because we think it is a "slamdunk" self-defense case, juries may not see it that way. The jury probably said, "if he thought sitting the gun on the seat was enough, he wasn't using it for self-defense." Reasonable people can debate whether he should have pulled the gun out if he didn't intend to use it (or at least point it at the guy), but the jury didn't think that was self-defense.

To answer your specific question, I do not know anyone in West Tennessee that has any experience or knowledge regarding NFA trusts. However, as a lawyer, I would suggest NOT using one of the software programs to set up an NFA trust (at least not without having an attorney familiar with NFA trusts review it). I am not aware of any software programs that are designed for NFA trusts (they are generic "trust programs"), and NFA trusts have some unique issues that must be addressed. Here's an article from an NFA trust attorney in Florida that discusses potential problems with Quicken: Using Quicken to prepare a trust: The good, the bad, and ugly! :: Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog There's also this one: ATF and Invalid Quicken Trust - ATF approves INVALID Trust - NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog I cannot tell you how many times I have seen "do-it-yourself" wills, trusts, and other documents that are totally screwed up. It is possible to get perfectly good documents from these programs, but I would not rely on one for an NFA trust.

I have a 6 year old and a 2 year old. The bug out bag issue, at least for me, comes down to the length of time our journey will last. My wife and I both have smaller packs in our cars. For the kids, we also have a very lightweight double stroller. So, if something happens and we need to get home, the packs have several food items (M&Ms, goldfish, etc.) in a large ziplock bag. We also have ponchos for the kids and a bottle with water filter. That should get us home. From home, we both have larger packs. I have a plan for leaving the house within 20 minutes and a plan for leaving within 45 minutes or longer. Both plans involve packing the vehicles, or bicycles (with bike trailers) if we can't use the vehicles. If we have to go on foot, the cargo trailer for the bike can be pulled by hand. If we really had to leave the house quickly, the diaper bag is already packed for about a day for the 2 year old and the food in my larger packs will last 3 to 5 days for all four of us. Other than shelter (we have tube tents), water (bottle with filter), food, a few items of clothing (socks, underwear, rain gear), and (of course) firearms, we would have to leave everything else if the bug out had to happen in less than 10 minutes. For my part, pack the absolute necessities for the kids in larger packs for you and spouse. If you have time, you should have a list of things by priority to add to your vehicle (or whatever else you will carry).

Cliffnotes, as requested: Originally, the Ninth Circuit (west coast states) ruled against a gunshow promoter saying that, among other arguments, the 2nd Amendment was a collective right and the plaintiff had no standing to sue to uphold its right. Heller clearly overruled that, so they are back in court to argue again. Since the law at issue is a local ordinance, the court had to decide whether the 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" to apply to state and local laws (rather than just to federal laws). The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorported through "selective incorporation" of the Due Process Clause. I will not bore you with the differences between direct application, incorporation through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and incorporation through the Due Process Clause. But, the opinion is already drawing some critizism on both sides of the argument. While this is helpful to us pro-gun folks, keep in mind that it is limited. The promoter actually lost this case today. The promoter was trying to conduct gun shows in a county-owned building and the county board passed an ordinance making it illegal to bring onto or possess a firearm on county property. As it stands today, that law still prevents the gun shows.

Does anybody know anything about this: Otis Technology, Inc. - Online Catalog There was a full page ad in the Barrett magazine. It looks interesting, but I have no idea whether it would be beneficial (especially for $84).

I know the Cool Springs Wal-Mart is limiting handgun ammo purchases to one box per caliber (at least that's what they've told me on three occasions in the last two months). The guy that's usually there said it was to stop these types of resellers. Obviously, not every Wal-Mart is doing it, though.

I wish this explanation was correct, but it misses on at least two points: 1. just in time inventory doesn't just rely on prior orders. For example, Wal-Mart prides itself on up-to-the-minute adjustments to inventory. Their distribution system relies on the ability meet new demand at precisely the correct time and location. The information they collect is passed on to suppliers and (if a supplier wants to keep the business) Wal-Mart insists suppliers keep up with demand. http://www.infoage.idg.com.au/index.php?id=777120740 2. a number of gun dealers are telling me that, when they ask the manufacturers why they cannot keep up, the manufacturers don't really answer the question. I don't have the answer. But, the fact that places like Wal-Mart can't keep inventory and the manufacturers are not answering questions makes me think there's more to the story. It could be as simple as the manufacturers not having enough capacity to meet the new demand. If the manufacturers think (i) the demand will not stay high or (ii) that the government will do something to change demand (or worse, require changes in manufacturing), I doubt the manufacturers would be willing to increase production capacity at this point.

