Worriedman

Uh, the People have spoken via plebiscite re same sex marriage, and the courts have overturned their selection in most instances, and will eventually get them all. Your vote for issues is just as fruitious as it is for a Republican majority to oppose Obama's immigration and healthcare unconstitutional acts...worthless as a matter of fact.

You will get nothing, and I mean nothing pro-gun from our governor, or any of the divisions of intended separation of powers that he has co-opted via money, from his challenges to any conservatives in the SEC to his PACs use of out of State funds to defeat conservatives in the GA (six conservatives targeted this year) to the highest reaches of the judiciary by getting #2 passed, allowing his hand picked guy to be AG.  This from a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns... Like the Nation, we in Tennessee must simply survive the rest of his tenure (Haslam's, remember he is Obama's "favorite" Republican governor) just as we hope to survive Obama's reign.   http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/12/haslam-tdot-not-lawmakers-should-have-final-say-on.html?ana=fbk

If you check via smart phone, take a screen shot of your Harvest Diary and Log, that will save it to your pictures and you will have it to show the nice officer upon request, regardless of cell service.

There is no political capital re gun issues with this administration, it has in fact been anti-firearms since the swearing in ceremony.  Case in point, Goins' Parks Bill of last year.  Mr. Tillman, (former Marine) is as gun friendly as any legislator, they killed his bill before it got off the ground. The sitting governor intends to run for President, and having guns assoicated with him in any fashion is anathema to his perception that only "Moderates" can succeed in that endeavor, (he has to attract those female Democrat voters you understand, all those Moms Against Anything Hairy Chested and Even Remotely Resembling Conservatism). And by the way, the NRA would not recognize a decent Tennessee specific gun bill if it bit them in the hinney.

The best thing that could happen, (will not of course) is to repeal TCA 39-17-1307.  (Senator Bell was able to rescind the "Knife" portion of this Jim Crow Law last session, never did smoke that out, but normally money talks and BS walks).  Should that be accomplished, it would once again be a "Right" to bear arms in Tennessee, it currently is not.   As it stands, one must purchase a "license" or, due to certain activities, a firearm carrier has a defense against prosecution only.

The "Law" already does, those legislators who swear an oath to defend the Constitutions just do not recognize it, as it keeps the Chamber from donating money if they do. 39-11-611.  Self-defense.   (a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:   (1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;    (2) "Curtilage" means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;    (3) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;    (4) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and    (5) "Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.  [b] (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.    (2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:       (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;       [B]  The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and       [C]  The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds. [c] Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. (d) The presumption established in subsection [c] shall not apply, if:    (1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;    (2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;    (3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or    (4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:    (1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;    (2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:       (A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and       [B] The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or    (3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:       (A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and       [B] The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.  

The 2010 Bill had Prevailing Party language incorporated, to offset the prescription that having a legally owned firearm ensconced in one's vehicle could be used as a cudgel against an employer in case of termination.  Cured all that bellyaching. Made no difference, the Chamber did not want it, nor Fed Ex.

Noooo 300, Chamber does not want that, so it will not occur. Haslam has his lobbyist ready to disperse at a moment's notice.  Would pass overwhelmingly in the Senate, and strangle to death in Finance in the House, every time!  As long as Harwell and Ramsey are covering the Presidential candidate's six, nothing like that will proceed to the floor.

Sen. Mark Green is going to do everything he can to preclude that from happening.  If you want him to succeed, better get on board now.

Article VI § 3. Supreme court judges The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State. The Legislature shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section two of this article. Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be thirty-five years of age, and shall before his election have been a resident of the State for five years. His term of service shall be eight years.   It really is sad that the document that is supposed to be the map our lives with respect to government is so little known.  No wonder they get away with so much...

http://www.tba.org/journal/guns-in-trunks From the article:  

I was being very sarcastic.  Once one learns how these Moderate Republicans genuflect to the National  and State Chamber of Commerce, the reporting line, (which by the way does NOT include Citizens) is clear.  

He needs to call the Lt. Gov., that was not his legislative intent, remember.  He should have taken the job, that then when they fired him, got Ron to stand up for him...

