RobertNashville

Does anyone know specifically what "private property rights" a person has in the airspace over his/her property?   I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to discharge a firearm from my home because I live in a "city" and it's prohibited. But assuming I could and/or lived out in the county where it was legal; what are my rights with regards to someone "spying" on me with a "drone" like this?   EDIT: I guess there is no answer, yet, to my question above and this is something that will likely just have to be worked out in the courts. I do understand the concept that no one has an expectation of privacy when out "in public" but I don't consider standing in my back yard or hunting in my own woods/field (if I had one) to be "out in public"; especially if it takes extraordinary measure like an aerial drone to observe me! http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/19/drones-privacy-and-air-rights/

I have a Citori XS Pro Comp Skeet that I really have only for skeet shooting and it's a hell of a shotgun (mine is a 12ga)...if you can pick up a Citori at a good price that is how I would go. After that I would tip my hat to the Benelli.   In truth, you can't go wrong with any of these three and with a 20ga I truly don't think recoil is a factor...I've shot many, many rounds of skeet with my 12ga citori and don't really have any problems with recoil (and bear in mind you aren't shooting HD loads!).

So if some innocent person is killed in a vehicle accident because some other person was texting while driving, is that really "worse" than the exact same situation except that the person was messing with their radio?  Their GPS?  Talking with a passenger or just plain not actually DRIVING their vehicle?   It's only my opinion but I don't believe the problem is "TEXTING"l texting is just the symptom...the problem is STUPID IDIOT INCOMPETENT DRIVERS and until you get them off the road these people will continue to cause accidents and kill innocent people. You can throw all the $60 tickets at people you want but I can tell you now, if I want to do something that's against the rules, no $60 ticket is going to stop me and i don't think it will stop anyone else either.   A couple of pages back (post 9) bersaguy mentioned that his grandson has already had two and perhaps three accidents that were the results of texting and/or listening to his GPS while driving...if the grandson hasn't come to grips with how stupid it is to do this after two or three vehicle accidents does anyone really think a $60 ticket will make a difference???   I'm not against enforcing the law...I'm not saying people should be allowed to text while driving (and frankly, the whole "hands free" bs is just that...you are STILL distracted while listening to/replying to a text or a phone call while driving)...I'm not discounting the pain or the loss of a loved one killed in a car wreck because of the actions of another driver. However, this "big rig" and $60 ticket garbage is just that - garbage...window dressing rather than having the guts to do what needs to be done. Okay...soap box put away...everyone have a nice Friday.  

If we really want to address avoidable traffic accidents and deaths then how about...   1. Requiring demonstrated competency behind the wheel of a vehicle at speed and in various emergency situations rather than just demonstrating that you can park and can memorize the basic rules for a multiple choice test?  Perhaps graduation from a major performance driving course could be used as proof of competency.  Tie insurance rates and/or allowed speed limits based on age and proven competency.  I don't know if it's still true but it used to be true that teenage drivers in Europe had more stringent speed limits (designated by a badge on the vehicle(s)) than adults and insurance companies gave favorable premium treatment to those who had passed driving courses that required real driving competency.   2.  Require refresher driving courses every few yeas...again, not just can I park and make a right turn but a course that actually requires demonstrated competency in an emergency situation.   3. Couple that with significant punishment for people who break major rules and especially those who cause accidents...if "texting" is really that dangerous, rather than a $60 fine how about a significant license suspension and a $1,000 fine?  How about a significant license suspension for anyone who causes an accident for ANY reason?  This past April I had a stupid woman turn left in front of me which totaled her POS Mercury as well as my $50K sports car; she spent three weeks in intensive care and I walked away with a couple of scratches but I could just as easily have been killed - I'm sure she is back on the road now and doing things just as stupid as what she did to me that day while in my opinion, she probably shouldn't be allowed to drive again for at least a year or more.   I know...I know...none of the above will ever happen...too many people would cry about the cost or about losing their "right to drive" if they actually had to prove competency in handling a vehicle at speed or in am emergency; that's why we have THPs dress up a big rig to give $60 to to people who text and drive because that's easier to deal with.

No I'm not. They are still law enforcement officers. That aside, your statement totally misses the point I was making.   "Texting" is a problem as are MANY OTHER things people do that are illegal including illegal things that THP is responsible for addressing. There a PLENTY of other things that the state/THP could do to address accidents and deaths than worrying about "texting" (both doing so would require political balls which few politicians at any level have today).

Maybe not worse...eventually the idiots who text while driving will likely remove themselves from the gene pool; the only problem is how many others they take with them before they are a victim of their own idiocy.

