Worriedman

See what Nashville's Mayor Dean is running on it already.  Of course they are going to fight it, Chiefs of Police, most Sheriffs, UT, that same cabal that always opposes Liberty in any form. There is no love for the average Citizens' ability to possess a firearm, it might dip into their control don't you know!

I saw that.  Noticed the lack of response as well.

Any contractor that bids and is successful on any Fed Ex, Bridgestone, Amazon etc. Project will by their fiat require their personnel to be unarmed (I assume that is what you meant when you typed underarmed, or maybe you intended to get into .22 v. .45 territory...).  I personally was Sr. PM for the original Office Complex at Hemlock in Clarksville, and had to sign an agreement allowing search of my personal vehicle while parking on "their" lot, (even though we as taxpayers built it, and never received any benefit from those outlays).  No personal vehicles were allowed inside the fence of the Project, one had to be in a Company vehicle with nametags affixed, walk in or be carried by company supplied common carrier, yet you had to give up your protection against unreasonable search to work there. I was required to be unarmed for my traverse to and from Jackson-Clarksville.  My employer did not then, or now have a restriction on carry, but many of our customers do, most of them receiving huge sums of tax money to locate here in TN.

6.8, I have to respectfully disagree.  The Right to bear arms for self preservation supersedes all others in my estimation and as described in the Supreme Court ruling D.C. vs. Heller, (p. 62-63) there is never a need or authority of anyone to "balance" the right to self preservation: "we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all”.  If you invite or allow a person onto your property, the denial of their ability to provide for the protection of that most important of things, life, without taking up the mantle (while seeking exclusion of responsibility) is unconscionable. It is not given to the government or any person to allow, but as the court has noted the 2nd Amendment: “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed ... this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19 Heller). It is innately, or maybe more properly unalienable (for those who understand the actual term) the possession of each of us, sans permission of any government or person. Again, the Supreme Court in Heller states of the 2nd: “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury' (p.21).   A more lengthy discussion can be found here http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment.

The Chamber will be the most vociferous of opponents on the Parks issue, their paid hack will be front and center to declare how dangerous it is to allow anyone who is not LE to carry a firearm for any reason outside their home while beating their chest about how much they support the 2nd Amendment.

Those bills are being pulled out of the Consumer and Human Resources and sent to Judiciary.  Was said to be because the bill last year was heard there.  It is not scheduled to meet this week.  Pody needs to put his bill on notice.

Get something meaningful past Jim Coley in Judiciary sub, then the Caucus has to agree that the Chamber is not being dictated to, and finally work it out of Calender and Rules under Madam Speaker's baleful eye, (with her mentors Lamar and Bill in concurrence), what could go wrong...

I don't have a problem with my employer, there is no "policy" that hinders my ability to keep a legally owned object in my vehicle on their parking lot, but, for the tens of thousands of others who do not have the luxury of being able to say that, I fell the struggle to advance the most sensible approach for being sure that all legal Tennesseans can provide for their security on their traverse to and from their home to work with the best tools available, (that 21 other States have adopted) is the correct thing for me to do.  

Seems Pennsylvania town is crushing the resident's chosen use of their property with excessive fines, $1,000.00 a day for feeding the poor little birds...   http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/21/pennsylvania-town-residents-fight-1000-day-fine-for-feeding-birds/?intcmp=latestnews   Someone needs to write them a letter, darned old meanie government. Where is the pushback going to come from?

Reading all this gives me pause.  The TSA allows ammunition in the same locked travel case, as long as there is none in the magazine or loaded in the chamber or cylinder.  Their requirements are ammo must be stored in a factory or "approved" box (I always carry a MTD hard box inside the locked case).   Could the State of Maryland give me "stuff" because the weapon and ammo are not separated?

I keep my meds and a fresh pair of undies in my briefcase, if I get shunted off to one of those airports, I am not taking possession of my checked bag.

I fly into Baltimore a lot on my way to West Virginia.  I have to leave my handgun in my suitcase, locked in its legal to fly with hard case, and the suitcase locked.  I stop at the "Welcome" sign just inside in WV, get it out and load it.  On my way back out, I stop just inside the WV line and reverse procedure.  So far, they have not started pulling over rental cars...   You can tell it really aggravates the folks at the airport that I am checking a weapon when I go back out, but no more so than it does in Austin, TX. 

