monkeylizard

All that answers for me is that Oath Keepers is involved in the activity and that an indeterminate percentage of participants are Oath Keepers. I see nothing to support  the claim that "most of the civilians that are stepping up are retired vets."

Mark's a great guy to deal with. He taught my HCP class.

To be fair, the only reason Ford keeps the top spot is because GM splits its sales between the Chevy and GMC. If you combine the Chevy and GMC numbers together, then the top spot switches between GM and Ford over the years, though Ford does have the winning spot now and probably will continue to do so for the next several years with the new F-150.

Is that the longest fight scene in movie history?

I think he meant "how does Bersa know that the majority of the citizen-defenders are Oath Keepers?"

For an SBR? Stylish Blue Robe?

Yeah. I definitely read 1311 and 1359 as a Venn diagram with civic centers, arenas, and "other building facilities" in that messy overlap area. That said, I think it's very clear that those places would have to be posted in some way to fall under 1359 since they can't be banned under 1311.   The AG's opinion lists "park, playground, civic center, or other facility owned by the county or municipality" so that would seem to encompass that middle area, meaning they can't be posted. He doesn't specifically say they can't be banned under 1311, just that they can't be banned. So ISTM that he's expanding the list of locations to which 1359 defers to 1311.   Clearer than the Mississippi River during Memphis in May.

Free dog with purchase?

  I'd not go quite that far. Arguing law with an officer on the street rarely results in an "oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Thank you for furthering my education on the finer points of firearms law in the State of Tennessee. have a nice day!" Remember that this is just the AG's legal opinion. It is not case law. Even if you beat the rap, you may not beat the ride. Everyone has to ask themselves if carrying in what we think (and what the AG apparently thinks) is an OK area, but the local LEOs say otherwise, is worth the cost and hassle of fighting the charge? It seems that the plain reading of the law, and now the AG's opinion, would be on your side, but you just never know what a judge may decide. Then you have to appeal if you lose. How far are you as an individual willing and able to take that costly legal fight?

+1 to Brownell's. Take the discount. They don't discount everything for Mil/LE/C&R, but it's pretty close to everything.

I carried legally this weekend in a place that formerly prohibited it under 39-17-1311(e ). There must be something wrong with my gun because it didn't kill anyone's son, grandson, or uncle.

Repeal 1307 for guns would be nice, but I think that's right up there with Con. Carry because, well, they're pretty much the same thing.   Realistically, I'd like to see 1359 repealed in its entirety. Not modified, just flat gone. Unfortunately, I suspect those images of the bullet holes in the gunbuster sticker at the recruiting center in Chatt. will be out of the minds of legislators by the time they meet again and start legislating. Still, I think it's a better than normal chance that we could get that this year, in large part because of those images.

  I feel the exact same way.

  FIFY!

True, but one of the key locations impacted by this is the brand new Ascend Amphitheater located entirely in Riverfront Park, fenced off, and managed by a 3rd party. Their policy is no weapons and the AG just flipped them the proverbial bird. Metro Law Director Saul Solomon said today that despite the AG's opinion, weapons are still banned in Ascend Amphitheater, thus returning the 1 fingered salute. I doubt this will be settled without a court case.   From the Tennesseean article:   So movies, theater, concerts, and sitting on the beach are not recreating? That's something only a crooked city lawyer could come up with.     Out of curiosity, how would one have standing to bring a suit against the city for violating state law if they were denied entry due to being legally armed? Is denial of access enough to show "harm" and have legal standing to bring suit?

I think a main ingredient in that stuff had to be battery acid.

  I see you too are no stranger to the red terror known as mercurochrome.

Here's the AG's Opinion: http://attorneygeneral.tn.gov/op/2015/op15-063.pdf

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89651-goober-goes-to-washington/

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89662-ky-man-shoots-down-drone/

  It's just south of Long Hunter State Park on Hobson Pike (aka South Mt. Juliet Rd.) between Mt. Juliet and Antioch.

  Yeah. That's how this social media thing works.

AFAIK, you can't turn that off. FB doesn't know that you don't know Stan. Maybe you want to be friends with Stan. Wash-Rinse-Repeat.

Go to your Account Settings, then Notifications. even though you didn't change anything doesn't mean FB didn't add a new setting and default it to their version of "show me everything". Just review them all and see if any changes are needed.

These things can turn slowly. It's not unusual to take a year from indictment to trial. I assume motions have been filed by the defense, which, AIUI, stops the clock on the "speedy trial" thing.