TMMT

This guy needs to be packing a good old fashion Colt Series 70.

Doesn't Tennessee have some type of preemption law, which forbids local governments from passing laws like this?

Stevens is something like 190 years old, unless he's Yoda its a good bet he's gonna hang up his robe soon.

Heler applies only to DC. This is nothing more than a political hail mary from the Mass SJC. If the USSC rules to incorporate the 2A, the world will chock it up to liberal Mass Judges, to be expected and move on. If the USSC does an about face, defies all logic and rules against the 2A, then these guys look like liberal legal geniuses. Either way, its Mass... so who cares

Cujo is alive and devouring cop cars in Chattanooga...

Dog Attacks Cop Car Dog Attacks Cop Car | dog, attacks, radar - Local News - WTVC NewsChannel 9: Chattanooga News, Weather, Radar, Sports, Lottery

Well you premise is in the ballpark but in detail its not quite that simple. To seize a house it must be first paid for, must be in the name of the dealer or a bona fide conspirator and it must be free of tax liens. The house must be an instrument of the operation, storage, sale or purchased from profits directly tied to drug money. There are limits to the degrees of separation the courts will allow here. Cars are under similar rules. This is why Dopers love rental cars and rental properties. Unless the police can prove the rental car company or property owner knew of and took part in the crime and the property is not subject to any mortgage, finance or tax liens its not a seizable property.

Okay... while I'm all for locking up hardcore drug users and those who traffic in dope, this bothers me. It bothers me because it gives you a good look into the logic process (or lack there of) of our elected officials. And these are the same folks writing the guns laws... God help us all.

Tennessee lawmakers seek to revive 'crack tax' Tenn. lawmakers seek to revive 'crack tax' - WKRN, Nashville, Tennessee News, Weather, and Sports | NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee lawmakers are trying to revive a state law taxing illegal drugs that was declared unconstitutional last year. The measure sponsored by Democratic Rep. Charles Curtiss of Sparta and Republican Sen. Randy McNally of Oak Ridge would rewrite the law known as the "crack tax" to specifically target drug dealers. Tennessee's drug tax took effect in 2005 and generated more than $10 million for the state. It required people to buy tax stamps for illegal drugs and liquor, just as wholesalers must buy for cigarettes. People caught with illegal drugs or alcohol that didn't bear the special tax stamps faced losing their property. The state Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional last year because it exceeded the state's taxing authority. Read SB3134 at: Tennessee General Assembly Main Page

A Law Degree and even Accounting are good for a specialized position in the Bureau but if you really want to get a cool gig, try a foreign language such as Arabic or Chinese and see how fast they snap you up!

Ya know, I've always been curious about this for several reasons. First what if all 50 states, or lets just say 40 to 45 of the 50 passed such laws. Federal Law Enforcement Officers derive their powers of arrest thru state laws, not federal laws. States specifically passed laws allowing F LEO's, powers to arrest for crimes and serve federal search warrants within their states. Honestly I think the only place federal LEO's have absolute police powers are on Indian Reservations and other such places... Whats stopping the states from just passing legislation repealing (or amending existing legislation) limiting those powers to exclude firearms, ammo and firearm related devices regulated under the state laws? The feds are not the absolute authority as they would have us to believe. Infact, Constitutionally speaking A Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff have the most authority inside of the state. They have the powers of arrest given to a state constitutionally elected officer (The Sheriff) as well as having authority to enforce any lawful local law or ordinance in the jurisdiction where they observe it being violated. All they have to do is arrest and deliver the prisoner before a County Magistrate who can exercise venue over the crime.

WHile were on the subject of books, anyone have a cook book dealing with BBQ recipes?

Fortunately there is already case law littering the entire Appellate System up to the USSC, that spells out widely accepted opinions that if such restrictions on services/items/permits/applications/contracts and so on, are to the point that it begins to limit the ability of an average person to obtain any of the above, it becomes discriminatory and a de facto ban. Which the courts have already ruled in other (non-2A) cases is unconstitutional. Once the 2nd is incorporated then the argument can be made against unreasonable fees for gun permits, extremely complicated application processes and even excessive wait times. All of that opens up and can be argued, if excessive, as a de facto ban. It will happen in DC if this case is ruled for the plaintiff and the 2nd. Next fight will be the reasonable restriction fight, which will get a bit sticker for both sides. We must be careful and pick a real landmark case, not just someone upset because California still bans high capacity mags. It will need to be a solid winner, with a narrow scope for the courts to consider. We need to chip away one piece at a time. With careful, well aimed strikes.

