Fallguy

If it is a contract between two people whether male/female, male/male or female/female then AFAIK the full faith an credit clause makes it a valid contract anywhere in the country. The only trouble comes when you call it a marriage. Which IMO should be something between two people and their faith in each other and/or whatever higher belief they have and NOT the government.

The key distinction above is ( has "intent to go armed" and © doesn't.

The courthouse...Yes TCA 36-3-103 36-3-103. License required -- County of issuance. (a) Before being joined in marriage, the parties shall present to the minister or officer a license under the hand of a county clerk in this state, directed to such minister or officer, authorizing the solemnization of a marriage between the parties. Such license shall be valid for thirty (30) days from its issuance by the clerk. ( All existing marriages that occurred before March 24, 1986, are validated if a marriage certificate was signed by the county clerk either from a county in which the female did not reside or from a county where the marriage was not solemnized. © (1) The county clerk issuing a marriage license is hereby authorized to record and certify any license used to solemnize a marriage that is properly signed by the officiant when such license is returned to the issuing county clerk. The issuing county clerk shall forward the record to the office of vital records to be filed and registered with such office. If a license issued by a county clerk in Tennessee is used to solemnize a marriage outside Tennessee, such marriage and parties, their property and their children shall have the same status as if the marriage were solemnized in this state. A county clerk is prohibited from issuing a license for a marriage that is prohibited in this state. (2) All existing marriages occurring prior to May 2, 1989, by the authority of a Tennessee license, properly signed and certified by the officiant, are validated and the issuing clerk is authorized to record such license when it is returned to the issuing county clerk and to forward the record to the office of vital records to be filed and registered with such office.

I contacted the reporter of the article. He said although not in his article, "in the safety director's ruling he stated that the City of Canton's Law Department commissioned an independent review of the case to see if criminal charges should be filed against the officer. The independent prosecutor determined that criminal charges were not warranted." So no criminal charges I reckon....

I agree the state shouldn't tell a church what to do, but at the same time the state shouldn't have recognize any ceremony as something legal. It has to cut both ways.

If two people want to enter into a legal contract with each other through the government, fine and IMO the government shouldn't restrict who can enter into any such agreement. If two people want to have their union blessed by a church, then if a church is willing to do it, then by all means do it. But again IMO neither should affect the other.

Glad he was fired. But there on investigation says: "It is quite clear that his actions represent a pattern of behavior where inappropriate verbal abuse and threat of death and great bodily harm of the various complainants occurred. This escalating pattern of potentially dangerous behavior cannot be justified or excused and clearly illustrated the seriousness of the departmental infractions." Seems like enough where he should be criminally charged to me.

True...no "crime" no arrest and policy is not law. But as you said....more than likely you'd be fired.

Nope 40-7-109. Arrest by private person -- Grounds. (a) A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed in the arresting person's presence; (2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or (3) When a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed the felony. ( A private person who makes an arrest of another pursuant to the provisions of §§ 40-7-109 -- 40-7-115 shall receive no arrest fee or compensation for the arrest. 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen. A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612. LexisNexis® Custom Solution: Tennessee Code Research Tool

Going to give this thread just a little bit more to get back on track and for the direct personal attacks (name calling) to stop.

PM sent

Well just for the record, Milan may not have as large a population as Nashville or Memphis, but I wouldn't call it rural. When I think of rural I think of a place with out many people/houses around, out of the city limits etc...

I really don't think any employer would do this except through security if they have it....but any citizen can make an arrest and can use whatever force necessary (except deadly force) to affect the arrest and hold you until you can be turned over to LE.

I understand what you are saying...I guess I just feel even when they are still in the car, they are watching you and if they see you moving around it could cause a bit more uneasiness. One time I was stopped and I reached to turn down my radio (not sure why as it would go off when I turned the ignition off, but anyway) when he got up to the window that is the first place his flashlight shined. I can only assume he saw me reaching toward the dash and wanted to see what was there. So even unloaded and slide locked open, if he saw me doing things around the passenger seat, I don't think a gun is the first thing I want his eyes/flashlight to see. BTW I lived in Milan for a couple of years (Still work at the Arsenal, for nearly 12 years now) I was stopped there once, chose not to inform, he took my DL, went back to the car, came back and gave me my ticket and neither one of use ever mentioned a handgun.

Normally I might agree...but in this case it might be worth a clarification...

I've never taken it to mean you must remain in your car, since it says control and not the driver and/or occupant. If you have the keys, you are in control of the car, just ask someone that has been convicted of DUI that wasn't even driving at the time...

I'm glad it's worked out for you...but there is NO way I would be handling a loaded firearm after being pulled over and waiting for the officer to approach the vehicle.

My guess another employee of such a place either making up policy or not understanding the one the store does have.

That's the way I took it too. But as Dave said, that's not really "entrapment". But you still can't stop them without PC.

It's hard to test without a bunc of new post, but on my iPhone there are blue stars/dots on the left of each thread, if there is a new post it is dark and if you press it..it goes straight to the first new post.

LOL, not by much it appears...

It does work with TapTalk...but as mentioned above it really not necessary...IPB has a great native mobile skin. Looks good on my iPhone. There is also a specific IPBoard app for iPhone...but again the native skin works good for me.

I have no good way to draw while in my vehicle...I have tried to think of how I want to change this...I'm pretty sure I want to mount some type of easy access holster, I just haven't take the time. Guess this thread is giving me a bit of inspiration to get back to working on it. One thing I haven't completely worked out is mounting it where I can get to it easily but not where it is the first thing a LEO might see when walking up to the window.