Tn. Constutional carry

[mikegideon]

4 minutes ago, JayC said:

Many of us aren't big fans of the Negotiating Rights Away...

Speak for yourself. We wouldn't have a Second Amendment left if it wasn't for them. If you are gonna kill rats for a living, there is gonna be a rat smell. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

59 minutes ago, xtriggerman said:

In my case, you couldn't be more wrong.  

If it does not apply to you then it does not apply to you.....

But there are A LOT of people moving into Nashville from California who are bringing their voting patterns with them.

 

As to Eddy Eagle I'm all for it. As a public service children should be taught gun safety in school just like they are taught to ride their bicycle with the flow of traffic and how to drive in drivers ed. And frankly on a personal level I'd rather people who are carrying loaded guns in public have at least a rudimentary knowledge of gun safety and the law. But you will find far more people here at TGO (or at least the far more vocal) who think you should be able to carry ...period. And they will claim any differing opinion is driven by either hate of freedom or of love of monetary gain if you are an HCP instructor. I assure you, I make far more money off more advanced classes than HCP classes and in fact I rarely even teach HCP classes any more so if the HCP went away I certainly would not be crying because of the loss of revenue. 

 

My own personal opinion is that on your own property you can be as educated or uneducated with regards to firearms (and everything else) as you want to be. In fact I think it should be like cars....you can buy ANY car (or gun) and drive it (or shoot or use it to defend yourself) on your own property without a license.  But once you step out onto the public streets then you have a duty to be safe and conscientious since the whole world is now down range.

But how to MAKE people be safer is the question...or should the govt even have the ability to mandate that ?  Or at least how do we try to make sure they are exposed to the information if not through a mandated class?  By law (as it is now) ? If not then how? That is the question. As far as the TN state constitution goes it clearly states the state has a right to regulate the wearing of arms and that has not been successfully challenged so as it stands they CAN require a permit to carry in public. My view of the upside to that is that since they DO require it then at least people who otherwise would NEVER avail themselves of learning anything about the law or even how to safely operate a gun are now "forced" to be exposed to it in order to get the permit. So while we can argue whether the permit requirement is good or bad I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument about how people being less safe is better for them or society....

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke

[mikegideon]

17 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

If it does not apply to you then it does not apply to you.....

But there are A LOT of people moving into Nashville from California who are bringing their voting patterns with them.

 

As to Eddy Eagle I'm all for it. As a public service children should be taught gun safety in school just like they are taught to ride their bicycle with the flow of traffic and how to drive in drivers ed. And frankly on a personal level I'd rather people who are carrying loaded guns in public have at least a rudimentary knowledge of gun safety and the law. But you will find far more people here at TGO (or at least the far more vocal) who think you should be able to carry ...period. And they will claim any differing opinion is driven by either hate of freedom or of love of monetary gain if you are an HCP instructor. I assure you, I make far more money off more advanced classes than HCP classes and in fact I rarely even teach HCP classes any more so if the HCP went away I certainly would not be crying because of the loss of revenue. 

 

My own personal opinion is that on your own property you can be as educated or uneducated with regards to firearms (and everything else) as you want to be. In fact I think it should be like cars....you can buy ANY car (or gun) and drive it (or shoot or use it to defend yourself) on your own property without a license.  But once you step out onto the public streets then you have a duty to be safe and conscientious since the whole world is now down range.

But how to MAKE people be safer is the question...or should the govt even have the ability to mandate that ?  Or at least how do we try to make sure they are exposed to the information if not through a mandated class?  By law (as it is now) ? If not then how? That is the question. As far as the TN state constitution goes it clearly states the state has a right to regulate the wearing of arms and that has not been successfully challenged so as it stands they CAN require a permit to carry in public. My view of the upside to that is that since they DO require it then at least people who otherwise would NEVER avail themselves of learning anything about the law or even how to safely operate a gun are now "forced" to be exposed to it in order to get the permit. So while we can argue whether the permit requirement is good or bad I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument about how people being less safe is better for them or society....

 

Remember the time the NYC cops shot up several bystanders trying to hit a perp? I assume they had some pretty good training. Sometimes, there's no substitute for experience.

When it comes to the average Joe and his Glock, stuff is gonna happen. But, Joe is never gonna get high on the list of the easiest ways to die or get injured. So, I am one of the guys that doesn't want to comply with laws developed for the dumbest sumbitch that ever lived. I'm smarter than that. When Joe screws up, take his Glock away. Attack the problem directly.

Edited November 28, 2016 by mikegideon

[Cruel Hand Luke]

12 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

Remember the time the NYC cops shot up several bystanders trying to hit a perp? I assume they had some pretty good training. Sometimes, there's no substitute for experience.

 

Yes and I don't at all buy the "since trained people occasionally hit bystanders then training is irrelevant" argument. In that vein then why require a drivers license if licensed drivers still have wrecks..... ?

[mikegideon]

3 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Yes and I don't at all buy the "since trained people occasionally hit bystanders then training is irrelevant" argument. In that vein then why require a drivers license if licensed drivers still have wrecks..... ?

