Worriedman

I thought I gave as good as I got. That is me taking a stance (C. Richard Archie). No one can say that I did not try and work with these people this year. I just refuse to take it without pushing back. Campfield is trying to say that he was for the bill, but he did his best to chew me up in my testimony in front of the judiciary Committee, and, he was for the Fed Ex Amendment, (opt out for fenced lots) he put it on his version of the bill at the last minute. I tried to get him to bring his companion bill to Evan's House bill (after meeting with Evans, and him saying if the Senate moved the issue first, he would re-submit his bill in the original form), early in the session, and Campfield refused to do so. His statement that he has never seen a TFA "Lobbyist" is indicative of the way they do business, there are no TFA "Lobbyist", just ol' country boys trying to advocate as best we can for the cause. Nobody gets paid, gas is not furnished, but if you do not wear $400.00 Italian suits and tote a briefcase full of money to pass out, guess it does not count. All Campfield has to do is check the calendars of the House side to see the meetings I and my friend Sam Cooper had with Representatives this year, but you will never see him admit the facts. Evans told me early in the year that I needed to register as a lobbyist to be taken seriously on the Hill. All I can do is burn up my vacation days and sick leave. But, if they think they will stop those of us who hold this as serious from speaking out, and working to defeat those who attempt to disenfranchise us while they suck at the teat of their Corporate Masters, they have figured wrong.

Persevere, hold a grudge, remember...your rulers will. Progressives never waiver, they never take their eye off the ball, they never let a crisis go to waste, (this is a crisis) we must learn from our enemies.

The single biggest effect that can be achieved is to solidly get behind Lt. Col. Courtney Rogers in the 45th Representative District race. against Debra Maggart. Nobody short of Beth Harwell is as responsible for this years push against the bill. Harwell has no challenger in the primary or General Election, and even if she did, it would be nearly impossible to beat her in her solidly Democratic District. The Leadership triumvirate is Harwell, Maggart, and McCormick. McCormick like Harwell has no challengers, so the only chance to take out a RINO of stature is Maggart, and her opponent seems to have the character to seriously contest the race. She needs money, as Harwell and the other Liberal Republicans will circle the wagons around Maggart, but, if Sen. Jim Summerville could take his race 2010 with expending $1,900.00, votes and shoe leather do count. Then if we can get enough people to throw in some money to help, (I put up my next nice gun purchase amount already), we could take the seat and possibly change who is House Speaker next year.

Just received this message from Representative Eddie Bass: To which I replied:

I would not hold my breath, all it will result in is you turning blue... As long as our current Governor is at the helm of our Ship of State, and is able to to force the issue of his desired method of choosing Supreme Court Justices, (unconstitutional as it is) he can pack that Court with his Liberal appointments that will carry the mail of his friend and Mentor, Mayor Bloomberg...

To show how snappy the administration is, they are almost talked into making Pope the new "Gun Czar", with that load of what Farmer Brown hauled off that he packs with him everywhere he goes. Of course I predict that in fact, it was them were playing him, and now that they have been able to count on his support and used him up for what good he was able to do for them, he will soon be kicked to the curb.

Under the General Police Powers of the State, statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property are rationally related to legitimate State interest of increasing public safety. They do not result in a permanent invasion of the property, and reduce crime. Property owners and employers are usually required to recognize a state-protected right of their employees and invited guest, as laws meant to support the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the entire community are generally upheld even if they destroy or adversely affect private property interests. The Kentucky Supreme court in this case did exactly that.

http://volokh.com/20...-in-their-cars/

I view with interest the comments of five (5) different Republican Legislators to me yesterday, that prudence would dictate that I pay no attention to the law, and simply carry my weapon wherever I go, regardless of what the law says. That I feel, is the real problem with the people elected to do our business, they have become immune to having to live by the edicts that they turn out to rule our lives, accepting the dollars of corporate sponsors of laws that the legislators themselves do not intend to obey. They have become immune to having to follow any rules due to their "special dispensations" they simply hold that no law is meaningful to them, and if you are one of the chosen, or as one put it to me, "smart enough to survive" pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, it is how they live.

Montgomery and Sargent, both Republicans, voted for allowing a floor vote as well, I had missed that in the earlier count, and should let it be know that they were with Matheney and Eldridge.

Has the world turned upside down? Jimmy Naifeh votes FOR a gun bill and the majority of Republican legislators vote against it. Got to give props to Judd Matheney and Jimmy Eldridge, the only two Republicans to stand with us.

Too late for that tactic, Pope is out of the gun show business. He now is pandering to the Leadership of the Legislature and the Governor, resting upon his gains from the shooting sports enthusiast who have made him rich, (well that, and his previous ownership of topless clubs), a legend in his own mind.

I am so mad tonight that my blood pressure is off the charts. SWMBO is genuinely concerned that I might have the "Big One Ethel", but I have to admit THAT is hilarious, and was sorely needed!

That was the whole point of the secret ballot, so no one will ever know, like the secret votes to put Harwell in as Speaker, the Caucus doing THEIR business to disenfranchise the Citizens. Cowards, all of them!

Did anybody else pay Mr. Pope for his "Tennessee Patriot" quarterly newspaper back in 2010. He sold subscriptions to the "conservative newspaper" which was supposed to be delivered 4 times a year. I purchased a subscription at a gun show in Jackson, (where ironically I was manning a table in support of Ron Ramsey for Governor). He took the money, but I only got two issues, and had to pick both of them up. I never got an explanation of why he did not deliver the promised number of papers, nor a refund???

