TMMT

Some of you may be members, if not I strongly urge you to join up. Have a read of the history of the "pistol permit" in this state, its pathetic... this in Tennessee for Christ's Sakes! Tennessee Firearms Association | Civilian Permits

Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 5441 Signed into law October 4, 2006 by President Bush President's Statement on H.R. 5441 Oh and just a side note then Senator Obama voted against this bill...

Ah yes, the joys of having to pay, beg and be "given" state permission to exercise your rights... pathetic ain't it?

I'll take my M249 and a crate of hand grenades!

I really hope you go to law school and practice law, to fight the good fight. But I think,from reading your posts here... that you are in for a rude awakening once you are there.

Tennessee is one of those states that you must prove your residency by establishing same, either through a purchase or rental agreement, utility bills etc... you must have either a TN DL or TN ID to get the TN HCP. Basically you have to be a resident of TN to get a TN HCP... If you have a FL DL and you apply for a TN DL you must surrender it to the TN DMV before they will issue you a TN DL or even a TN ID. Florida is one of a few states that has a non-resident drivers license as well, it came about due to the shear number of folks who would flee to Florida during the winter for 3 to 4 months out of the year but didn't want to lose their resident status with their home state. So Florida created a non-res DL which also later spawned the non-res HCP. You are much better off getting the FL carry permit, most folks consider it the Gold Standard of Carry Permits, I think it has the most weight as far as reciprocity goes. I know alot of military folks who don't "have" a state of residence get the FL non-resident permit.

All the more reason TN should strike this part and allow loaded weapons in vehicles without the need for a permit, laws like this are expected in places like California or Illinois but here in Tennessee... Unbelievable!

Spent many years policing that fine state, you will have no problems. Your HCP is very much welcomed and accepted there. Ga overall is much more gun friendlier than TN, don't need a license to posses a loaded gun (handgun or rifle) in your vehicle. You can carry in establishments that serve alcohol, just can't partake. No stupid opt out rules... Public gatherings are such events as concerts, rallies etc... MIlitary ID is good to go (by statute) if you are active duty. Ga is not a must advise state, but I guarantee you will receive much better treatment when/if you are pulled over if you hand the LEO your DL/HCP and Insurance Card and let him/her know you are armed. Enjoy your stay!

You watch, Dems will now begin to tie healthcare in with guns, its coming... And if you think it won't have an effect on gun control in this state your sipping too much moonshine...

Memphis mayor to confront gun violence ("It boils down to a health care problem.") Memphis mayor to confront gun violence November 29, 2009 12:08 EST MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- New Memphis Mayor A C Wharton Jr. will embark soon on a communitywide plan to address gun violence in the city. Wharton, who's been in office a month, said it boils down to a health care problem. He plans to tap a steering committee composed of officials from hospitals, churches and law enforcement. He also focused on the problem as county mayor before being elected city mayor. Wharton told The Memphis Daily News he has not decided about the future of Police Director Larry Godwin. But he said there would be "strong, unrelenting enforcement" in his administration. WZTV FOX 17/Nashville

It use to come to the Roxy in Atlanta every year.

A better idea would be for our idiotic elected officials to amend the law allowing loaded weapons, handguns, rifles, shotguns, potato guns... in vehicles without the need for papers, licenses, psych evals, first born children, permission from God... like most other states do...

Im no lawyer but I am thinking you might be able to bring a suit on if you can show how you can be harmed by a decision and have an Appeals Court hear your argument.

Alright folks I seem to recall something in the by laws about pic violations or something...

Man I could lay down some serious hate upon some squirrels with that puppy!