Don't get ME wrong. Training is great, and should be required in some cases. But, not for Joe and his Glock. The overwhelming majority of folks are smart enough to carry a gun around without hurting anybody. A drivers license is the same deal. The difference... everybody likes and uses a car. Some wind up hurting other folks.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

So you're saying that "Joe and his Glock" should be able to carry without knowing anything about gun safety, marksmanship, legality or legal ramifications of a shooting ? 

[Oh Shoot]

4 hours ago, JayC said:

We already have that law don't we?

No, certainly not a blanket law saying that simply by virtue of not being charged you are immune.

Combination of 50-1-312 and 39-11-622 come into play, which might help in most cases I guess.

- OS

Edited November 28, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, JayC said:

Many of us aren't big fans of the Negotiating Rights Away...  They tend to support stupid legislation that is designed to line the pockets of instructors and ranges, instead of removing unconstitutional laws altogether.

Training is great, I think more people should get more firearms training, but I don't think the government should make it a requirement under any circumstance.  The data just doesn't back up your argument, states that have passed CC haven't seen a rising in crime, a rise in ND's, nor a rise in children related firearms deaths.  

You do realize that every state that touches TN except for 1 (GA) allows every law abiding citizen to carry a firearm without a permit, with no training required what so ever, and blood isn't running in the streets?

I know I'm giving you a hard time about coming from NY state, and I realize that lots of areas of NY state are rural and comparability more conservative that NYC, but I think you'll find with few exceptions that a republican in NY is a very liberal democrat here in TN.  I know you can't help yourself, you've spent decades behind enemy lines, but freedom means something down here, and many of us think government at it's best is a necessary evil, and we're far from 'best' even here in TN.

Like em or not.....they are THE reason you don't hear about "President Elect Clinton" on the news constantly.

[gregintenn]

2 hours ago, xtriggerman said:

In my case, you couldn't be more wrong.  Im from a place that's far, far more rural than here. As I got older, my conservative votes became absolutely worthless due to city folks moving to the back woods. I understand exactly what your point is. I lived it up close and personal. If CC comes to TN fine, You guys think Im going to stop it or fight it coming in?  Wow, Funny thing is, I felt that same way you all feel about it until I was in close contact with "stupid" too many times. Maybe I'm wrong about a good NRA sanctioned training course as a litmus test. We are all potential militia according to the Constitution and rightly so. WE are homeland security and as such I don't agree with restricting FA weapons or all the other nonsence of NFA since the Gov has them. So who the heck you all think your dealing with is now blown way, way, out of proportion.  I just don't want to get shot by some nit wit who has little to no idea on how to manage his weapon. And the answer to that has always been a responsibility issue. Where is the best place to get it? from your Dad when you are little maybe like I had shown my little ones why you never play with real guns by deer wounds and ice blocks blowning up from a 44m hit. It worked for me but there are a **it load of single parents here in TN that is never a good thing.  Then on the other hand, there are too dam many people on the planet as is so if we loose a few due to stupid every now and again, their number was going to be up weather by gun or car or tree. I'll say it AGAIN, Training is never going to be a catch all in misshaps we all can agree on that. There will always be a level of irresponsibility in everything, I understand that as we all do. I just happen to "like" training. I think it does in fact bring non gun folks up to the realization of the responsibility they are undertaking. There was one old woman at my HCP class that was asked to come back simply because she couldn't hit the target....at all. I wish ALL folks had the good sense to at least have friends get them to the point of hitting what your looking at. Only one guy backed me up here on this sort of thing and sadly, no one seconded the Eddy Eagle program. Loosen your shorts up folks, they sky isn't falling!

I happen to like church, but I'll be damned if I think the government should be mandating you go to one, or which one, or whatever.

The straw man "nit wit" you're scared will shoot you isn't likely to become a genius after attending a training course. In fact, he isn't real likely to make any attempt to get a carry permit. Guess what! He still has a gun in his pocket; legal or not.

[mikegideon]

57 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

So you're saying that "Joe and his Glock" should be able to carry without knowing anything about gun safety, marksmanship, legality or legal ramifications of a shooting ? 

I'm saying he HAS been doing it in Kentucky for as long as I can remember. I am not a member of the "if you can save one child" club. The current permit requirements don't bother me. I think they are worthwhile. But, I'm not worried about blood in the streets if they pass constitutional carry.

I AM a big believer in real world experience. The states that do have constitutional carry haven't had a big problem.

Edited November 28, 2016 by mikegideon

[Cruel Hand Luke]

16 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I happen to like church, but I'll be damned if I think the government should be mandating you go to one, or which one, or whatever.

The straw man "nit wit" you're scared will shoot you isn't likely to become a genius after attending a training course. In fact, he isn't real likely to make any attempt to get a carry permit. Guess what! He still has a gun in his pocket; legal or not.

And there is truth to this too....When we consider how many people actually carry it is a small fraction of the population. So we really are probably fretting over a tiny percentage of people who would carry that are not already getting a permit to carry.

 

At the same time though I have seen enough people at public ranges and in HCP classes before they were exposed to proper gun handling etiquette that I'd feel more comfy knowing my family is potentially down range if those people had better gun handling habits. 

