Sky King

I don't think Ross Perot actually ever intended or wanted to win. This is my opinion for what it is worth but I think his stunt of pulling out of the election happened because he, or somebody in his camp actually saw that he was winning. When that happened, he pulled out. I think all he wanted to do was kind of shake things up, get some issues out in the front and talked about. His problem was that he actually started to gain momentum. When he pulled out and then got back in, he lost credibility and a great deal of his support base which submarined his campaign which is probably what he wanted anyway. But yes, by doing so, he likey can be credited with Clinton's election by diluting the vote. I too would love to see Alexander resign or voted out. Neither of which is likely in my opinion.

The Side Porch on Stage Road in Bartlett. Locally owned, mom-pop steak house. Great steaks. Talked to the owner, I thanked him for not posting. He said he will never post. He is a NRA Life member. Exlines Best Pizza In Town on Humphrey's Blvd almost to Germantown Road is NOT posted. Been in there a few times and I look every time because I know that two of their other locations, Stage Road in Bartlett and Austin Peay Hwy in Raleigh (the origional) ARE posted. I am not sure if this is just an oversite on the part of the Humphrey's location because it is a locally owned operation and all locations are owned by the same family. So if you go, (great pizza by the way), be sure to look.

No, I don't normally carry open. I have on occasion but it is not because I plan to. It is usually when I am doing something that is easier to do with my outer shirt off. When that happens, my weapon is open and I don't worry about it. I normally 90 to 95% of the time wear a shirt with the tail not tucked in covering the gun in it's holster on my belt. The open carry vs concealed debate is one that goes on. There are pros and cons on both sides. I personally prefer to carry concealed but it is good that Tennessee law does not prohibit open carry so that no matter your preferance, you can do so.

First let me say this is not something I did, this is something WE did. If it were not for the combined resources of this forum and that of TFA and the help of a person at the Tennessee Dept. of Safety, this would not have been done. Second I want to say that I did not go back to be able to rub it in or be able to say "I told you so". From the outset, at the initial contact, which was not planned, I told the security guard that I felt his information was wrong and that would let him know what I found out WHEN I found out. I have no doubt as some on this forum and the TFA forum had stated, that regardless of his ACTING understanding, saying he believed we should be able to carry anyplace AND his statements that he had asked the building managment to post, it was all just that, an act. I also have no doubt he already knew that the managment didn't ban carrying and I find it difficult to believe that he REALLY thought there was a federal law banning carrying on medical facility property. The bottom line, he didn't have a real foundation to stand on and thought he could impose what HE wanted by lying and bluffing. It is too bad that he couldn't accept being confronted with the truth better than he did. I really didn't do this so I could walk away with a "I win, you loose" kind of thing. As long as there are people like this person in positions such as his who try to intimidate people with lies and bluffs, we ALL loose. If he is in a bad mood over this, I really don't feel sorry for him. He created the situation when HE CHOSE to conduct himself in the manner he did. Like I said, he didn't say half a dozen words. He listened to what I said then responded with the "I don't believe we need to talk anymore" answer. I said, "no problem", turned and walked away with my .40 cal Sig P250 in the holster on my belt. Again, thanks to all.

No. I had no other business at that building today. I had told the security officer at our first encounter that I would investigate what he had said and get back to him on it. So I was simply keeping my word in providing him with what I had found out. It is just too bad that it didn't work out in his favor and he didn't like it. My only reason today to go there was to give him the information that I had gained, (thanks in great part to the many responses from this forum and the TFA forum). I WAS armed because HE was wrong and I had every right to be armed. But no, I didn't proceed into the building because I didn't have any business to transact in the building. But if and when I do, unless they choose to post, I will have my weapon as usual and I would think that THIS officer will not challenge me. If he does, I will again remain calm, try to conduct myself in a professional manner, comply with his request, call his supervisor and or the police, the building managment company and get it settled.

Well after hearing from all of you folks, inquiring with the Dept. of Safety and contacting the building managment group, I went back to give the security officer the information I had gathered. It was obvious from the look on his face and his demeanor that I had apparently already stirred the pot. When I told him that I had made inquiries, he said, "I know, I have heard". His tone of voice and expression indicated that he was not a happy camper. Instead of his previous jovial, polite tone, he was curt, and didn't have much to say. I simply advised him that my inquiries had determined that there was no federal ban on medical faciliities and that the building managment company did not prohibit carrying of weapons on the property. To which he simply responded, "I don't believe we need to tallk anymore". I said, "no problem" and left. I think what it boils down to is he got his bluff called and lost and from his tone and attitude today, he may have even been admonished or chastised by his boss, I don't know, he didn't say and I didn't ask. Thanks for all the input from all you very knowlegable folks out there.

