Worriedman

I remember only too well watching the hordes of greeters from our young men coming back from Viet Nam, being spat on and called "baby killers" as they put feet back on U.S. soil. I abhorred that type of action then, and still do. Having been in on setting up several Tea Party events, and having spoken at several more, I can promise it is not the intent of the folks who work to get a conservative message out to act like that. If the count of people who were against this Bill were some minor portion of the population it would be one thing, but to have a pretty healthy majority doing everything they could to keep it from happening in the "In your face, we are the ruling elite" tone that it occurred, I suspect we have not seen a tithe of the anger to be expressed that is coming. When they try to shove immigration "reform" and Cap and Trade down the country's throat in the same manner, expect the rhetoric to advance in volume and viperitude. Pelosi and Co. have promised to cut the locks, jump the fence, break any rule to get at the socialist nirvana they see as being best for us. Nothing good can come of this road to control, but here we go.

If one were to be a savvy politician, what better way to marginalize your opposition (Tea Party) than to have a plant run up to a public parade of individuals and scream a few invectives, and possibly spit on the parade? Notice no charges were filed, and none of the tapes of the incident show such actions or captured any of the alleged activity. Hmmmm. All those cops in attendance, and none of them saw or heard it? Gives me pause to wonder if it really happened, or was it conveniently manufactured.

Au contraire. The ONLY thing certain is death, taxes are optional. Over 50% of the population of the U.S. pay no income taxes. Lots of people off the books pay no Social Security taxes along with paying no Income tax. Yet if any of them show up in an emergency room in the U.S., they get health care.

They are being absorbed by the IRS and the new bureaucracies to dole out health care. Bet your hinney none of them will go hungry or wanting.

I would hazard a guess that 90% of all municipalities in the State have the exact same verbiage in their Municipal Codes. I know we did in Jackson, but we got the whole Chapter 6-11.604 part removed, (where it is in most Municipal codes as well) so now we concur with State Law. As I see it, any change to the current statute, brings it under State Preemption, as if the section is modified it is no longer a pre-'86 Ordinance. So in effect, their modifying it takes the "prior to 1986" status away. Kinves and various hand held sticks are covered in 39-17-1302(a), so the whole section could be repealed/deleted and the municipality would then be in line with State Law.

I am a veteran of the Insurance wars. Wife had a kidney transplant 4 years ago, prior to that, dialysis for 7 years. I keep up with the cost of health care. We paid a separate Medicare premium for 3 years prior to the transplant, it becomes your primary through the transplant and for 3 yeas after, then they drop you. Anti-rejection drugs cost me about 12k a year above what my private insurance pays, plus the myriad of Dr. visits necessary at $40.00 a pop for co-pay. This new plan we will have to get under will cure that, I will be bankrupt in another year, and she will be dead in 2-3. 56 year olds who are not employable will get no care, they will council us on "end of Life" considerations. It will be good for the job market though, all the new bureaucracies to dole out the increased tax bite on the luckily still employed going to the ones who can vote for the next 40 years, will create a lot of jobs in the Government, of course the taxes start now, the free health care is 4 years in the offing. Wife was in college when her kidneys failed, had been for 4 years. She had just finished nursing school, which I paid for, when she got sick. We applied for her Social Security disability benefits, found out she had none, they now average the last 10 years, so her 18 years of paying the full 16% self employment tax was lost, she gets no benefits, and is not eligible for Medicare now, and never will be. Medicare is tied to Social Security eligibility, so we are screwed there. Government plans are not the answer, as a lot of folks are going to find out.

Personally, I see the only hope in turning this situation around, is by getting involved, especially on the local level. The City Council Members and County Commissioners should know each of us by name, and on sight. If we are diligent in making sure that the local legislators are aware that we are watching, (and helping to form policy), we gain experience in effective techniques that can be used to advocate on the State level, and, gain recognition, as the State Representatives converse with the local party apparatus. We may not be able to affect a Federal Representative or Senator, but we should be able to reach and influence our local group, and that is going to be more and more important as time marches on.

Placed on sub-committee calender of Financial Ways and Means for 03/24/2010, and the Amendment is finally up on the TN Legislature site.

I would like to see your reasoning relative to the danger of the Second Amendment being repealed.

