midtennchip

Deleted by author.

I moved to Mac TODAY. Just had a horrible experience with Windows 8.0 and the now "rouge" (if you listen to the Microsoft folks) 8.1 Preview. I am not a technical guy, but the 8.0 machine never worked and the move to 8.1 Preview (months ago) has proven to be the biggest mistake ever on a computer. The prospect of having to pay over $300 just to get the laptop back to 8.0 (which is the only option Microsoft gave me) was not worth it. I hate Apple, but I have now converted. Not going back.

I can't get the "multi-quote" to work on my iPad, but in any event, I would disagree with both of you. Some HOAs do have the right to inspect the inside of your property. This issue is fairly common in condos and co-op housing. Just take a look at the Q&A on this HOA law firm's website. http://www.hoaleader.com/public/569.cfm Again, it's a contract. If you buy the property, you agreed to it. There might be some chance of challenging it, but it isn't a purely constitutional issue.

Well, I wish the issue was as simple as many people like to believe. On a general issue, not all HOAs are the same. I have lived in very restrictive HOA communities, but now live in one with a very limited HOA. if you are buying property, you should be asking this stuff long before the closing. Any decent realtor will be able to get the information for you before you even make an offer on the property (which is the time to be concerned -- closing would be too late to back out on the sales agreement). Second, an HOA is an CONTRACT. If you buy the property, you agreed to the restrictions (or the manner in which restrictions are changed or added). So, the constitutional issue does (to some degree) take a back seat to the contract. In this specific case (which appears to be a restriction that was added, rather than being in the original covenants), there might be more of a constitutional issue. However, if it had been in the original covenants, I think it would be hard to challenge. There is a law review article that was based on this HOA. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1774-wahl15upajconstl10032013

I am watching the video in parts, so my comments above did not take into account some later video. If you really want to learn how the courts have dealt with the 2A (as opposed to just having someone advocate for a preferred position), this video is great. O'Shea covers the historical issues really well in the first 25-30 minutes. It is worth the time.

Here is the video from the symposium. Even if you don't want to watch the whole video, I would encourage you to watch Glenn's opening comments (about 7 minutes). Remember, he is speaking mInly to legal types, but he lays out some issues that he believes the SCOTUS settled and other issues that are probably coming down the pike. Glenn is certainly a pro2A guy, so take his comments for the educational aspect. http://sf.ites.utk.edu/utk/Catalog/Full/69b2283d03404c10931ee7ef73e9b0bf21

Here's an article on the law of "treasure trove."  Tennessee is somewhat different than many other states (including California) on a find like this.  However, given that the finders also appear to be the owners of the land, it seems they would get to keep the coins (even if they were in Tennessee).   http://www.muenzgeschichte.ch/downloads/laws-usa.pdf   The case regarding Spanish coins found by a Florida search company is very different for several reasons.  The main reason is that the coins were not found in the United States and were actually still located onboard a Spanish vessel.  As a result, the coins were located in Spanish sovereign territory.

Maybe I'm misreading the story (or maybe the story is wrong), but it sounds like the kid tried to pass on the sidewalk because the other driver tried to block him in.  Sounded like the problem had already started, other driver tried to block kid in, and the kid tried to get out of there by passing on the sidewalk. 

No, I think that's all the info posted right now. I picked up the info on that blog, but the same info is posted on UT's website.

I don't know.  Usually, these are done for the UT Law Review and probably will be an article in the UT Law Review at some point later in the year.

I am sure it will be a little of both.  I doubt you will here alot of argument for or against it, but rather just the perspective of law professor types on what the issues will be and how they expect the courts to deal with them.  Most legal symposiums are informational, rather than "for" or "against" any particular viewpoint.

If you are interested, a legal symposium (law professor types) is being held at the UT College of Law on Saturday, March 1st at 9am.  Glenn Reynolds is involved and he is really good on these issues.  Might be very interesting if you can stay awake. :pleased:   ADDED:  It is FREE, by the way.

If anyone is really interested, there is a symposium on the "New Frontiers in the Second Amendment" being held at the UT College of Law on Saturday, March 1st at 9am.  Wish I could go, but some of you around Knoxville might find it interesting.    Added:  It is FREE and open to the public, by the way.

Well, the Ninth Circuit didn't base its decision on those cases. They only quoted them for historical background. The court based it's decision mainly on Heller, so my expectation is that any other case in our Circuit or from the SCOTUS will be based mostly on Heller and not these old cases. Not saying it would never happen, but Heller made it pretty clear that some regulation is acceptable. It differs significantly from these older cases in a number of ways, so I would expect cases coming out in the future will be using Heller as the starting point

  I don't think so.  First, each case that I read quoted were state cases, so they would only be binding in those states.  One of those cases was a Tennesssee Case (the Andrews case), but that case really isn't helpful to people trying to assert a 2nd Amendment right.  It actually stated, "when [a person] carries his [gun] abroad, goes among the people in public assemblages where others are to be affected by his conduct, then he brings himself within the pale of public regulation, and must submit to such restriction on the mode of using or carrying his [gun] as the people through their Legislature, shall see fit to impose for the general good."   It also held that a pistol was not an "arm" covered by the 2nd Amendment (because it was not an arm of a militiaman or solider at the time).   In any event, Heller, as well as several other cases, has changed the law regarding rifles (at least as compared to those old cases).