Having worked for my home county sheriff's office as a teen, (small county in Kentucky, I was a radio operator), I got to know all of the local police and the state police that worked that county along with all the deputies and the sheriff. While we had one or two gung ho officers who were "proud" of their gun and badge, most were regular people just like you and I. I can honestly say I have never received a citation I didn't deserve and just paid them. I have also never attempted to talk my way out of a ticket. I was guilty and deserved the ticket. The encounter you had in Texas in my opinion, in not unusual. One needs to remember that when an officer approaches a car, he or she has no idea of the intent or disposition of the person driving the car. We have all seen or read accounts of officers killed while conducting what should have been a routine traffic stop. It should be understood that they are going to be cautious and on their guard. When you conduct yourself properly, respond to the officer in a way that communicates respect for his authority, it goes a LONG way. While I have no way to know for sure, I honestly believe it was the fact that I made the officer aware of my weapon and permit up front and my courtesy in my communication with him that ultimately resulted in my being let go with just a warning and often a "thank you" for honesty.

Yes, I have a name, however it is a fairly large property management company and she is not on site. They actually have no presence or office on site. I inquired in one of the office tennents and they stated that when they have an issue, they have a phone number to call. That is how I got a contact number. None of the offices that are in that building are open on the weekend so the building is closed. However I do plan to go by there Monday and make the security officer aware of what I found out. If he wants to make more of it, I will contact the contract security company he works for (the property manangment company representative I spoke with gave me the name of the security company) and speak with a supervisor.

Ok, so far the Tennessee Dept. of Safety has no information regarding such a law. Also today, I contacted the company who manages the building and told them what had happened and asked if they had such a policy. I was quite surprised. The lady I spoke with actually said that they had not had ANY discussion of the issue of people carrying on the property and had no policy one way or the other. She also stated that the security officer actually should not have made the statements he made regarding building policy when no such policy exists. I thanked her for her time and asked that if in the future if they did have any discussions regarding carrying, that they NOT post as such postings are essentially useless anyway, only stopping law abiding citizens. She thanked me. Now I wonder if it is even worth my time to go back and tell the security guard what I found out.

Yesterday I was escorting my wife to a doctor's appointment. The medical building was adjacent to Methodist North Hospital in Memphis which as many of may have seen the posts in other threads indicating that Methodist Hospitals in Memphis have recently posted their facilities. This building IS NOT part of the hospital facility or property. As I dropped my wife off at the door, I noted that there was NO posting at this facility and there was an armed security person standing out front. I went and parked the car and started to go in. The security person apparently was able to determine I was carrying, (I guess the summer weather and short sleeve shirts to not prevent the weapon from showing a bit of a bulge). He approached me, I must say he was very polite, and stated that weapons were not allowed in this building. I politely engaged him and stated that I saw no posting. He advised that he had asked the management to post the property IF they were going to ban weapons but they had declined. I stated that state law allows property owners to ban but they are required to post. He responded that it is FEDERAL LAW prohibiting weapons at ANY medical facility including hospitals, clinics and even private doctors offices. He said that includes your eye doctor and dentist. I told him I had never heard of this but would inquire. I feel he is wrong. A federal ban of this scope certainly would not exist without SOME degree of common knowlege. Does ANYBODY know of ANY federal code that imposes such a ban OR code that could be read and be mistakenly understood to impose such a ban?

I agree completely. The request to Rep Todd was pretty short notice. I did suggest at the meeting that evening that we ask him for a future meeting with enough advance notice to give him time to make sure the time is left open on his calendar and we can all mark ours.

I would like to say I have some new information about the firearms taskforce but I do not. Rep. Todd was not able to attend our meeting. In some ways, that may have been a good thing as the turnout was not very good. I think when we have people such as Curry Todd or other members of legislative bodies come, poor attendance does not tell that person that we are serious.