This is ridiculous... I have a hard time believing that Justice Breyer, is not smart enough to grasp the concept of personal responsibly. Just as you have a personal responsibility to not shout fire in a crowded movie theater, make threats against the Presidents life or engage in slanderous statements that will cause harm to someone. You have a personal responsibility to not start shooting at people absent lawful justification. We have laws against shouting fire where there is none, we have laws prohibiting threats against elected officials and laws against slander. Just as we have laws against aggravated assault and murder. Why is it beyond the scope of logic here to just say... okay, here is your right, keep and bear your arms. But violate the existing laws of human nature and we will HAMMER YOUR ASS TO THE JAIL CELL WALL!!! Is there anyone here who is not in favor of hard, meaningful prison time for crimes committed while armed, involving actual violence and penalties up to and including the death penalty where allowed for murder?

When the thought of going to jail is many times more pleasant and appealing that the though of what might or could happen to you if you do not act. Then the time has come to clear leather.

Yes they are lying. First off the study is based on the GISS surface temp analysis which its self is flawed because they not only cherry picked the reporting stations they used in the model, but these cherry picked reporting stations were located extremely close to areas affected by what is called Urban Island Heating Effect. Some of the sensors were actually physically located within twenty five feet of such places as huge parking lots, highway over passes made of asphalt. And one famous picture of a reporting sensor was taken showing it located next to some type of metal recycling factory complete with two massive melting smelts. Next if you look deeper and do a search for Met Office Hadley Centre, you will find that NASA cooperated with these guys and shared many computer models and computer model programming projects in the past. And alot of the data is based on these models. Further digging will reveal a nice fat link between The Hadley Center and the IPCC

That is indeed an interesting analysis but brings us back to the question of language and full incorporation. Once the court begins to "adopt" a direct meaning for language interpretation, its not out of the question to ask why, if the court sees meaning in "to keep", why it will not move just three more words into the Amendment and recognize "and bear arms". Then of course we have the crystal clear ending "shall not be infringed". The definition of "The People" has already been addressed by the Court many, many times over. And for the purpose of the BoR and its was accepted the meaning of "The People" is defined as anyone able to cast a ballot to reelect the House of Representatives every two years. Which I am good with that definition, which is basically any US Citizen, not convicted of any felonies. The Militia argument (Being the National Guard) is moot for two reasons, First there is tons of journal as well as legal writings on the subject from not only before the Second Continental Congress but the First CC too... that clearly define the Militia as any abled bodied male, which at the time were the only ones who could vote (refer back to the accepted definition of "The People" for modern standards). Second The National Guard did not exist until Congress created it in 1903 and further clarified its existence and role in 1916 by amending Title 10 of the US Code. Once they begin strip mining the Amendment and defining the individual words and language, we win the entire argument, purpose, meaning, definition and all.

Actually the 86 law is more of an import ban and production ban, on machine guns manufactured after 1986. The controlling law here is the Gun Control Act of 1968. The 1986 law had some good issues in it , it addressed the abuses noted in a 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report on federal violations of previous laws and 2 amendment issues. It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. So it had some good things.

I had the chance to speak with a General Sessions Judge today and asked him his opinion of the case. He said they would no doubt have to incorporate. Since the Heller ruling is now law they must look at this issue at hand thru Heller where the argument strongly favors incorporation. He said that the slippery slope here is a ruling against incorporation would give counsel ammo to challenge other bread and butter cases on the incorporation grounds, if they rule against it. He said its almost 98% assured

Why is it, that within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the "people" are interpreted, referring to the rights of "individuals", and yet, only within the Second Amendment, is the word "people", allegedly intended by our Founding Fathers to symbolize a collective or state right? If it is your position that the Second Amendment is addressing only a collective or state right, then, for the purposes of clarification and uniformity, we should immediate replace the words "people" and "persons" with the word "state", in all aforementioned Amendments. 
 Upon performing this minor alteration, we can all feel certain that our 50 states will be comforted in knowing that they now have a right to freely express their religious beliefs. 
And, perhaps, our state governments can now be secure in the knowledge that they are free to speak and peaceably assemble. 
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will certainly bring a sense of well being to our states. 
Each state can rejoice in the understanding that they cannot be arrested without a warrant, to be issued only upon probable cause. 
That the life, limb and property of each state cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. 
And, the state shall no longer be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against itself. 
Each state can now eagerly anticipate the utterance of a police "Miranda" warning, prior to its arrest and prosecution. 
 Frankly, I think that it would be far easier to abolish the Ninth Amendment altogether, rather than explain why we believed it necessary to change its meaning from "Reserved rights to the people" to "Reserved rights to the state". A few mindful individuals might feel compelled to question this one. 
 Lastly, we must now proceed to erode the Tenth Amendment. The distortion of this Amendment is also quite simple. Henceforth, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and back to the states again, where such powers shall remain". Not to worry, as the Tenth Amendment will become quite confusing as a result of this proposed change, and most citizens haven't a clue as to what our Bill of Rights represent, I do not believe that many challenges will arise to cause you consternation. 
In this light, I should imagine that anyone exhibiting even a trace of commonsense could not help but see the outlandishness of such semantic manipulations. But, in reality, this is precisely what politician and disingenuous judiciaries have contrived for the Second Amendment, our principal defender of the Bill of Rights. 
 In a most illustrative example of governmental corruption and hypocrisy, which, to my knowledge, has never been challenged in a court of law, let us now examine the following scenario that everyone can easily comprehend. If a state or local government were to violate the civil rights of any individual (clearly defined and enumerated within the Bill of Rights), the federal government and courts would immediately admonish that offending state or city. Excluding, of course, the civil and unalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional protection to be singled out for, state and local recognition or lack thereof, state interpretation, and unconstitutional state infringements. Whereas, the states are seldom permitted to infringe upon the civil rights contained within the remaining nine Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government and courts to assault the principles of the Second Amendment. These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage, yet, willfully and readily employed in every state within this nation. 
 Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism, or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such judgments. Not any individual or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety. 
The essence and intent of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, have most definitely ricocheted off the intellect of the left. In presenting a conclusion of such vital principles, the void of honest scrutiny and practice should be of some concern to many.