I "sort of" knew but I really don't know when the law changed...this is what a quick search turned up...   Except for novice drivers, there is no prohibition on cell phone use while driving in Tennessee. However, all Tennessee drivers are prohibited from texting. Cell Phone Use There is no handheld cell phone prohibition for drivers except that novice drivers in Tennessee - drivers with a learner's permit or intermediate license – are prohibited from using cell phones (handheld or hands-free) while driving. Texting All drivers are prohibited from texting while driving. The ban on texting exempts certain officials - such as officers of the state, campus police officers and emergency medical technicians - when performing their duties. Bus Drivers Tennessee law prohibits school bus drivers from using cell phones while the bus is in motion and transporting children. As with all drivers, bus drivers are prohibited from texting while driving. Enforcement Violation of the texting law is punishable by a fine of up to $50 plus court costs not to exceed $10. Novice drivers who violate the law may be fined up to $100. Violators will also be ineligible to apply for an intermediate or unrestricted driver's license for an extra 90 days after they otherwise would have been eligible. Tennessee’s cellphone and texting laws are considered “primary” laws. A primary law means that an officer can pull you over for the offense without having to witness some other violation. That is, the officer sees you texting and issues a citation.   http://www.drivinglaws.org/tenn.php

I'm sorry about your BIL - I'm not trivializing the harm done to innocent people by asshole drivers. However, a lot of accidents and deaths are caused by asshole drivers whether they are texting, talking on their phones (hands-free or not) or any of a few dozen other things that take their concentration away from driving OR sometimes, just by some plain ####ty driving habits.   In my opinion, texting while driving is just the "problem de jour"; no more or less of a problem than many others.   If people want to really have an effect on accidents and deaths on the road how about we start instituting some REAL requirements that a person has to meet before a person is ever given a license coupled with some real punishment when they don't follow the rules of the road! Of course, rather than make meaningful change (that would no doubt piss off a lot of people who would no longer qualify for a license) the government in its usual bureaucratic logic decides that dressing up a big rig tractor and issuing meaningless tickets is the way to combat this latest threat to driver safety.  :taser:

Well apparently; we folks in Tennessee are pretty damn lucky. I mean, we must have solved every other criminal problem we have if we can now go out and buy a tractor so that we can concentrate on texting while driving!  I wonder what they'll do to stop distractions caused by such things as...   1. A heated discussion with a passenger, or 2. Fiddling with a GPS unit, or 3. Fiddling with a radio or DVD player, etc, etc.

Of course I would and do vote; I don't just vote only if my candidate can win.   I've never missed an election in 60 years except for one or two spring elections where there was literally nothing to vote on. I vote because it's my duty as a citizen...if I'm not willing to inconvenience myself enough to vote then I don't deserve to be a citizen and certainly don't deserve to be complaining about the outcome of an election (sorry if that offends anyone).   What I don't do is delude myself into thinking that a third party that can't garner even 1% of the popular vote for their candidate in a presidential election is going to accomplish anything.

Math is ALL that matters in voting...if you don't get the votes you don't win...people can ignore that simple truth if they want but it wont' change anything. If someone votes for a candidate that cannot win then they are helping one of the other parties and anyone who can add and subtract can do the math for themselves to see it.   You can send all the messages you want but they ain't listening.   If the Republican party is so rotten at its core it can't be changed then we all should just give up and stop wasting our time here or voting or giving money to candidates...we should just disengage and go hide somewhere until we die because if we can't change the Republican party enough to make a difference then it's over...no third party and most certainly not the hapless Libertarians (who can't get 1% of the vote) is going to change anything. If people want to believe otherwise they can keep believing otherwise but belief won't change a thing.

That was the IDENTICAL logic when people didn't vote for McCain and we not only got Obama we got two terms of him even with a piss-poor economy and ever other major issue that should negatively impact an incumbent against him. The Republicans should have been able to run Hitler and win the last election.   I predict that Hillery will be the Democratic nominee for 2016 and she will win the election.   Our best shot to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of our way of life was the 2012 election and we f****d it up. I doubt we have enough time left at this point before a complete economic implosion and talk of "long term" Libertarian strategy is nonsense.  However, the only possible chance I see to save the country now is to put in enough true conservatives in the house and especially the senate to keep the progressives at bay.

It's really simple math.   In an election where it's certain that either the Democrat or the Republican will win (such as the 2012 presidential election and every other major election in my lifetime) then voting for any other candidate (third party) will mathematically hurt whichever party that vote would have otherwise gone to and help the opposing party.  The only way that is not true is If that person would not have voted at all in which case it's a meaningless vote, mathematically (albeit it may provide some psychological comfort). ;)

If Libertarians want to keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that's up to them but any belief that they are "getting the word out" or having any actual success is nothing but a pipe dream and not based in reality. In the 2012 presidential election Libertarians took 0.99% of the vote...is that the result of getting the word out that there is another choice?   Another problem that Libertarians will never overcome is that many people, once someone knows ALL of what Libertarians stand on all the major issues, they don't and will not agree with those positions. That's why I and many other Conservatives will accept some but will never accept all that positions that Libertarians are pushing.

It doesn't really matter to me who they do or don't play with...what I suggested above and am suggesting again is that continuing to do what they've been doing will result in them continuing to get what they've been getting which is pretty much nothing in terms of effecting change.

