RobertNashville

Isn't it always one or two key details (or even how we handle ourselves after a shooting) that can turn a legitimate self-defense homicide into a homicide that garners the shooter a murder charge?   I was fortunate to attend the free seminar in December (2012) given by Mr. Cain (Cain Law Firm) and I then took Massad Ayoob's two-day class on rules of engagement last year. One of the things I loved about both (and especially Massad's given he had two days) was all the actual examples of cases which really brought home the truth of how quickly and how badly a good SD shooting can go based on one or two little details.  This case seemed pretty much a slam dunk as a murder to me but yeah...change one or two details and it could certainly have gone the other way.

Which is as it should be...we have the right to stop the threat; not kill.  I'm afraid there are more than a few who don't truly understand the difference.

The entire issue of the alleged infringement of property rights of property used for business purposes (i.e a parking lot for customers, employees, etc.) when a state forbids the owner/controller of a parking lot from forbidding the presence of arms in a vehicle parked there really rests on just one issue; is there demonstrable harm to the owner of the parking lot!   To the best of my knowledge, and I've followed this issue for some time now, NO parking lot owner has ever been able to actually show any harm meaning no infringement on their rights to the property. In fact, the excuses I've heard make about as much sense as those gun-grabbers/haters when they start claiming that there will be "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets" whenever some expansion of firearm rights are proposed (such as the so-called "guns in bars" bill).   Until someone can show actual harm all these arguments are pointless aside from the intellectual stimulation they provide; not that I don't enjoy them.  ;)

The "good" is that those who can otherwise legally possess and transport arms for their protection (or any other reason) can do so and not have to travel without the protection such arms offer.  Contrast that "good" with the absolute lack of any demonstrable infringement to the entity that owns the parking lot and the logic of laws that protect the contents of a person's vehicle is obvious.  Further, in many states a person's vehicle IS considered as much their "home" as the physical structure they call "home".   As to the "lockers"; there is a difference and an obvious one between a person's vehicle and the vehicle's contents sitting in a public parking lot and vs a "locker" that is both not the individual's property and situated not in a parking lot but (presumably) inside of the business's physical building(s).  The government telling the parking lot owner that they cannot dictate what can be in a person's vehicle is in no way an infringement on the parking lot owner's "right" (which is what the courts have held). The bottom line is that none of the businesses that have sued over this issue of firearms in vehicles in parking lots have ever been able to demonstrate how they are harmed and/or their rights infringed by these laws - I would suggest that is because there simply is no real infringement and if there is no infringement then all the angst about the parking lot owner's "rights" is what my Dad used to call "cat's fur".   That said, I fear this thread is getting far off course...these laws don't even effect those in Tennessee...have a nice day!

Yuup and no employer should have the power to control the contents of a privately owned vehicle any more than the contents of someone's home (or someone's mind).  Further, we aren't just talking about employer's with this issue either...we are talking about parking lots where the public (be they customers or employees) is/are invited to be. Our country has, for at least 100 years or more, treated property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes in order to maintain a civil society which is actually one of the few necessary functions of a government. Another of those few functions of government is to seek a balance of rights when there is a conflict; that is, when one "right" (property rights in this case) comes up against the right to arms. In the case of parking lot owners by law, not being able to forbid legally transported arms inside of a vehicle parked in the parking lot owner's lot, there is clearly no infringement on the rights of the parking lot owner (as the courts have consistently found as these laws have been challenged).

I agree.  On a different forum I once had someone call me names I couldn't repeat here just because I wasn't willing to quit my job and throw away a 20 year full pension to "protest" the fact that my employer didn't allow firearms on their property.  There are jobs and there are careers and while the two are similar they aren't necessarily interchangeable...more to the point; each person should do what he/she believe is best for them (which I think that's what liberty is supposed to be about).  ;) 

I love dogs (as you can probably tell from my pic) but you've gotten some good advice here...I strongly suggest you think about your priorities and whether they are aligned correctly.  If you are an adult then it's time to be in your own place and to be blunt, if you can't afford your own place then you really shouldn't be looking for another pet.   I'm sure your dog is lonely but most dogs adapt to their owners being away and getting another dog it no guarantee that they will hit it off and be friends; you may just make the situation worse.

I think suggesting that someone just get a different job is really rather ridiculous. We have more people out of work in this country today than any other time in the country's history - anyone who currently has a job had damn well better keep it. There is nothing wrong with looking around and keeping options open but there is more to a career and finding the right position than whether a company allows firearms on their property.

Some people collect firearms because of their history or mechanical perfection or beauty and/oor various/similar reasons.   Some people own guns only as tools for protection, hunting, etc.   Some people do both - I have enough "tools" and I have no problem selling them or buying them as. I also have a few that I have just for the pleasure of owning them and will likely NEVER sell (and intend to pass them down to family when I take the "long walk" to whatever comes next.

I decided not to answer the poll because none of the choices "fit" my circumstances...I carry as often as I'm able which is most of the time but circumstances (mostly where I'm going to be) often dictate how often that is.   Also, if I'm going someplace where I believe I NEED to be armed then I don't go there! ;)

And in the case of BHO; they aren't prevented from running for or holding office either!!! ;)

I'm a little behind although catching up with my reading now.   I caught up with all the 299 Days series then went back to "Holding Their Own"...as soon as I finish the current book in "Holding Their Own" I'm going to start the Carrington Effect!

Good changes and as I'm currently residing in Savannah GA for a while I'll get to take advantage of the new laws! ;)

The way I see it; if you committed a felony that is serious enough that your right to keep and bear arms is taken away forever then you ought to be locked up forever.  If your crime isn't serious enough to warrant a life sentence then your 2A rights should be fully restored once your sentence has been served!