Here's a short post from Volokh on what is likely to happen next (from a legal procedure perspective) in this case:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/what-next-for-the-second-amendment-and-the-right-to-carry-guns/

I have thought through this so many times (reading just about every halfway intelligent law review article and court opinion I could find).  When it comes right down to it, there is ALWAYS going to be some infringement upon the carrying of firearms.  It is simply a matter of degree.  What we are seeing is one court case after another trying to inch us closer and closer to the line that will ultimately be drawn.    We accept (and the courts allow) so many infringements on the Bill of Rights, but as the legal saying goes, "bad facts make bad laws."  The "facts" argued about in a 2nd Amendment case are so different from those of a 4th Amendment case or a 6th Amendment case, so we get some discrepancies between the infringements that really don't make a lot of sense.   From what I am seeing, I think the SCOTUS will ultimately be faced with some of these cases and will rule that government can regulate the "manner" pretty heavily, as long as the regulations allow a reasonable (whatever that is) opportunity for law abiding citizens to carry guns of some sort.  In the 1800s, carrying a loaded rifle was extremely common and none of the courts had a problem with it.  On the other hand, concealed carry was viewed more harshly (my, how times have changed).  Fast forward a 100 years and we've done a 180 as a society.  Courts are responding accordingly because judges view things in light of the societal norms of the time.   My view is that courts will, over time, give and take (a little at a time) until the issue dies down again.  We'll have a relatively lengthy period where nothing happens in the courts on this issue, then we'll have another round because societal norms change again.  Just a cyclical issue, I think.

This is just a bit of free advice.  In Tennessee, and in a number of other states, a "holographic" will is perfectly legal.  A "holographic" will is one that is TOTALLY written in the person's own handwriting (no typing, no fill-in-the-blanks, no printed handwriting, etc.).  The reason a holographic will is legal is because the handwriting can be analyzed and determined whether or not it was written by the testator.  If you do not have a will and need to do it as cheaply as possible, then a holographic will is an option.   CAVEAT:  Just because you have a will (of any kind), does not mean that you have set things up properly.  There are certain things that you just cannot do in a will (and have it hold up, anyway), such as cutting your spouse out of the will completely.  Getting the "paper" really isn't what you pay an attorney to do.  You pay for the expertise, the ability to ask the right questions, and the ability to help you figure out how to accomplish what you really desire.  The actual "paper" is only the end result.

Tanker, sorry for your loss. I know it is tough. While your advice is great, I would point out a couple of minor things. 1. If a will is written in any manner (such as typed) other than a person's own handwriting, then the will needs to be witnessed. Notarizing is for notarizing the witnesses signatures, not for your signature. 2. There is no reason to "file" a will with a court in Tennessee until the person passes away. The courts do not keep then for just filing purposes. Otherwise, yes, you are on the money. Wills help the survivors tremendously.

This is probably a good place to start in understanding why the Ninth held the way it did: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/ Volokh is excellent at explaining Constitutional law. It is also interesting that even in the 1800s, courts routinely held that laws prohibiting concealed carry we're constitutional. So, this isn't a new issue. What makes the California laws (like the one in this case) really problematic is that they effectively prohibit ALL carry, not use concealed carry or open carry. Also, just an interesting thought I read in another law review article some time ago. Many of the firearms restrictions that many people (including many here) accept without argument would be unconstitutional if held to the same standard as other constitutional rights. For example, most people believe felons (and particularly violent felons) should not have 2nd Amendment rights. But felons of all kinds are still protected under the Bill of Rights for other things (such as the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments). It would be unthinkable that a felon would have to give up the right (at least in total) to remain silent, to a speedy trial, or to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, but lose all rights under another Amendment (such as the 2nd). Again, just food for thought.

The opinion is over 100 pages, so I have not yet read through it completely. However, it is interesting to note that it was a 2 to 1 decision and the dissenting judge said that the holding the majority's decision is in conflict with Heller. Also of note is that the Ninth Circuit is now in agreement with the Seventh on this, but the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits have held the opposite. Strange days, indeed.

The expungement statute gives some hope to certain felons, but drug offenses do not qualify. The key to the new expungement statute is that it restores the person to the same status as before the arrest and conviction. Prior to that statute, the Tennessee AG opinion (and the case law following it) was that Tennessee law prohibited persons who had "been convicted of a felony." It doesn't say a "felon." What difference does it make? A pardon (even a Presidential pardon) does not erase the fact that a person has previously been convicted. So, Tennessee did not really allow full restoration of rights the way many other states did. Now, with certain listed felonies, it is at least possible. I just doubt it would help your friend.

To be honest, I am not sure if the ATF gave them some bad information or they just made an assumption regarding the need to respond to each comment. That is not required. The basic rule making process is explained in the document below, but there is no requirement to respond to each individual comment in writing. Just a requirement to take the comments into consideration. I worked on comments for tax law issues numerous times over the years and have never received a direct response to the comment from the issuing agency. Like everyone else, I hope the ATF figures out its problems, but I get perplexed with all the misinformation going around. Maybe the information came directly from the ATF people, but I highly doubt the ATF will respond individually to all 8,500 comments. https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

We just haven't shopped around recently (but it is on the agenda). Our carrier is not the worst around, but I would not say they are on the better end, either. They seem to be okay when the claim is "pure" (meaning no third party involved and no "fault" they can place on the insured). As with many others, as soon as they even think there's a chance to blame someone, they get significantly more difficult. Just do a little research on carriers. The carriers that use independent agents tend to be a little easier to deal with.

I would just suggest looking into how claims are handled before going with (or staying with) any particular company. I have been close friends and office mates with several personal injury attorneys and a defense attorney for several years. It is amazing how different I look at insurance carriers after all the stories I've heard over the years. There are a few that are really bad. If you file a claim, they fight you tooth and nail. If someone files a claim against you, they fight settle at all costs (meaning the insured has to participate in the defense - depositions, answering discovery, even going to trial). Make sure you are comfortable with that side of the equation, too.