I think everyone needs to realize that Law School is designed to train and educate Lawyers by providing them the basic foundation and general basis to go forward and begin to practice law. As with any quality basic training/education it is but a mere foundation to which you are expected to go forth on your own and continue to educate yourself and partake of continuing legal education courses if you intend to specialize, find a seasoned mentor who you can learn from. A good example is Medical School, where one learns the very basics of medicine, they don't teach each and every person who graduates Medical School the finer points and skills of heart surgery. That requires more specialized schooling and training beyond the MD. Does every doctor know the basics of the circulatory system and the most common diagnosed problems of the heart? Yes... Do they know when to refer you to a Heart Specialist? Yes... The same basic education principal is applicable here. Another example which is closer to the legal side of the argument. When I attended the Police Academy many, many years ago I was given the basic foundation of knowledge that one needed to police. But in the area of law that I investigate and enforce today, I received zero schooling and training in during my basic academy days. It don't mean that I'm not prepared to investigate crimes committed against that area of legal code, it meant that I had to take it upon myself to educate myself about the given laws and attend specialized courses that cover the specific area. Don't read too much into the fact that very little is covered on the 2nd Amendment, the fact is you are not likely to encounter 2nd Amendment cases that often unless you specialize in that type of law as a trail lawyer. Criminal defense or prosecution is about statutory per se, what the law says and the constructive, arguable facts surrounding the arrest and charges at hand. Points you will learn about once you begin law school. The more you learn about the law and how to practice it the more you will understand why its taught the way it is. To you it will all be about rules of evidence, procedure and summaries of legal rules.

The fact this is even needed discussion appalls me, this is Tennessee, this is the south... or so I thought. More and more its clear to me that Tennessee is not a "gun friendly" state, its a "gun tolerant" state at best. A gun in a car, even a loaded gun in a car is pretty much normal in most all southern states no permit needed. Makes me wonder if we are in Illinois or some such place.

As P. Stegall said, if you are going to law school you are in for an eye opening experience.

Misdemeanor DV convictions carrying the same weight as felonies (for firearms ownership) is/was just to test the waters for later inclusion of other lesser crimes as events allow. Make no mistake about it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

This could open up a can-o-worms for the liberals. It would seem with the constitutional question now raised about misdemeanor DV charges carrying the same weight and consequences of the Felony Scarlet Letter, the time has come to question the inclusion of non-violent felons as well.