Not sure if the moderators allow plugging other organizations but, Curry Todd, chairman of the newly created taskforce in the Tennessee House to study gun legislation is scheduled to speak at the Shelby County chapter of the TFA. I know this is short notice but the meeting is held at 7 PM at Range USA. The meeting will be tomorrow night August 18th. Range USA is on Old Whitten Road in Bartlett Tennessee. Old Whitten is off Summer Avenue. If you are going OUT Summer Avenue (away from Memphis), Old Whitten is between Kirby-Whitten and Stage (Hwy 64). Turn right on Old Whitten and Range USA is on the left. You DO NOT have to be a member of TFA to attend. Visitors and guests are more than welcome. If you want to eat before the meeting, Range USA has a restaurant which is pretty good. We often say it is the safest restaurant in Shelby County. We really need to have a good crowd for this meeting. I notice that Pat said that Curry Todd is tentitive, I just hope he makes it. If anybody has a relationship with Curry, I would ask that you contact him and encourage him to be there. I attended the West Tennessee Regional Chapter TFA meeting last week in Jackson Tn. House Rep. Andy Holt was there. Andy is an appointee to this task force. Andy was very open and supportive about gun rights. He was quite willing to field questions about the task force but unfortunately he said that at this time, not much had been formalized about it. Hopefully Curry can have more to offer since he is the chairman of that task force. Please spread the word and let's have a good showing.

I understand a desire for this but I can see loopholes that could give an employee problems. First, I am not a lawyer so if there are any out there who can offer some insite to this, it would be appreciated. Even if a law were passed giving you private property protections for your car that are the same as your house, it would STILL not prohibit an employer from including in an employment agreement a right to search your car. By accepting employment under those terms, you have given your employer the right to look in or search your car. And IF they also had a policy against weapons, you could be screwed. Sure, you could say, this is my car and you don't have a right to know what is in there but then they whip out that little old thing called your employment agreement and point out that little clause. Now regardless of what is in your car, you could be fired for violating the terms of your employment. Also if your work for some place like I do where theft from customers shipments is a problem, all they would have to do is call law enforcement and when they show that you likely have stolen property in your vehicle, that is probable cause and hello, it is search time and when they find the gun, you're fired. Also remember that Tennessee is an "Employment at Will" state. That means that an employer does not have to state a reason to fire you. This is a "catch-all" thing but the bottom line is, we need specific protections I could go along with your idea BUT I still want a bill that says that I can have my weapon in my car while parked in my employers lot.

I would love to see more banks take similiar action. Right now, the bank I do business with simply does NOT post anything which by law allows me to carry. I don't make a big deal of it, kind of what they don't know or think of, I'm not going to bring it to their attention. A large banking company with a big presence here in Memphis DOES post and has been contacted by several people about it with no success. It is Regions Bank. I don't do business with them.

I agree. Even if it did happen, the first time a victim or victims family tried to collect under the terms of the law, it would be challenged in court and tied up for years. The only case that is similiar was where a woman was kidnapped from a store parking lot, stuffed into the trunk of her own car, driven across the Mississippi river to Arkansas, raped and murdered. The family filed suit. The case went back and forth and was eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiff at the Tennessee Supreme Court. However, it was eventually overturned in favor of the defendent. The actions this session of neutering the parking lot bill were absurd. I don't know what drugs Vance Dennis and Barrett Rich were on to actually believe that business will change their policy on their own just because of an "incentive". I've got some beach front property in Oklahoma for them to buy. If this task force does not take the bull by the horns on the parking lot bill and cause a REAL bill to be introduced and BACKED, I will know where we all stand.

I have a couple of long guns that were in a house fire, (they were not buned). They were in a closet in a room the fire did not actually reach but were exposed heavily to smoke. I have been told that the chemicals and other stuff in smoke can create acids that can damage a gun. I also have a hand gun that need some attention, (doesn't like to fully eject the spent round). Would like to hear from anybody who can reccomend a reputable gunsmith in the Memphis area that can address the issues involved with exposure to smoke and look at the pistol.

