Falcon1

I was agreeing with Fallguy. ?

This issue will be considered tomorrow at the City Council meeting: City Council - City Council Agenda

Interesting, but true. Federal law (national and state combined) says you must be 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL dealer, but state law says you cannot sell a handgun, FFL or private, to a minor (18). As Fallguy has noted, someone younger can possess a handgun with appropriate (i.e., adult) supervision. As I said on another forum, Samson had his hair cut while he was asleep...it could just as have easily been his throat.

??? How much did Michelle Obama spend on her wardrobe, and nary a question was asked? How much have the Obamas spent on "date nights" to New York and "field trips" to Europe...and nary an eyelash was batted? ...sauce for the goose.... OMO, YMMV.

I am not trying to judge Mr. McNair or Ms. Kazemi; I have no right to do so. What happened between them is their business, not mine. But Senator Harper has predictably "chased the hearse" with more of her gun-control politics ("Never let a crisis go to waste."); so, at the risk of being flamed: Would it be indelicate to ask Senator Harper if she intends to file legislation to make adultery illegal...make fornication illegal...make a thirty-six-year-old adult male involved with the emotions of a twenty-year-old girl illegal (yes, I know she was legally an adult, and I also know that sixteen years is a heckuvalot more difference at 20 and 36 than it is at 25 and 41 or 30 and 46*)? These might rationally be considered to be more proximate causes of this tragic situation than the ability to purchase a firearm. Just asking.... * In the 1980s, research showed that an enzyme begins being produced in the human brain at about the age of twenty-five in most persons which substantially altered their thinking into a more "adult" thought pattern. The researchers informally called it the "wisdom" enzyme. Perhaps this is what Mark Twain meant when he spoke words to the effect: "When I was seventeen, I was convinced my father was the biggest idiot on the planet. By the time I was twenty-five, I was amazed at how much the Old Man had learned in eight years."

I am not trying to judge Mr. McNair or Ms. Kazemi; I have no right to do so. What happened between them is their business, not mine. But Senator Harper has predictably "chased the hearse" with more of her gun-control politics ("Never let a crisis go to waste"); so, at the risk of being flamed: Would it be indelicate to ask Senator Harper if she intends to file legislation to make adultery illegal...make fornication illegal...make the involvement of a thirty-six-year-old adult male with the emotions of a twenty-year-old girl illegal (yes, I know she was legally an adult, and I also know that sixteen years is a heckuvalot more difference at 20 and 36 than it is at 25 and 41 or 30 and 46*)? These might rationally be considered to be more proximate causes of this tragic situation than the ability to purchase a firearm. Just asking.... * In the 1980s, research showed that an enzyme begins being produced in the human brain at about the age of twenty-five in most persons which substantially altered their thinking into a more "adult" thought pattern. The researchers informally called it the "wisdom" enzyme. Perhaps this is what Mark Twain meant when he spoke words to the effect: "When I was seventeen, I was convinced my father was the biggest idiot on the planet. By the time I was twenty-five, I was amazed at how much the Old Man had learned in eight years."

Evidently, they have been given pause to think: 7/7/2009 - Red Bank Commission Delays Vote On Banning Guns In Parks - Breaking News - Chattanoogan.com

Chancellor Bonnyman (female), Davidson County Chancery Court. IMO, it would be inappropriate to "lobby" a judge in a court case. Lawyers will likely file "friend of the court" briefs for our side.

The Chief probably wants the TSSAA Spring Fling to come to Cookeville, too.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...micusFinal.pdf Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation Tuesday, July 07, 2009 Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See remainder of the story here: NRA-ILA :: Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation California's AG is filing a separate brief also supporting incorporation: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...nal_Amicus.pdf Needless to say, Tennessee's AG is not one of the signatories.

Absolutely!

I wish it hadn't either, but evidently the legislators backing the legislation decided that, for now, it was the only way to get local parks in any way, shape, or form. It will indeed be a patch-work mess.

Fallguy, perhaps we're talking from two ends toward the same thing. Time will tell. My head hurts.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...."--Justice Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio I would submit that most of us know a restaurant, as opposed to a bar, when we see it.

Read ©(1) in the paste: That applies to state and local entities. They can certainly vote to opt out now, but they could not have before now, because it was illegal everywhere. So as of now until 1 September, the signs should be there. Even thereafter, they should remain up for those who do not have HCPs...which is my whole point about the confusion thing.Should versus shall...come on. Of course should means shall in this discussion. As for (e)(1) being just for state parks, not so, because "or instrumentality thereof" means counties and cities. To avoid any confusion, a small sign under the mandated one saying "HCP Carry Banned" should be mandated on local parks as well. They should at least be required to pay for denying a constitutional right.

I'm not going to count Sarah Palin out just yet.

Here is my cut and paste of the Public Chapter into section 2: I don't think I am misreading it at all. (e)(1) says Chapter 39-17-1311 signs, which are required for those without HCPs, shall remain as posted. (If they aren't up, then your local parks are violating state law.) (e)(2) says that if localities opt out for HCP carry, they should post the exact same Chapter 39-17-1311 sign (the only part of Chapter 39-17-1311 that refers to any sort of posting is ©(1)). I asked an attorney about this; he said I was correct that it will be the exact same sign, that it will be extremely confusing, and that "It is what it is." The signage will be the same either way. The Chapter 39-17-1311 signs are up at every park I go to in Murfreesboro.

If you look at the law, the signage is going to be a real problem. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Chapter/PC0428.pdf Look at sections (e)(1) and (e)(2) on page two of the link. In section 1, it says to leave the current signs posted, since the prohibition still applies to non-HCP holders. In section 2, it says that local governments who decide to prohibit HCP holders from carrying should post the exact same sign as section 1 says to use. No help at all from the signage. The only safe thing to do is call the locality.

Just to clarify, national parks will not be legal before February 2010, by national law. It is correct that the state law making national park carry legal in Tennessee as soon as it is legal nationally became effective 12 June, but the prohibition remains active until February 2010, unless the court injunction is lifted earlier.

What a difference a couple of months makes when you have "shifting standards."

I think the credible threat of a constitutional convention would open a lot of eyes in Congress and the White House. Let twenty-five states pass a call for one, and you might see a lot more national leaders start reading the Constitution we have now and actually understanding and following it.... OMO, YMMV.

Prayers sent.

So, as things are now (again), the bad guy settles it for them by shooting the good guy, then they know who to chase while the good guy bleeds on the ground? Great. Remind me never to go to Johnson City. P.S. The way things are going, I'll probably need to be reminded not to go to my hometown, too....

You are certainly correct that it violates equal protection of the laws, but I am not certain that will stop our current national government from passing it.

It really is amazing, isn't it? They had their lawyers write this stuff...I wonder if the plaintiffs even read the filing before having it filed?