Dolomite_supafly

I really wish someone would test the law. I wonder if you could get the AG to wite an opinion on what their involvement would be in protecting a citizen of Tennessee for making a suppressor?   I would love nothing more than to build a suppressor for every single gun I own.   Dolomite

The Constitution does not protect you from the actions of "individuals" or "private entities", laws do. Having the right to bear arms is not a guaranteed right on someone else's property. Neither is protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Those can be set as the conditions of being on the property and you can choose to comply or leave. A property owner has no legal or even moral obligation to give anyone the rights as dictated in the Constitution. There is not a single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that a private individual must recognize when someone else is one their property. It is the property owners, not the guest, that choose what they will allow. Allowing a firearm on private property is a choice made by the property owner because it is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Laws dictate how private entities interact with each other, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.   The right to defend yourself is a fundemental right but how or what we choose to defend is not guaranteed or dictated by the Constitution. We choose a firearm because it is the most efficient way to protect ourselves.   A private entity can dictate the use of a Nerf gun for defense on their property. They can also dictate that you do not have gun in your car on their property. You can choose to comply or leave the property. If you are an employee that can also mean you will get fired. And this law only enforces that. This law does not guarantee you will not be fired for having a firearm in your car. You can still be fired for having a gun in your car against your boss's wishes.   Like I said before, I am glad those of you who supported this got it passed but it realistically changes nothing with regards to whether you can be fired or not for having a gun in your can. All it is going to do is give employees a false feeling that they cannot be fired for having a gun in their car when, in reality, they can. And when they think they have been wrongly fired, even though they haven't, there will be lawsuits filed costing the taxpayers of this state money.   We don't need more laws, especially when they change nothing. Keeping your mouth shut and the gun out of sight would have been a better option as it won't cost taxpayer money to hear the lawsuits.   If I were an employer I would welcome people to carry firearms but that is my choice as the employer. And likewise another emplyer should have the right to choose to not allow firearms.   How many here think this law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car?   Dolomite

Yes, the one in Kodak (Knoxville).   Dolomite

I am sure there are a lot of NFA dealers who would oppose the repealing of the Huges Amendment. If they legalized suppressors without NFA tax I would not complain about loosing my $200 I already paid. And if I owned a MG or two or a dozen I would not complain about loosing the $200 for each of them because I would be able to buy more.   Removing suppressors from the NFA list would make their cost drop to 1/10th of what they are now. I have been told most suppressors, in places where they can be bought over the counter, are under $50. It would make sense because it is nothing more that a machined peice of metal which can be produced very cheaply.   I might give a call sometime this week to the person I know at the ATF to see where we need to start to remove suppressors from the NFA registry. It would alleviate a lot of the backlog at the ATF and decrease wait times for other NFA items.   Suppressors intrigue me more than any other NFA item.   Dolomite

I read it a bit differently because I cannot find any mention of loaded vs unloaded, except "hunting" firearms, in any of the "intent to go armed" statues. I read it is knowingly or intentionally bringing a firearm vs unknowingly bringing a firearm. I read it as if a person who has a firearm in a briefcase or other luggage and they likely forgot it was in there would be guilty of the lesser. While a person who would have to know, or was not allowed to possess the firearm in the first place, would be guilty of the greater charge. In the "intent" statutes it also mentions a person being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they were committing a crime with the firearm which would also warrant a greater pentaly vs a person who just forgot it was in their possession.   I just see it as giving someone who made an honest mistake a break.   It also seems like the state would have to prove you intended to bring the firearm rather than just forget it was in your possession.    It also makes mention of those who are not allowed to possess firearms in the first place, because of convictions, domestics or other reasons, being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they have a weapon in their possession. So if a criminal, who is not allowed to possess the firearms in the first place, forget he had a gun in his briefcase or luggage he would be guilty of the greater charge regardless of whether he knew it was in there or not.   Again, I see no loaded vs unloaded in the "intent" statutes except hunting firearms. And in the definitions it specifically mentions a firearm is a firearm whether it is loaded or unloaded.   What is the TCA that a loaded firearm is always intent to go armed? I have looked and just cannot find it.