Thanks to all for the kind words for my wife. I won't try to do all the quotes from the posts but I will try to respond to several. As for having her questioned about the number, kind and reason for owning the guns, I was a bit ticked. I agree with the comment about comparing it to the physicians questioning patients about gun ownership. My wife's answers were accurate within the scope of her knowlege. My wife fully supports my beliefs and efforts to further and defend our Second Amendment rights. With that said, she chooses not to carry. That is her right just as it is mine to carry. With that, if asked, she honestly could not give you an accurate "inventory" of my firearms. Her answer in court was actually quite short but in all fairness, I actually don't think it is any of their business how many, what kind and why. As for the jury duty itself, this was for federal court. She received a notice in the mail a few months ago. The way it works is that for the month of June, she was to call a toll free number every evening after 5 PM to see if she was to report the next day. As it turned out, she did have to report on the day mentioned. She was advised AFTER this event that because she actually did get to the jury selection stage, (actually in the jury box) even though she was not seated, her duty had been fullfilled and did not have to call in anymore for the rest of the month. I was surprised. I suggested to her that she call the office responsible for the jury duty and get that in writing somehow. Now, for the case in question. I have found out that this was a case involving a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Do you all remember the case where a woman's dead body was found under a mattress in a motel room. It had been there for some time and had been found only after the room began to smell. This involved the person who is charged with that womans murder. Of course since capital murder is not usually prosecuted at the federal level, this trial was not a murder trial. He is charged with felony possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. I still applaud my wifes action. I don't know what I would have done if I were her. I know my first thought would have been, just whose business is it whether I own any firearms, how many, what kind and type and why. My gut would have wanted to ask them, "and this is any of your business because......?" I would have had to bite my tongue on that one because I can imagine I could have found myself cooling my heels in jail for contempt. I understand the attorneys on both sides wanting jury that is favorable their side but just because I own guns, (considerably more than my wife stated), and obviously believe in the rights of law abiding citizens to own, keep and bear and carry arms shouldn't disqualify me. While I passionately believe in the right to own, keep, bear and carry by law abiding citizens, I also believe that persons who have proved by their actions that they can not be trusted to be responsible and law abiding, have forfeited that right. So if the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, I would have no problem voting guilty, whether I am a gun owner or not and I think my wife is smart enough to have been able to make that distinction as well.

Thanks for the responses to my question. I actually do understand why she was dismissed, (I probably should have stated that). I just think that the notion that an intelligent individual can't listen to the facts and evidence and render an impartial verdict regardless of their beliefs is an insult especially when the notion is based on a persons belief in our Consititutional rights. When so many oaths of office for public service include a pledge to support and defend The Constitution, how can they justify dissmissal based on the belief and exercising of those rights, (a rhetorical question)? I agree with PapaB in that the system is quite biased against the Second Amenment and this is just more proof of that.

Edit post Delete post Report this post Reply with quote Constitution vs Constitution, proud of my wife My wife was summoned for Federal Jury Duty for the month of June. I don't know how it works in other locations, but here in Memphis, if you are called for Federal jury duty, you have to call in every evening to see if you are expected to report the next day. Well my wife was instructed to report for duty on Tuesday, the 7th of June. I don't know the details of the case but she was in the second group in the jury box to be questioned to see if she would be seated. Apparently the defendant was charged with some form of a firearms violation. As we all know, a jury trial is a right we all have that is mandated by our Consitution. In as much, serving on a jury is something we all usually do not look forward to but as a Constitutionally protected right, it is a duty we should all respond to when asked. But in the case involving my wife, her "fitness" to serve came head to head with another of our fundamental rights protected in The Bill of Rights, namely, The Second Amendment. After being called into the jury box, the prosecuting deputy federal attorney asked if anybody or their family owned guns. Needless to say, my wife answered "yes". She was further questioned about just who owned the guns, how many, what type, (handguns, rifles shotguns) and why. My wife stated that the guns were mine and that I owned a few handguns and a couple of rifles but was not sure of the exact details of what they were. When asked why or what purpose I owned these guns, my wife responded that the were for personal protection. When the prospective jurors were asked if anyone had any concerns, my wife raised her hand and made a statement in support of our Second Amendment rights saying that she felt it was a right that is being infringed upon at every turn and that law abiding citizens should have an unquestioned right to own, keep and bear arms. She was dismissed. I told her that I was proud of her for taking the stand she took. What I find upsetting is that because a law abiding person takes a public stance in SUPPORT of a right protected by our Constitution, she is deemed unfit to fullfill a duty that is ALSO protected by our Constitution. I ask all of you here, what is wrong with this picturre?