Court: Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans' Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law. In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons." This case involves a man named Steven Skoien, who previously had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery. A year later, a Winchester 12-gauge hunting shotgun was discovered in a truck parked outside his home, along with evidence (including an orange hunting jacket, a deer carcass, and a state-issued tag for a deer kill) that he had used it earlier in the day. He was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. This is a notable -- even remarkable -- appellate opinion for a few reasons. First, it shows that U.S. Justice Department has become a bit lazy in prosecuting gun cases: the court noted that "the government has made little effort to discharge its burden of demonstrating" the constitutionality of the law, and "relied almost entirely on conclusory reasoning by analogy." Second, and more importantly, this is one of the first appeals court cases to take an in-depth look at the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling last year in D.C. v. Heller on existing federal firearms laws. It's true that Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..." But misdemeanors are different from felonies, which the Seventh Circuit noted: "We therefore assume that Skoien's Second Amendment rights are intact notwithstanding his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction." The judges said that the ownership ban is life-long and sweeping, providing no way for a now-peaceable citizen to seek an exception: "The government has the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between its important interest in reducing domestic gun violence and the means chosen to advance that interest -- Section 922(g)(9)'s total disarmament of domestic-violence misdemeanants." (What they didn't point out, but could have, is that a law enacted in 1996 is not exactly "longstanding.") The Seventh Circuit opinion, which now has shifted the burden of proof to the Justice Department through an "intermediate scrutiny" standard, was written by Diane Sykes, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee. A review of cases since the Heller decision shows that nearly all judges have been content to say that it means that the federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), is perfectly acceptable. Here are excerpts from opinions written by other judges, usually trial judges, who rarely engaged in a complete analysis of the Second Amendment and instead typically assumed 922(g)(9) was perfectly constitutional: U.S. v. Holbrook: "Thus, the Heller opinion itself does not 'cast doubt' on the limitation on firearm possession set forth in Section 922(g)(9), and Holbrook makes no other argument that her convictions are violative of the Second Amendment." U.S. v. Montalvo: "Defendant has not cited any post-Heller decisions declaring 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional, and does not attempt to distinguish the post- Heller cases cited by the government. This is not surprising, since 'it appears that every court which has considered a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. Section 922, post-Heller, has upheld the statute as constitutional.'" People v. Marsh: "We conclude that (a similar section of California law) falls within this category of prohibitions which are permitted despite the right to bear arms afforded by the Second Amendment. Post-Heller decisions addressing the constitutionality of various firearm possession restrictions have taken a similar approach..." U.S. v. Luedtke: "Nothing in Heller suggests that the court intended to permit only those precise regulations accepted at the founding. Rather, the court's examples are best understood as representing the types of regulations that pass constitutional muster... Sections 922(g)(8) and (9) are regulations of a type traditionally permitted in this nation..." U.S. v. Li: "I am satisfied that the provisions of section 922(g)(9) pass constitutional muster, even in the wake of Heller. Li has not offered any persuasive reason to believe that post-Heller constitutional jurisprudence should render it otherwise." U.S. v. Chester: "The court finds that the prohibition by Congress as embodied in Section 922(g)(9) of the possession of a firearm by a misdemeanant who has committed a crime of domestic violence is a lawful exercise by the government of its regulatory authority notwithstanding the Second Amendment." U.S. v. Engstrum: "While it is troubling to the court that Section 922(g)(9) may be used to deprive otherwise law-abiding citizens, who pose no prospective risk of violence, of their Second Amendment rights as a result of a single past transgression, the court cannot say, as a matter of law, that defendant poses no prospective risk of violence, and that he is constitutionally entitled to an exception to Section 922(g)(9)." U.S. v. Robinson: "To my knowledge, no court has, even under an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, found 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g) constitutionally suspect." U.S. v. White: "On its face, then, Heller did not disturb or implicate the constitutionality of Section 922(g), and was not intended to open the door to a raft of Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g) convictions. White's Motion to Dismiss would place far more weight on the Heller decision than its plain text can reasonably bear." In re: United States of America (U.S. v. Engstrum): "Nothing suggests that the Heller dictum, which we must follow, is not inclusive of Section 922(g)(9) involving those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence." The last case came from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was a 2-1 decision that I wrote about in August. The dissent, from Judge Michael Murphy, is more interesting. It says: "There is simply no authority for the government's assertion that Section 922(g)(9) is constitutional in light of Heller... I would grant a stay of the proceedings below and order further briefing on the constitutional question." The constitutional question is more open than many CBSNews.com readers might suspect. C. Kevin Marshall, a former Bush Justice Department attorney who's of counsel to Jones Day in Washington, D.C., wrote a law review article earlier this year titled "Why Can't Martha Stewart Have a Gun?" Its surprising conclusion: federal law's lifetime prohibition on non-violent felons possessing firearms is relatively recent and probably not consistent with the views of the Second Amendment's framers. In an age when Americans can be non-violent felons for possession of a short lobster or sharing MP3 files (other examples here), is a lifetime ban constitutional? For other constitutional rights such as the First Amendment, it's relatively common to see acts of Congress struck down as going too far, as anyone who's followed the series of cases about Internet pornography or abortion can attest. That hasn't been the situation with the Second Amendment even after the Heller decision, in part because some judges have not taken constitutional arguments seriously, and in part because the Supreme Court has not provided a road map to follow. The justices now have a chance to remedy that oversight in the case currently before the court, McDonald v. Chicago. If they don't, expect this constitutional confusion to continue. Court: Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Its a powerful video and is full of truth

Okaaaayy..... Overstepping her bounds, not hardly she is the Judge, its her courtroom she can direct the participants of her court to do darn near anything she wants. Contempt of Court is a charge that Appeals Courts tend to run from as fast as they can, just like Prosecutorial Immunity there are certain things in our criminal justice system (like it or not) that are just not touched upon. Next all Attorneys are Officers of the Courts, they are sworn in by a sitting Judge in a Court of Law. They are afforded many privacies and privileges in court and the court environment. Attorney client privilege is scared and it is frowned upon to violate any part of it even (when) in this case its a third party violation. The CO was in the wrong, the judge was in the right you don't just walk over to the defense table and begin reading, pilfering and removing documents or any other items that are part of the defenses property.

Welcome To Chaffin's Barn