Worriedman

  There you go profiling again...

  Well Ramsey, Harwell, Haslam and all the Establishment Republicans got what they wanted, that is, what Fed Ex, Volkswagen and Amazon wanted , and paid for, control.  The Big Business boys got complete absolution for any act committed with a firearm, legal or illegal, and the Establishment got cover for the low information voters who want to be able to provide for their own protection, (seeing as to how they can not count on government or their employers to be responsible for that production).

  As hard as it is to find employees who can pass a drug test and will actually work, I suspect whether a person owns a gun is of minor concern to most employers. 19 States have this law, and just like any other provision that deals with firearms, it has caused not one bit of problem for employers in any of those States.

Well, they eat rats, but then I eat squirrels. Never had an Eastern, but ate a lot of "Coontails" in TX, they are very tasty.

If you are walking around scouting for pigs, keep an eye out for Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes.  They grow them BIG in FL.

Per Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp:   "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."    Our Governor consistently exhibits a penchant for considering Stalin's Bourgeoisie in need of having direct supervision for most of their requirements, more especially those which relate to deciding who their Judges should be, how and why they are to avail themselves of the Right to keep and bear arms, those niggling issues one would assume that the Constitution of the State's Framers intended to be finalized when they left ink on the issues.

Her foes "suspect a political agenda."?  As my 4 year old grand daughter says "Duh?"  What would they consider actions the IRS has been doing related to Conservative and Tea Party Groups as of late?  And, SWAT Teaming Gibson Guitar because the CEO donated to Republican candidates.

  Movement by various individuals and groups to re-address the issue.  Was hoping that there were other municipalities that had reversed their previous stance.  I had been contacted and asked if I knew of any that had changed their stance so that they could use the information in their attempts to convince their City Councils and County Commissions to re-evaluate the issue.

Are there instances of municipalities reversing their original "Opt Out" stance regarding allowing carry in Parks?

1983 Toyota 4-wheel drive pick up, 5 speed, no air. Sold it to the guy who ran the service department of the Toyota House on the West Side of Ft. Worth when I got my '95 Extra Cab.  His son drove it to Austin for college, then brought it back to his Dad, he is still driving the thing.  I tried to buy it back and he will not turn loose of it. Would love to have it to run to the farm to deer hunt on the cheap.

  Yeah, he can.

  Glad I did not have to spend time at an establishment that was that short sighted.

You are kidding?  Sen. Corker put himself in proximity to all those evil guns...why one of those dangerous machine guns might jump up and go off.

Seems the chameleon has decided he might NOT be satisfied with his knowledge of the Benghazi affair...   http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4ff58acd-e445-4c1b-b8e6-c6a5fbaba337/05-10-13_SFRC_GOP_Benghazi_Hearing_Letter.pdf   Which is it, you do like chicken, you don't like chicken?

I remember several folks talking about percentages of Republicans and Democrats, and then those in the squishy middle.  If that figure is equal with regard to the hard liners, say 20% each, that leavers a big bunch in the center, The Independents so many chant about. If it comes out that the Administration is using its power to target its enemies, it may just wake up some in that filling between the hard cookies to the fact they might be added to that list if for some reason the powers that be take a hankering to put the screws to their particular place of interest in life. Once it becomes apparent that the troops holding the high ground are capable of atrocities, scrutiny of their intent becomes self preservation. I see the media taking that stance after hearing that Big Brother just scorched their particular little bailiwick, once you have been given a wedgie, it is hard to turn your back without reservations again...

  On this you are 100% correct.

  They may just get Vince Fostered...

  Happening every day.  Has to take place at the County level to work. Henry County just had a real RINO thrown out as County Chair-person, even had Chris Devaney (Tennessee Republican Party Chairman) there to watch as the Establishment took a whoopin', and a good man with real Conservative principals led 75 "strangers" to victory over the Elitist.  Stunned is the best term to describe the look on his face. It can happen!

Carney is simply a mouthpiece, he will not be charged with anything, other than maybe in the court of public opinion, (but I suppose as he suffers from a "Baghdad Bob" persona already, that will be the worst of his punishment).  He can only repeat what he is told, doubt anyone could convict him of drumming this stuff up... However, the head of the Treasury Department, and the Chief council of the IRS are political appointees, there at the pleasure of the White House.  Whether it be Obama or Valerie Jarret as the picker of those partridge, Obama will be the one presumed responsible, as his is the office chair.  If this moves inter agency, it could well point to the executive branch. Targeting "Political enemies" with a branch of the Federal government under the direction of personally appointed officials is not something one wants to have on their resume, it tends to lead to throwing terms like impeach around.   The game is afoot methinks.

I suspect the rats (press) are hedging their bets about now.  They want to show that they are all for apple pie and the American way, figuring if the facts lead to a change in control of the White House, they could be targeted just as the Patriot groups have been under a different type of totalitarianistic junta.  Now it is time to remove the ability of an administration to do so.

"Veto Proof" being the operative clause here, Dear Governor can NOT shut it down if the legislators stand their ground.

I agree wholeheartedly, that the 9th is extremely important in this conversation, however possibly from a different perspective than held by you:   Using that argument, your earlier supposition that due process (5th Amendment) "trumps" if you will, the Right to keep and bear arms is erroneous I think.  It, (the Right to keep and bear arms) IS an enumerated right, and the regulation of it is left to the States by the 2nd and the 10th Amendments, specifically spelled out as such. From your insistance that the 5th Amendment is germane to this conversation, is allowing a 4th Amendment violation (Illegal search or seizure. How can keeping a legal item, vouchsafed by a purchased license from the State, background checked by the Federal, State and local governments be construed as a violation of the law). Especially when the "intent" of the State legislature is to empower employees who are terminated for simply keeping their legal weapons in their personal, private property to file lawsuits against such egregious actions such as termination respondent to such an act, when the same legislature has worked so hard to reduce or eliminate "frivolous" lawsuits? (sarcasm off)

No establishment that allows parking by individual employees has "no firearms", they have no legal firearms, criminals pay no attention to signs or laws, never have, never will.

  Sorry but you understand it wrong.  The OSHA argument was one that the Appellate Court ruled against, the taking was another.         http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166-0.pdf

Asked and answered in Ramsey Winch v. Henry when the courts found that temporally allowing a legal gun owner to keep their legal property (firearm) inside their private property (vehicle) did not constitute an illegal "taking" of any right or privilege.  Allowing another to keep a legal item inside a personal vehicle is not an infringement of any property right.