Sorry to be so late with an update. Worriedman has pretty well summed it up. All while being assured we would be able to speak, it was not untill the lunch recess that we found out that the bill had been sent back to the sub-committee. Since there will be no more sub-committee meetings, this essentially kills the bill for this year. From the beginning of the hearing, we all were watching for other concerned persons such as Josh Evans himself or other interested parties such as corporate lobbiests. None ever appeared. Several of us attempted to contact Josh Evans by phone and text but we never got a response. As the hearing moved on, HB2021 was nunber seven on the agenda but they passed right over it. It seems the political manuvering was by design to keep the bill from ever comming up. We were not told untill the lunch recess that the bill had been sent back to the sub-committee. I spoke with Barret Rich before the hearing and expressed my feelings that I would rather see this bill die than have the neutered, watered down version as it is now pass. He was totally surprised and couldn't understand why I would oppose SOME progress rather than none. The problem is that large corporations will not change their policy based on this bill. It accomplishes nothing. Barret Rich, Vance Dennis and the other RINOs need to feel the heat for failed campaign promises from the conservative base that put them in office. It is still my contention that it all boils down to money. The Republican leadership does not want this bill to come to a vote on the floor. If it ever makes it to the floor, many feel it would pass. What they are doing is nothing less than what Jimmy Naifeh did. At this time I would like to thank everybody who called, wrote emails and took time to get involved in this issue. There is no way any of the members of The General Assembly can say they did not hear from us. Now it is time to let them know how upset we are that they have not kept their word and tell them that come election time, it is US who pull the lever in the booth, NOT FedEx, UPS, General Tire, Bridgestone Firestone.

As I type this, I am in The House Judiciary Committee meeting. The agenda is long and I have no way of knowing when this bill will come up. There are two others here with me from Memphis and one from Jackson along with John Harris. I don't recognize any others who may be here. We have been advised that we will be able to speak. I do not know if Eddie Bass will attempt to introduce again his amendment or not, I guess we will see.

I hesitated to start a new thread on this, but the old one has become a bit worn. Tomorrow, May 3rd, the House Judiciary committee is scheduled to hear the bill again as a result of Josh Evans pulling the bill off the House floor following an attempt by Eddie Bass to amend the bill back to its origional form. We need as big a show of support at that hearing as we can possibly muster. I am planning, (God willing and the creek don't rise) to be there along with a couple of others from Shelby County. We are in contact with several members of the committee to get our names on the list of speakers. I know this being a weekday, it impacts the ability of many to be there but if you can, I am asking you to be there. It is being reported that the business community will be there in force. The opponents to what we want to accomplish still have several options to prevent the bill from moving forward if any attempts are made to amend the bill back to its origional form so I am being honest in saying that I don't give us a lot of chance of being successful. BUT we HAVE to let them know that we are watching and we WILL hold them accountable. The existance of the major campaign funding bill that is working it's way through the legislature, I believe is a major factor who's influence on THIS bill has only recently been realized. The campaign funding bill, if passed, will free up a lot of funding options to businesses that will allow them to pour a lot of money into the campaigns of political candidates. I feel the left or liberal leaning Republicans are pandering to the business and corporate lobby in order to be found favorable with them during the next election. If you can not be there, please take the time to send a last barrage of emails and phone calls to the committee members.

I actually got the same email, except I got three of them. They all were the same. However they were in response to three DIFFERENT emails I sent to him. He used the same email to respond to different emails. Makes me wonder if he even read them. He just saw the subject line and instructed his assistant to sent the same response out to everybody. However, to use his own logic, since the House bill is technically not dead, neither is his. So if by some miracle we can revive HB2021 this Tuesday in the Judiciary committee, Mr. Campfield will have to get his bill moving to. Time to get those emails and phone calls cranked up again. If it were not for the fact that I am actually in favor of the campus carry issue, I would be tempted to write back to Mr. Campfield that one hand washes the other. In his email, he asks for our support on the campus carry bill, to utilize what is apparently a common tactic in legislative circles, if you want me to support your issue, I expect you to support mine.

I am borrowing from Worriedman's post on the TFA web site because I think he may have hit on the heart of the matter. Read the article in this link. For me it made my blood boil. I think what is going on here is the Republicans are counting on the bill referanced in this article, passing. If it does, it could be a real game changer in the world of political campaigns. They REALLY don't want to piss off the PACs and corporate donors the year BEFORE and election year when there is REAL potential for a financial windfall into their campaign coffers. Direct Corporate Political Contributions, Higher Contribution Limits Approved on Party-Line Votes | Humphrey on the Hill | knoxnews.com So to hell with us, the voters, the constituants, the citizens, we don't have deep enough pockets to buy our personal representative in The General Assembly. It truely is as Will Rodgers said, "We have the best politicians money can buy."