Just my opinion but I can't see how that can be a sound strategy. "Another party" will just be like every other third party; ineffective.   I submit that what it is much easier and has a much better chance of success is for local Tea Party groups to effect the ouster of establishment/big-government/progressive Republicans and replace them with principled, conservative candidates who will stand up for their principles. Get rid of the likes of McCain, Graham, Alexander, Corker, Boehner and their ilk and you could see real movement back toward the government the founders intended.   The only way I see a "third party" being viable and effective is for it not to BE a third party; by that I mean it would need to completely replace/do away with the Republican party (or the Democrats) and be one of the two parties in a two party system.

As long as libertarians want to play by themselves they will remain ineffective - with not enough clout to do anything except on a very small scale.

Your problems clearly point out why the world would be better off without other people in it. :)

I'm not so sure...if an employer "can't prohibit" it under TX law then I would suggest that "can't prohibit" wording applies to signage and/or company "policy". :shrug:  

I wasn't talking about the "posting" issue but the "policy" issue which is actually the more thorny part of this whole issue.  One thing the TN law does is (mostly) remove criminality from having a firearm in a vehicle in a "posted" parking lot.   The major difference I see between the TN and TX laws is that TN simply says it's legal for a person to have a firearm in his vehicle while the Texan law specifically applies to employers...what I understand from that is that Tennessee employers may still prohibit, as a matter of policy while Texas employers cannot.     This is the Texas law passed in 2011 The law as it reads is as follows:   52.061. Restriction on Prohibiting Employee Access to or Storage of Firearm or Ammunition. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.  Sec.A52.062.AAEXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not: (1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or  (2) apply to: (A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee ’s employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the officia discharge of the employee ’s duties; ( B) a school district; (C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code; (D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code; (E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or (F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or otherparking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area: (i)A that contains the physical plant; (ii)A that is not open to the public; and (iii)Athe ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel. ( B) Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer ’s business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. Sec.A411.203.AARights of Employers. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. Note: This is not the complete law on Parking Lot Storage. See Texas Statutes for complete Law. Statute copied from http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf

It doesn't really need to does it?   Unless an employee voluntarily "spills the beans" how would an employer ever know that he/she has a firearm locked in his/her vehicle (and thereby resulting in termination)?   I know...I know...they can demand to search your vehicle and if you refuse they can terminate you but that too could be taken care of with well crafted legislation...maybe I just don't have all the facts but the problems we seem to dwell on here on TGO with a "parking lot law" don't seem to exist in the 19 or so other states that already have these laws which leads me to believe that these problems can be addressed so they don't become problems. :shrug:

The recognized "right" or a "privilege" issue is immaterial with regards to this issue.   "Parking Lot" laws don't require nor do they need to require a business to recognize anything; they simply place a requirement on businesses (to allow firearms within their parking lots). These laws are no different than local/state laws that restrict what a piece of property can be used for (retail, manufacturing, etc), or that place a limit on the number of person who can be in a building at a given time or that limit size/type of signage on a storefront, etc.

Which is pretty odd considering its history.   When I first worked there (I retired from NNA in 2011) carrying firearms (to go hunting, shooting after work, etc.) was pretty normal. Then, about 2005 or so, they up and completely changed their policy banning all firearms, period...no reason or explanation given; just a complete 180. They also, I believe, was one of the big companies fighting against the perking lot bill yet now they have changed their policy pretty much as it was before.   I'm glad they changed their policy but I can't help but wonder why they changed it in the first place only to change yet again!. :)

I believe there are other employment at will states that have addressed this very issue but I don't have time to research them all at the moment.  I think, however, it could be handled very simply by making it a matter of law that no employer/private person, etc. can even request, much less compel on threat of termination, the search of a person's (employee, customer, etc.) vehicle. Certainly, if the employer thinks a crime has been committed they can still report it to law enforcement but there is no reason why an employer should need to search a private vehicle unless there is significant suspicion of a crime (steeling from the company, etc.). I think this would work to, or at least go a long way in strengthing the law because unless the employee voluntarily admits to having a firearm on company property or voluntarily allows a search of his vehicle, there is little chance an employer would know it was there.   Of course, an employer could still fire you if they want to...I don't see that ever changing or even think it should, but it would have to be a firing without cause (which is beneficial to the fired employee).

Houses are a headache...they take maintenance but we have to put up with that because we need a place to live.  Pools, on the other hand are not "needed" by anyone...they are simply an extravagance and they are an additional headache because they too require maintenance.   Now, a nice, well maintained, functioning pool (if you want a pool) can be a great thing but if you aren't willing to do the maintenance and/or just don't want a pool then as others have said, just find another house because even filling it in, etc. is still a headache (I don't know about you but I don't and most people don't need additional headaches)...there are simply too many nice houses on the market right now to "settle" for something that you don't really want.