Tim, your basic idea (i.e., make people better consumers/shoppers) has merit, it is not a silver bullet for "fixing" healthcare. Healthcare is extremely complex and insurance cost (or insurance "overhead") is a very small part. Technology and the desire of people to treat every possible ailment is the major cost factor. Bringing new equipment and drugs to market is extremely expensive, and unfortunately, the U.S. picks up more than its share of the cost for that development. The typical health insurance plan pays out 85 to 90 percent of its premiums in provider claims. So, insurance companies use only 10 to 15 percent of premiums for adminitration and profit. Providers generally do not expend even 10 percent of their revenues towards insurance administration. In total, cutting out insurance would save (at best) 20 to 25 percent. However, there will have to be so form of insurance. Some people would never be able to "fully fund" any type to health savings account. With some diseases, drugs alone cost over 10 grand a month. If you could even cut that in half, most people would never make enough to "save" for such treatment. So, some type of insurance is a necessity. The countries that have cut out private insurance haven't figured it all out either. Those countries haven't reduced actual procedure costs that much by eliminating insurance. If they save any money, it's in limiting care, not significantly reducing costs. Reducing costs is where we need to look, but savings account will not be enough.

For those of you more interested in the real story than just the media sound bites, this whole issue is much more complex than is being discussed in this thread. First, the financial services industry has always paid a significant portion of employee pay in "bonuses." These payments are enforceable in court and the liability for not paying them is at least 3 times the amount of the bonuses themselves. Second, there is nothing in the legislation (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a/k/a the Stimulus Bill) that prevents bailed out financial institutions from increasing base pay to make up for the loss of "bonuses." I think it's funny people (including the idiots in Congress and Treasury) are screaming about "bonuses" when the companies could easily change the pay structure. If they do so, the employees get paid regardless of any outcomes or length of continued service. The fact they are called "bonuses" should be that big of an issue. Third, AIG is a very large and diversified company. Only a small number of the operating units are really responsible for the financial problems. A lot of the employees getting the bonuses are life insurance sales people, mutual fund sales people, and the like (all of which did exactly what they should have done). But, they are thrown in with the few people that actually caused the problem. Then, you have the potential issues with the idiotic tax scheme proposed this week: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ff2f77e-1584-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html Yes, I agree with everyone here that some heads should roll at AIG (if they haven't already, since some of the bad apples are already gone). But, be careful in lumping all of the AIG folks into the same category. The real issue is the Treasury and now Congress. They knew about these problems BEFORE investing the TARP money. IMO, they are the ones that really need to be held accountable.

I've done a LOT of research on water treatment and finally decided on the product below. I think (but I'm not positive) this would also remove chlorine. It is relatively cheap and it is rated at 1 million gallons . That's without replacement filters and without chemicals or electricity. https://www.sawyersafetravel2.com/more.asp?pid=122 It's available here for even less money: http://www.rei.com/product/781792

I haven't seen this posted yet, so I thought I'd share it: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-27-2009/0004980051&EDATE= Keep in mind that this opinion is only binding in the 10th Circuit (i.e., Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming & Utah). Also, some articles have stated (erroneously) that the decision upheld the employees' "Constitutional" right to keep and bear arms. The opinion does not address the constitutional rights of the employees. The only mention of the Constitution in the opinion is that the employers do not have a constitutional right to prevent the Oklahoma law's application. One last thing: the Oklahoma law is not limited to employers. It says property owners cannot prevent gun owners from keeping firearms locked in a vehicle.

Just some resources if you need them: For sealed food (i.e., plastic buckets with mylar and oxygen absorbers), this website may prove to be cheaper and/or easier than doing it yourself. It is good for staples (i.e., sugar, salt, rice, etc.): http://www.aaoobfoods.com/bucketsoffood.htm#top For freeze dried Mountain House, this website has a good sale going on until March 6th. Mountain House is NOT the cheapest stuff, but is close to the best. It also stores for at least 25 years: http://safecastleroyal.com/category_63/30-yr.-Cans.html

Just an FYI to all -- 1. If the gun was stolen before Rem 700 purchased the gun from the pawn broker (which I would think would be considered a "merchant" under the law), then the original owner would NOT be able to recover the gun from Rem 700 (or anyone else that Rem 700 sold it to). The pawn broker might have a problem, but Rem 700 would not be required to return the gun (or recover the gun from the person he sold it to). 2. This is NOT the case if the gun does not pass through a merchant. That is, the original owner CAN recover the stolen property if no one ever purchased the gun from a "merchant" in the "ordinary course of business." These are just principles under property law. Unfortunately, a LOT of LEOs do not know this principle. From a practical matter, it may not be financially beneficial to go to court to enforce this principle if an LEO takes the gun anyway. Obviously, if this is all a scam, maybe just quoting this principle will make it go away.