I would not risk it. All it takes is a squib to blow the gun up.   Dolomite

  Not according to the law. Makes no mention of unloaded vs loaded. Just stating firearms are legal to be stored by non students.   ********************************************************************************************************   An employer should be able to fire someone for ANY reason providing it does not violate federal discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are based on what a person cannot choose to change, like skin color or whether they are disabled. Carrying a gun is a choice and something a person can choose not to do. The Second Amendment does not protect an individual from their employer, from a property owner or from another individual. It is only there to limit the government.   An employer can, and should be able to, fire an employee for having a gun in their car if the employer chooses to. And the employee should have no legal recourse for being fired for violating the employer's policy, afterall it is not law. It was the employee's choice to violate his boss's policy and honestly the employee should be fired. Just because an employee doesn't break the law doesn't mean he cannot be fired. Hit on the boss's wife, which is perfectly legal, and see how long you work for that boss.   An employer sets the conditions of emplyment and the employee agrees to those conditions in order to work for the employer. The employer can set whatever conditions he wants providing it does not violate the discrimination laws.   This law does not protect the employee from being fired by their employer. I suspect a lot of fired employees are going to clog the courts thinking the law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car, which this law does not. Even worse I think it will become the excuse to sue even when a fired employee never had a firearm.   Dolomite

My son will be in town from the Air Force so he will make it as well as Sour Kraut.   Dolomite

Vehicle surfing, the killer of idiots everywhere.   Dolomite

I seem them nearly every day. There isn't a week that goes by that I don't see a flock at least twice. We even have a flock roaming around with a piebald.   Dolomite

Good for him to stand up. He violated no laws and had every right to tell them to get lost.   Dolomite

It has been perfectly legal for me, and anyone else who is not a student, to go onto any campus with a firearm in a vehicle. Only students were not allowed to do the same. Which makes me wonder why employees could not have a firearm in their car other than because of school policy. Seems it is "legal" for a teacher or administrator to have a firearm in their car based on how the law is written because they are not students.   Dolomite

I buy a lot of bulk and none of mine are taxed individually. Each 100 round value pack has a single stamp on it.   Dolomite

Having one in LR would be cool providing I can thread it for my can.   Dolomite

And here is another reaffirmation of what I was saying above.  

It has never been against the law to have a firearm in your vehicle on school property. This law has been in effect for as long as I have had my HCP.   The way I read it as long as you are not a student you can posses a firearm in your vehicle while on school property.   I am still loking but there is another section in the TCA that states you can legally leave your firearm in your vehicle if you find yourself in a area that does not allow firearms.

After all a speaker can be used as a microphone.   Dolomite

We should be able to own any NFA without any questions or registration if you can own a gun in the first place. Anyone should bd able to own anything unless they have proven to be violent, misdemeanor or felony. A person who has a non violent feliny should have the sand access to any other citizen. If not then I wish they could automate/digitize the NFA process like for buying title 1 firearms. They could make so much revenue if a person could walk in, buy and walk out with your items. I wish all NFA wasn't regulated at all but they are always going to be regulated to some degree even though they should not be. I wish some pro gun representative would push for a repeal of the Hughes amendment. Then a push for suppressors to be an "over the counter" item, esoecially ti save the hearing if shooters. Maybe we need to start emailing representatives about that next. Even if it still cost $200 I would spend thousands to make sure every gun I own is FA capable if I was allowed to. Removing suppressors from any type of NFA requirement should be a no brainer. It used to be courteous to shoot with a suppressor 100 years ago. Then the progressives began the process of regulating firearms and accessories. Dolomite

http://vimeo.com/60944105   Pretty good speech.   Dolomite

I watched him a few years ago and it looks like he has done a lot more amazing things since then. Definitely a thinker and has some unique products that I bet would sell if he got them produced.   Dolomite

I think you are off by aninch on the OAL. Max OAL is 2.26" and I load mine at 2.23"-2.24" OAL.   Dolomite

I put it in a little, or big pile, and set it on fire. Makes for a big flame.   Dolomite

I have been using molybendum disulfide grease for a long while now. I buy it at Walmart for under $5 per grease gun tube. The grease is cheap enough that you can buy several types and try them.   Dolomite

I wonder what he did to "tighten" it?   Dolomite

A few. :)