  With a Chairman of the the Judiciary (posted up because he "plays ball" with the powers that be) in the Senate that really believes the Supremacy Clause, (because it was written after the Bill or Rights) trumps the 10th Amendment, they are not.  Like Obama, they are picking and choosing which laws to uphold. The 2nd says the feds can not occupy the field with regard to infringing on our Rights to own military grade weapons, we just will not elect folks who will hold to that standard. So the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act" is a toothless dog, and we are not the masters of our government as described in Article 1 § 1. Powers of people "That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

That is neither here nor there, average joe does not have to know who she is, simply the 2nd most powerful politician in Tennessee is all.  Ramsey can't stand Haslam, so they are not going to just let him "Have" the mansion.  Harwell helps Dollar Bill in his Presidential Run, Corker runs for Governor, all that money, ring around the rosy, just change seats...

Bill or Beth, the jury is still out on which they plan to appoint...

The oligarchy does not think it has to explain anything to anybody.  Bill Baby has their back and they can treat you just any old way they want.

Remember, MTAS sent out a preemptive strike to every City and Municipality in the State outlining the steps and showing them how to "Opt out", instructing them that there was no need to have a public hearing, providing the legal paperwork to do so, and instructing each recipient to do so. (Your tax dollars at work)!).   Freshman Representative Tillman Goins (great young former Marine who really wants to do the right thing) put forward legislation that would truly remove local municipalities ability to occupy the field with respect to permit carry in parks, Beth Harwell, Ron Ramsey, Charles Sargent, Andy Holt et al. squashed the attempt. They are breaking him to the fist, left his bill shredded and dead, teach him to think the Constitution actually means a damn thing to the oligarchy.

Actually, the resolution need NOT be public. Many of the municipalities passed said resolutions behind closed doors..e.g.

Engineering for the equipment and flow of materials from raw to finished goods takes a while, then, design of the actual equipment is another step (some of the stuff in East Alton was put into production before the "Big War") they don't tend to move things that are embedded in concrete and covered in years and years of grease and dust, new plants require new equipment.   Get the lines designed, then you have to purchase land, deal with the EPA for at least two years permit wise, add in finding a location big enough to manage the plant and trucking requirements.  There will be site searches and feasibility studies, conversations with local authorities regarding local regs., schools systems, vehicle count impact studies.  The word gets, paid for shysters start hounding the companies to offer incentives, minimum 3 sites will be picked and the studies get repeated for specific locations.  Labor force impact is another major issue, is the local person available smart enough no to blow the place up, will the education systems work to train prospective employees? Internal discussions and politics then enter after the choices of possibilities are narrowed down.  I have seen from drawing board initiation to dozers take 6 years easily with an environmentally, much less politically sensitive factory.  Then you have to bid out, pick a GC and get it put up. New lines require (especially for this type of product) extensive commissioning, after the contractors and equipment setters are gone, I would add in at leas 6 months for shake down before full production.   I can put up a 2 million sq. ft. box for Distribution in a year from start to finish, this is a whole 'nuther help line!  

The American manufacturers are running at full capacity, building new plants and adding lines just to satisfy domestic consumption.  My conversations with a few of them is that it will take at least 10 years to fully upgrade.  Their business models have to take into consideration is this a blip or will ammo be a "hot cakes" item indefinitely.  New factory set up is really expensive.  I know, I build them.

I have been dealing with my aged Mother breaking a hip, and then her passing away, took a month from one to the next. Let me say this, a Freedom of Information request has been made, asking for all communication relative to the issue from Gibbon's Office to the Administration and the Legislative side pertinent to the facts. What recourse we take at that point will be determined by the quality of the information received, or not... However the facts we do have are incontrovertible, there would have been no need to change the HCP card, and if the DHS decided to, their contract with the printer precluded any up-charge for doing so.  The spurious "Fiscal Note" was ginned up, there was no "ploicy" in effect to require a change of the cards. We will see if someone's hard drive malfunctions...   Of note, when the vote relative to this issue did come before the Finance Committee, Sargent had a pain, and had to leave for a "bathroom break" and was not available to vote on the issue in his own committee...

Check him out on the supposed Hall Income Tax removal he tried to say he was for, he killed it the same way.

The only thing that has less sense than a 12 year old girl is a chicken.

The converstaion I had with Corker was, "We need to debate the issue." if one believes in the Constitution, no debate was necessary.  To me, it matters what side my elected officials stand on.   Plus, never underestimate the ability of the Establishment Republicans to sell us out.