If anyone is interested, the following article covers the "incorporation" issue pretty well. It's easier to read and summarizes the issue well: http://reason.com/news/show/131808.html

Dave, the State of Tennessee does provide for a right to bear arms in Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. However, like all rights (U.S. Constitution or state constitution), that right is subject to "reasonable" limitations. Our state simply stated that limitation (i.e., "to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime") directly in the constitution. Otto, you may want to search the Heller threads. The Heller decision does NOT prevent state limitations on arms. The District of Columbia is a federal enclave and is subject to all of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, there has been a long-running debate in constitutional law circles (and SCOTUS decisions) regarding whether all of the Amendments have been "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment (which means whether all of the Amendments apply against the States). Since the Heller decision did not address the incorporation issue, it is still an open issue whether Heller would prevents states from enforcing laws similar to the DC law. It probably does, but it hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet. If you're interested, the law review article below addresses the incorporation issues of Heller. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1245402&rec=1&srcabs=1235537

I think we tried that several times, but neither would take it.

Yes, I think you are overreacting, it least with respect to something Wharton wants. First, Wharton has no power and very little influence outside of Shelby County. Having lived in Memphis until 8 years ago, I can tell you that most Memphis politicians have much less influence over the rest of the state than they think they have. Second, the Cordova shooting has received very little attention here in Nashville. I suspect that is the same in Chattanooga and Knoxville. We have much more to worry about with federal legislation. I just do not see the state of Tennessee passing significant restrictions on guns anytime soon. Tennessee legislators are just not going to lead the way on anti-gun legislation. The ones that really want restrictions will wait until tougher restrictions are the norm in other states (or under federal law).

In addition to hunting and fishing, having space and the knowledge to do some gardening will be important. Patrick, I agree you cannot store enough food for a major event, but we have stocked away enough for about 6 months (and plan to have more). The space need for 6 months is not that large (I've got it on two shelving units). But, there's probably $1500 worth of food. I admit I don't have enough know-how regarding gardening and hunting, but I'm learning. BTW, if any of you haven't read "Lights Out" yet, read it.

Keep in mind that New Hampshire passed this resolution, but most of the others are just proposed resolutions (hopefully they will get passed). However, if you actually read the NH resolution (see below), there are several things I would like to see changed (they say "further infringements" and "further limitations," like the ones that the feds already have are okay ). Nevertheless, a resolution is one thing. Actually doing something about it is another. Unless they are going to kick the FBI, federal judges, and US attorneys out, the feds will continue to enforce the federal laws the resolution condemns. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

First, it is not redundant. The employer needed the same information, but for a different purpose. The employer is required by federal law to obtain a completed I-9, which also requires the employer to actually examine the document(s) you present as proof for the form. So, unlike collecting the information for purposes of payroll, benefits, etc. that they have already done, the I-9 requires you to certify (under penalty of perjury) that you are, in fact, eligible to work in the U.S and requires the employer to examine the proof document(s) to insure (haha!) that the documents are legitimate. Again, the employer has the information on the form (probably other than the Driver's License or State ID -- unless they collected for I-9 purposes earlier), but they don't have you certification without the I-9. In addition, the feds have not increases enforcement of the I-9 requirements. However, the new Tennessee law (went into effect January 1, 2008) prohibiting employment of illegal aliens may be the source of the employer's need to update the I-9. You can see the article regarding no-match letters and the new TN law I wrote for the Nashville Chamber at the link below (second article). http://app.e2ma.net/campaign/82760f0114ded5212d2419cc29df5035

Well, quotes like this are why I'm not a huge Thomas Jefferson fan. If he'd stopped at the first sentence, I would agree. But, what if the "law of necessity" is confiscating guns; what if the "saving our country" is rounding up certain groups of people; what if "self-preservation" means outlawing religious freedom or freedom of speech. Once the government starts exercising such "laws of necessity," it is the individual that loses, not the other way around.

You're going to have to point me to that one in the Internal Revenue Code. I do a lot of tax work, but I've never seen nor heard of such a deduction (for business purposes or otherwise). Now, I readily admit I've never LOOKED for such a deduction, but I cannot think of a single Code section under which it would be stated. I guess there's an argument that a firearm could be depreciated like any other business equipment (particularly if the business was something like a gun range, security company, etc.), but I would think that would require a Schedule C (for a personal return) or a business tax return. But, with either of those two options, I would not expect to see a "1-2 firearms per year" limit or "up to 2" limit on such business equipment deductions. If you know of a Code section or IRS guidance on it, I would certainly welcome the information.

This is a particularly scary bill. I urge everyone of this forum to contact his or her Representative on this one. If passed in its current form, evenif you dont buy any new guns, you would have 2 years after the effective date to get licensed. Although it is a "shall issue" bill, it is also the dreaded gun registration bill (at least if you buy or sell a covered gun after the effective date). Finally, it criminalizes a number of civil tort issues (e.g., negligent storage). From my reading on the bill, I do NOT believe the Heller decision would affect this bill. It would require another Supreme Court decision to overturn it. Who knows what the Court will look like at the time.