Can't say I disagree; unfortunately.  :(

The legislature can come back into session specifically to override the veto if I recall correctly...also if I recall correctly that's exactly what happened with the first (or maybe it was the second or both) "guns in bars" bill(s). That said, I rather doubt that the legislature we have now (at least the leadership) cares enough to come back into session.

I am forever thankful that we have an "Easter" to celebrate and for all of God's blessings (even though I can't think of anything I've done to justify receiving them; which I suppose is rather the point isn't it!). :)

While TGO is an obvious exception; many, many forums have simply ceased to be a place where there is much activity any longer...most especially true on fast moving subjects. TFA does most of its communicating through its email distribution list and through Facebook because that tends to be the more efficient way to reach people quickly. I belong to many different forums covering many different subjects that in years past have been extremely active yet probably half or more of them today have extremely low traffic.   The "Republican Leadership" has been and continues to be the problem. I was surprised the bill passed the senate...I was surprised it made it to a vote in the senate at all for that matter and as long as we have this current leadership (Gov, Lt Gov and Speaker) it's unlikely we'll see ANY decent firearm related legislation out of the Tennessee legislature.  The only way I see that we can get permit-less carry, open carry, etc. out of this leadership would be with some massive demonstration such as we had with the horn honkers (that I am proud to say I was a part of).  However, when I look at the discussion in this and related threads and I have doubts that there is enough cohesiveness among firearm enthusiasts to get that sort of demonstration going.

I go around and around in my head with this issue myself...I've hunted with a firearm since I was big enough to fire a 410 shotgun...I've owned my own 12ga since I was 12 (and I think it was still legal then :) )...I've owned and do own many firearms and I believe in training and try to do at least two major classes per year as well as my own training regiment. I really DO understand how important it is for someone to KNOW how to use a firearm properly and safely and how dangerous a person can be to themselves and other innocent people if they DON'T KNOW.   HOWEVER...   I ALSO believe that people have a basic, natural/God-given right to carry ARMS for their own protection and for the protection of other innocents...that includes but is not limited to firearms. Our Constitution recognizes and protects that right and there is nothing in our Constitution that requires "training" to bear arms any more than the Constitution requires a certain level of IQ and/or education before being allowed to exercise (or not exercise) their chosen religion or to engage in free speech. So...I am left to conclude that "permit-less" carry is what our Constitution demands and that ALL laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I don't like leaving my firearm in my vehicle but I like being unarmed a whole lot less. Therefore, I carry everywhere and anywhere I can legally do so which means I often must leave my firearm in my vehicle; locked in a lock box secured to the vehicle with my other firearms in my safe at home.   While not completely "safe" in my vehicle, my significant gun safe in my home under multiple layers of security isn't "completely" safe either which means that if being afraid of someone steeling my firearm is the ultimate determinant of having one then the only logical conclusion is that no one should own a firearm because NO ONE can absolutely guarantee that the firearm(s) in their possession is/are totally and completely secure 100% of the time.   That said, Mr. jh225 makes an interesting claim about how bad an idea vehicle carry (and leaving the weapon in the vehicle) is but I would suggest we look to other states where vehicle carry without a permit is already allowed as it is here in Georgia (where I happen to be now). I wonder if Mr. jh225 has any data to substantiate his claim...can he show that his alleged problem actually IS a problem where permit-less vehicle carry is already legal?   Much like the poorly named "guns in bars" issue...the anti gun crown loves to claim that allowing such will result in shoot outs in bars yet in no state where it's already allowed has there been any significant problems (not that a lack of data keeps the anti crown from continuing to make the same claim). I can't help but think that this claim of Mr. jh225 has about the same merit as the old "blood in the streets" mantra.

Well that didn't help me...less than 100,000 people in the world with my last name and not all of those spell it the same way but I was arrested because my first and last name matched the husband of the husband and wife team the police were looking for!  

Once I was approved one day and made a purchase; went in the next day for another purchase and was denied. In my case it's a "charge" (wrong person/same name) from almost 25 years ago - the charges were completely dismissed of course but whatever records TICS checks only show the "charge"; not the fact that the charge was dismissed. I guess it just goes to show just how unreliable such "records" and/or how lazy or incompetent the government is at doing...well...at doing just about anything (which is why I'm just so happy that they are now in charge of everyone's health care).

Rather early to assume this is either a terrorist and/or Muslim related event isn't it?   I mean it may be both but could be neither...I guess we'll find out as details start to come out.

Yuup...the sad part is that, as I read the TN constitution; the problem is not so much with the constitution (although the language could use significant improvement) but rather, how we have allowed the legislature to apply their "understanding" to the firearm related laws they pass.   If the firearm laws they passed really were done "with a view to prevent crime"; most of the laws we have that restrict where/when we can be armed would not exist or would at least be more favorable to the citizen wishing to enjoy his God given right to be armed.

There isn't any one or any easy fix to the problems we have with our governments at all levels but term limits could well be one arrow in a quiver of arrows that could work to set things right.   Right now, politics is a viable career path for people, not unlike being a CPA, a firefighter, or any other profession - in my humble opinion, our ancestors never intended it to be that way. Rather, they envisioned successful people truly sacrificing their own lives for a period to serve; I truly don't think Madison or Jefferson ever thought people would want to do it "full-time".   So, term limits could change that reality.   If people knew up front that they would have only a specific number of potential years in office it might alter the perception of politics as a career which could lead to "leaders" stepping up who have what is often referred to as a "servant's heart"...leading by serving...sacrificing part of their lives for the benefit of their country.   At the very least, it might be worth trying at the federal level.