That Public Chapter was shoved down the throat of the People by Big Business and their bought and paid for lackeys. It was in fact a sop to the likes of Fed Ex and Bridgestone. Notice that those who actively seek Constitutional Carry and are not just offering up chin music are working to get that travesty changed.  Anyone with one eye and half the sense of a six month old mule knows that last year's "Parking Lot" bill was not a step forward, but rather a sell out to the Chamber.

Seems a few more States may be getting in on the act.   http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/west-virginia-legislation-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-measures/#.Ut3mZbRMG_A     http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/georgia-bill-would-make-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce/#.Ut3nZLRMG_A     A tide that needs to continue to roll and gain strength.

  And just how much money did the TFA "waste" on the Parking Lot Bill, and who exactly did that wasted money go to?

Anybody that has an in to getting Constitutional Carry passed in this legislative session let me know, I will bow and genuflect to your vast superior powers of persuasion. They evidently have more money than Fed Ex, Volkswagen, Amazon and Pilot all combined.  I look forward to riding their coattails to victory. For the rest of us who live in the real world, and know the leadership of both houses of Congress in TN, and the fact that the Chamber is the largest purchaser of legislators in TN, (and the US) we understand that the road to Constitutional Carry is not one of instant gratification, just because it is the correct thing.   It only took 125 years to get Shall Issue Permits in TN under the political system we have from "only the Sheriff's buddies can carry legally".

Incrementally we chip away at the control by legislators of our ability to keep and bear arms.  Each step we gain means we can point back and say that the inroad last gained did not result in "blood in the streets". The Constitution of the State of Tennessee at this present time still allows the power by law vested in the legislators to regulate the wearing of arms, we can thank the Democrats in charge in 1870 for that (and the Republicans in charge now for not doing the correct thing in giving us back our Rights). Doing nothing results in nothing.

Do not move to Jackson, TN then!

Have to agree here as well.

Austin is a Liberal enclave surrounded by Texas!

We are in fact moving toward Constitutional Carry as an objective.  However, to gain that we have to have a Senator and a House member who are Liberty minded and not afraid of their caucuses. We want to force a floor vote so we can count our friends and enemies. And JayC, the Tennessee Constitution does not allow for private property ownership in TN, it just like you can take care of it for the City, County and State, but if they want anything you "own", (up to and including your life) they can take it if they make up a set of rules that says they can.  Read Article 1 Sections 8 and 21 of the Declaration of Rights. We all get to have an opinion, but I will take the side that if it is in my privately owned vehicle and you invited me there, as long as I do not take it out and carry it, I am not depriving your of your property rights while I am inside mine, as long as the thing I have is legal and I keep it in my property. You want to side with Fed Ex and the other Chamber supporters, it is yours to do so.

An issue that we as a group, (or at least most of us) have wanted to see taken on since the bad jog the legislature did when they first put the original bill out.  SB1496 / HB1407 Sen. Stacey Campfield / Rep. Tilman Goins State Summary - As introduced, permits a person with a handgun carry permit to carry a firearm in any state, county or municipal park or other recreation area; deletes provisions allowing local governments to prohibit carrying in parks by resolution or ordinance. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13. On its face appears to be the right stuff.  Do not know Rep. Goins, but from what I have ascertained he has the right stuff too.  An individual I have a lot of respect for says he is a true Patriot.  Hope to meet him in the next few weeks and express my gratitude.  

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the first post.

Dave, speaking of scrutiny. Less than 12 hours after "pulling" papers for a State Representative race, I was contacted and it was described to me how my families' life was going to be dissected and put on display.  I am sure that just because the Republicans were in the ascendancy at the time it was their henchmen who were making those promises of "oppositional research", had there been a Democratic majority I am more than sure they would have been the ones protecting home base. The more I deal with our state legislature, them more jaded my view of all this is.  The most honest one I have dealt with was the one who stated in a meeting that he did not care one whit what the Constitution said, he always voted through a screen of how much the issue made the people who elected him, or rather, contributed money to getting him elected.

It makes no difference on our State level who holds the majority, (as evidenced by last few year's sessions) with the exception that prior to the super-majority we have now, one could get a firearms friendly piece of legislation passed, or at least on the floor for debate.  Since the present Speaker of the House and Senate have decided that the mere mention of advancing a Constitutional restorative issue relative to firearms (doing away with a Jim Crow era encroachment) is anathema we have been stuck in Never Move land.  I do not see that changing till the Elite Establishment current leadership we have is somewhere else.