RobertNashville

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.  

I would agree that there are plenty of places where one can discuss politics but I can't think of any forum I would rather do it that here. I suppose that's because firearms are (even though they shouldn't be) a political issue and because people who come to a firearms forum and spend time on the site tend to have some strongly held opinions about such things as freedom, liberty, and our country..."political" sights seem to be nothing more than a place for people to yell at each other whereas here, I think most of us can part as "friends" when the yelling is over even if we totally disagree with each other at the start and the end of a thread.

That is one of the primary benefits of debit cards...the government has complete control over how much "money" is available and yes, can "cut it off" at any time and pretty much instantly; just like a debit or credit card from your bank.   I find it unlikely in the extreme that the Food Stamp President would ever simply cut off EBT cards whether the government is closed or not.   Maybe I'm missing something or just not understanding, as I'm not expect on the EBT/Food Stamp program but; the article notwithstanding, after reading the letter I don't see anything in it that indicates to me that there is any plan to to cut off EBT cards anyway.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it; at least not yet.  There really isn't that much Chattanooga, on its own, to put in "gun control" measures so it's probably nothing more than a wast of people's money and who knows...maybe they'll actually come up with something that does help reduce crime/violence a little bit...I'm sure Chattanooga (like most cities) could use a little help. :)

That's probably the best picture I've seen to describe them exactly (about the only thing more appropriate would be if the could somehow show the elephant's head in the sand AND kissing Obama's butt at that same time.

I really hate thieves...I know it's just "stuff" and and stuff; unlike loved ones, can be replaced but it's still such a violation.   I actually remember when I was growing up that we didn't lock our side or back door...it just wasn't necessary...it's not that crime didn't exist but I guess it was uncommon enough where I lived that it wasn't anything we had to worry about. Now; I've got a safe for guns as well as other valuables that has an alarm inside just for the safe itself and it sits inside my office that has multiple alarm sensors and that's on top of the overall alarm sensors I have inside the house otherwise and i still worry about someone breaking in!   I know you probably won't get your stuff back but I'll hope you will anyway!

The voting age was lowered to 18 the year I turned 18 and I voted in that year's presidential election. I can tell you that at least one of the reasons the age was lowered is because of Vietnam...we had 18, 19, 20 year old kids sent to fight in a war that most of the country thought was unjust and stupid yet, while old enough to die for their country they weren't old enough to vote for the politicians that decided to send them to the jungle to die.   No, none of those voter reforms will ever happen...hell, we can't even ask people to identify who they are before they vote without having Obama's goons file lawsuits against stats who are so reckless as to try and do so.