Senator Faulk (as sponsor) has to put the bill "On Notice' or it goes nowhere. He is also the Chairman of the Calender and Rules Committee. The only two people who truly have any sway over the movement of the bill are Senator Faulk and Lt. Gov. (Speaker of the Senate) Ron Ramsey.

http://www.votervoic...V_CULTURE=en-us If you follow the instructions on the page, the above link will automatically e-mail every House member and every State Senator. Please take the time to change up the subject line and body of the message slightly, or the "spam" filter will keep it from being delivered. The crucial time for this is the next two days, if these bills do not get on the floor by Wednesday, they will fail for this session. We still have a decent chance to move these to the floors of the respective chambers, as there has been a lot of pressure brought to bear on House and Senate Leadership regarding the issue. A last big push is needed to show them that we are paying attention. I appreciate so much TGO David allowing me to put this up!

Ramsey is unopposed in his race for his current seat. From where he is sitting, he has no down side to cozying up to Fed Ex. The only way to get his attention is to keep those cards and letter coming in, and then posting what you send.

Was at a gathering in Nashville Friday night where it was presented by a member of House Leadership that the Caucus, i.e. Republicans, has not made up its mind regarding HB 3560. I find that hard to understand, per the fact that 28 of the 30 co-sponsors are Republicans, (which is 43.75% of all the Republicans in the House). What level of support prior to putting the bill on notice might have been achieved, had Leadership not consistently, from inception till now, fought to keep this measure bottled up? With that number of supporters of the bill, (even under duress) and, the fact that it has been vetted on its merits in the accepted legislative manner, through sub-committee, to full committee, and passed out of both to Calender and Rules, it SHOULD receive a place on the floor for a full debate of the State's Representatives. If in fact, the bill is so abhorrent in its content to the legisaltors, that will be apparent in its reception by the whole body of the House. However, if there is desire on the part of the assemblage, to honor what has been passed out of committee in BOTH chambers (and judged Constitutional by our State Attorney General in its earlier broad form prior to the narrowing in the House version, which in truth, was requested and structured by those who favor the Citizen's ability to provide for their own security and safety), let it be proven and not a matter of conjecture. What harm could there be in allowing the General Assembly to do the People's business if the individual members of the caucus are so adverse to the passage of this measure. Leadership should welcome the chance for the members of the House to verify their assertion that there is not enough support to move the bill to a Public Chapter, thereby rendering their opinions correct, and once and for all stilling the voices of dissent against that declaration, which ask simply for a fair hearing of the issue. Or do they fear that once the yeas and nays are counted in full, their caucus will show a different opinion, possibly reflecting the desires of the People? The truth would out in the counting of the votes. Of note, the Republicans alone number in the superior position to pass or kill, and alone, will bear the accolades or condemnation of the results. Where does the allegiance of General Assembly lie, to the Citizens at large, or to the few "Business" interest that seek to rule the rest of us for their perceived benefit? Twenty (20) other States have versions of this bill, and as related by the Federal Express Lobbyist in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, (which passed the companion bill to its own Calender and Rules committee) no harm has come of it in any of them. Let the entire Legislature decide and end the debate. Surely, with the vast majority of the House being Republicans, (who we all know have our best interest at heart), the correct decision will be made.

The current law already extends the Castle Doctrine to a privately owned vehicle. http://nashvilleatto...for-protection/ http://state.tn.us/s.../pub/pc0210.pdf The TCA will have to be changed to delist the ability of a property owner to "post" their property for the bill to work, as the current code allows. Currently 39-16-611- Section 1- [c}states: Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, 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, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Ask your neighbors if the other 18 States that have passed these bills fall into that laughing stock?

Do you have a copy of their Bill? I have a meeting Tuesday with someone who that might be a good thing to have on hand.

From an article published last year: http://www.memphisda...e.aspx?id=58222 In two meetings in his office, Ramsey assured me that he was in favor of the ability of Permit Holders to keep their weapons in their personal vehicles, wonder what changed his mind?

I, along with Butch Butler worked the compromise with Mark McBride in 2009, the Owner of the Little General chain. It is his intent to allow concealed carry in his establishments, and at the time the signage was legal to allow as he posted. My understanding is that he still allows concealed carry, and as the proprietor, he can decide what he allows regardless of what the change in signage laws state.

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, does not agree, they found in RAMSEY WINCH INC.; Auto Crane Company; ConocoPhillips; Norris, a Dover Resources Company; DP Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Tulsa Winch, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. C. Brad HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; W.A. Drew B. Edmonson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and their Agents and Successors, Defendants-Appellants, No. 07-5166, Feb. 18, 2009, that state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property were not a per se physical taking of claimants' properties under the Fifth Amendment, notwithstanding claimants' contention that statutes required them to provide an easement for individuals transporting firearms; statutes applied to all property owners, not just claimants, statues merely limited claimants' use of their properties, and that the statutes did not require claimants to deed portions of their properties to the state for public use. In addition, the Court found state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property did not completely deprive claimants' of all economically beneficial use of their properties so as to constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and were rationally related to legitimate state interest of increasing public safety, (very important) and thus did not violate substantive due process. In addition the Court found that state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property was not preempted by overall purpose and objective of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).