Yeah... me neither, didn't really know we had such a huge problem with this. Guess next they'll pass legislation allowing salt shakers inside of day spas...

The question addressed to cops on internet forums, "Would you take part in gun confiscation?" has to be one of the most asked and most lied to questions out there. And here is why. First its asked all the time because its a legitimate question, grounded in a legitimate fear of it actually happening. The fears are not delusional hypotheticals, they are founded in actual documented history. Now, the lie... Officers, Local, State and Federal will all calmly and cooly answer that no, they would not take part in such an unconstitutional abuse of power. But I say not so fast... First any gun grab especially one on a national scale will not happen over night. Obama is not going to wake up one Monday in March and say screw it, suspend habeas corpus and order the law to go door to door seizing guns. It will be a slow incremental process that like all thing done under color of law will have the appearance of legal, constitutionality. Your average cop and 99% of all Federal Officers will stand up lock step and march to execute such orders. Why? Well, its the law... or it will be at that time, in some form or fashion no matter just how vague the process. Or most likely, in the case of the North Carolina town that just suspended the 2A due to snow (aka emergency event). Either way the cops will enforce the law and that is exactly what they will be told they are doing. By that time most all of them will believe it too. And during such "crisis" or "event" whats to say the courts feel the safety of the citizenry as a whole does not out weigh the immediate needs to address any legal relief pro 2A attorneys around the country would surly run to the courts demanding? The Oath Keepers and a nice start, but for them to work their numbers need to outweigh the numbers of those who don't care. Those who would follow an order such as confiscation. At the end of the day in such a dire situation, lord only knows how bad it would really be. What if unemployment was 30%? The economy was 5 times worse than it is today? What if there were NO jobs, NONE to be had if you lost your current one? Think a cop would just quit or stand and be fired for failing to carry out such an order then? They would execute it as soon as they could load up. To, first and fore most "Uphold the law". Then to ensure their own survival and job security and a paycheck. History is littered with acts committed by government agents that were gross miscarriages of justice and cases of outright crimes against against the very people they were supposed to protect, even war crimes. And they all did so because someone above them told them to do it, it was the law and they had taken an oath to uphold the law and well, you get the picture. I personally feel that if that order is given, it will be given under color of law and cops all across this country will follow that order. And yes it will be a very bloody day in this country for all involved. So that is why it is so very important that we elect people we trust to never begin to walk that path to tyranny. As long as our elected officials trust us with our guns, write pro-gun laws the cops will enforce those pro-gun laws. The moment they pass tyrannical anti-gun confiscation level enforcement, cops will enforce them too...

Really, the people you need to be posing these questions to is the ATF. They are the ones granting you the license and they'll be the one to come kick in your door at 2AM and haul you off to Gitmo or some such place if you violate any of their laws. If they can't give you an answer via phone or email, write the General Counsel for the ATF and ask for an official opinion. I'm sure the ATF has some kind of book referring to all the guidelines, rules, regs and laws that will apply to the 06. Heck, when I received just my C&R, the amount of documentation they sent me for it alone deforested a small moon somewhere.

Obama Spurns Gun Control Why the anti-gun lobby is disappointed with Obama's first year Obama Spurns Gun Control - Reason Magazine Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America. So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it. Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked—except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it." Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. … There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan. So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Clinton—and allowed to expire in 2004—has no visible place on his agenda. Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced. Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set. But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate—the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat. In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool. Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table. Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control. Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.

Stop and introduce yourself to the gate on your way into the Academy grounds the next time your out there, you will become "great friends" with it over your 26 weeks.