I was thinking possibly the reaction against Belle Meade was going off half cocked......

I think maybe, they are zeroing in on a specific situation, and possibly a specific person of interest with this move. State preemption will no allow a HCP Holder to be denied their ability to carry by this change, as the permit itself is a defense against the charge of "intent to go armed".

Been traveling today, did HB 3125 get out of committee?

This ruling was made with Heller as a precedent. I suspect that after June, and a ruling by SCOTUS on McDonald v. Chicago, there will be a challange.

The battle will be in the House chamber, pretty sure it will be a go in the Senate.

When my brother-in-law got back from active duty in Viet Nam, he and my sister moved to Maryville, he to finish college at UT, she to teach school there in Maryville. I remember moving them from my hometown (Milan) up there after a football game, Earnie and I had loaded the U-Haul that afternoon, we played Bolivar, and after the game we headed out to drive through the night. Sister was carrying the new baby, (a present from R and R visitation his last year in) with my parents the next morning. It was my first trip to East TN, and I loved the town and the people. When we got up there, he had rented a basement from a Methodist preacher as an apartment. Daylight found us unloading the truck, and some folks from the neighborhood came over to help. We actually painted the whole apartment that day as well, as it was a little shabby. The neighbors had paint left over from a re-do of their own place, not only donating their goods, but the brushes and their time to help as well. 38 years ago, but I have nothing but good memories of the town and the people, would be a shame if the charm is gone from that nice little place in my mind.

I think that is because Tennessee is an "At will" state, and most professions have no protection for jobs such as this. In fact, teaching is the sole entity that enjoys this situation.

I hit it as well, this one needs to go to ar15.com-hometown.

Interesting articles. In almost every discussion I have read, it seems to be almost a consensus that Slaughter-House needs to be set aside, and, this issue is part of nearly every McDonald debate I have seen.

Campfield's Amendment to HB 2718 spanked UT pretty well. Haynes said Hamilton "may have overreacted just a bit" with his pronouncement, and said UT had no problem with the Amendment. He was tossing the proverbial "hot potato"!

It actually is a State Powers issue under the Tenth Amendment, as States being a Government have Powers, not Rights.

I am not "missing" that by any stretch. I do understand though, that our Legislators need to craft their laws such that there is no ambiguity. The AG has appealed the Bonnyman ruling, but how long till that is heard? It is the way of our system, Legislators pass laws, courts hear them to see if they pass muster. Anybody can sue for anything here. Make the laws clear and without question, and the courts do not get to slant them with their interpretation.

I think the most enjoyable part of the Legislative session last year was Naifeh becoming Ex-Speaker. I am surprised his suit made it through the session, what with the rending of his clothes and gnashing of teeth at the loss of his strangle-hold on the State. The passage of every gun Bill must have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to his soul. I believe we have a unique opportunity to effect change this year. With the mood of the electorate, if we can garner just a few more Conservative seats in both the House and Senate, (along with putting a true Tennessean in the Governor's seat), there is no telling what we might accomplish.

I understand the question before SCOTUS. Do I think the Second Amendment should be Incorporated, yes. Do I think it will be, yes. Heller was vital in that it gave individual vs. a collective "Right" precedence. Although not being a State, the DC decision left the incorporation against States issue unresolved. McDonald will set that straight, it will render outright bans illegal, but it will not give carte blanch to tote whatever weapon one wishes, wherever one wants. Each State has its own Constitution, and each has restrictions of a type. The chance to fight, State by State, unreasonable restrictions will be given life with this decision, but the battle will not be over by a long shot.

Putting it another way, the Federal Government has no business involving itself in the discussion of limiting the ability of its Citizens to keep and bear arms (have and carry), except to affirm that each individual has that right under the Second Amendment. The Tenth lays out that all other Power not given the Federal Government is to belong to the States, that would include restrictions of all types, severe or lax. The Federal Government's only duty in regard to arms is to protect the individual's "Right" to keep and bear them.

Not at all, I believe they must incorporate the 2nd against (or rather to) the States, and then it is up to the citizens of each State as to what they will require of their Legislators. My view is that the Federal Government must admit they have no Power to involve themselves in infringing on the "Right" to keep and bear arms, that it in fact it is solely the responsibility of the States as to what laws are written regarding the issue.