[mikegideon]

2 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

And there is truth to this too....When we consider how many people actually carry it is a small fraction of the population. So we really are probably fretting over a tiny percentage of people who would carry that are not already getting a permit to carry.

 

At the same time though I have seen enough people at public ranges and in HCP classes before they were exposed to proper gun handling etiquette that I'd feel more comfy knowing my family is potentially down range if those people had better gun handling habits. 

It's just real hard to raise the bar for the entire population.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

3 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I'm saying he HAS been doing it in Kentucky for as long as I can remember. I am not a member of the "if you can save one child" club. The current permit requirements don't bother me. I think they are worthwhile. But, I'm not worried about blood in the streets if they pass constitutional carry.

Nor am I....there never has been "blood in the streets" because so few people actually carry anyway.....when there is blood in the streets it is criminal on criminal "victimless" crime . I'm not a "save one child" thing either......if I were I'd try to get swimming pools banned. But if I know people are going to be armed I tend to feel more at ease around level headed people who know how to handle guns (and when to NOT handle them) than around people who don't .  

[mikegideon]

3 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Nor am I....there never has been "blood in the streets" because so few people actually carry anyway.....when there is blood in the streets it is criminal on criminal "victimless" crime . I'm not a "save one child" thing either......if I were I'd try to get swimming pools banned. But if I know people are going to be armed I tend to feel more at ease around level headed people who know how to handle guns (and when to NOT handle them) than around people who don't .  

Oh, we agree there. The problem is the mandate.

[gregintenn]

7 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Nor am I....there never has been "blood in the streets" because so few people actually carry anyway.....when there is blood in the streets it is criminal on criminal "victimless" crime . I'm not a "save one child" thing either......if I were I'd try to get swimming pools banned. But if I know people are going to be armed I tend to feel more at ease around level headed people who know how to handle guns (and when to NOT handle them) than around people who don't .  

My point is: how do you know who's carrying? I can't prove it, but I believe I know more people who carry a handgun without a permit than carry one with a permit. Mandating anything regarding this is little more than a feel good measure.

 

I'm mostly concerned with criminals. How do you propose we train them in the safe handling of firearms?

Edited November 28, 2016 by gregintenn

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Yes. The "mandate" is a tough issue.

 There is theory and practice. In theory people should be able to not murder each other, steal from each other or rape each other ...unfortunately a small portion of society do those things on a regular basis.

In theory all people would know how to safely handle a gun and be conscientious of the fact that doing something dumb might have effects on people 500 yards away....but unfortunately that is not always the case.

So in practice, states have mandated that people get a permit and most states have mandated some form of training. Do I think that there will be "blood in the streets" with constitutional carry? No of course not. But I also don't think constitutional carry will suddenly make numb skulls stop being numb skulls either..... now they'll just be armed potentially with no one having ever exposed them to proper gun handling and when my family might potentially be down range from those people I am a little bit concerned. It is not that I think people should not carry. I think people who refuse to avail themselves of education in safe and proper gun handling should have the common decency to not carry and handle guns in public. 

[gregintenn]

13 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Yes. The "mandate" is a tough issue.

 There is theory and practice. In theory people should be able to not murder each other, steal from each other or rape each other ...unfortunately a small portion of society do those things on a regular basis.

In theory all people would know how to safely handle a gun and be conscientious of the fact that doing something dumb might have effects on people 500 yards away....but unfortunately that is not always the case.

So in practice, states have mandated that people get a permit and most states have mandated some form of training. Do I think that there will be "blood in the streets" with constitutional carry? No of course not. But I also don't think constitutional carry will suddenly make numb skulls stop being numb skulls either..... now they'll just be armed potentially with no one having ever exposed them to proper gun handling and when my family might potentially be down range from those people I am a little bit concerned. It is not that I think people should not carry. I think people who refuse to avail themselves of education in safe and proper gun handling should have the common decency to not carry and handle guns in public. 

Again....what makes you think they aren't already armed?

[Cruel Hand Luke]

30 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

 

 

I'm mostly concerned with criminals. How do you propose we train them in the safe handling of firearms?

If they accidentally shoot themselves that solves problems in and of itself. 

We can hypothetical this to death and paint ourselves into corners. We can argue that since people are gonna rob banks anyway we shouldn't make bank robbery illegal....but that makes no sense either.

Bottom line is I think it is better for society as a whole for people to be exposed to safe gunhandling and know what the law in their state is in regards to deadly force. Most people once exposed will try to not do stupid stuff. People who are not exposed to it simply will keep on not knowing what they don't know. If you don't know how to handle a gun but never carry it on the street it has no effect on anyone but those in your home. If you don't know how to handle a gun and you carry it out in public it potentially effects other people. How likely is there to be a negative outcome? Probably not very likely very regularly. But unfortunately negative outcomes with guns tend to be very serious to those that they happen to. 

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke

[gregintenn]

My friend, never forget the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

[Cruel Hand Luke]

9 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Again....what makes you think they aren't already armed?

17 years of being exposed to people who come to HCP classes, professional colleagues who have even more experience than that, experience with..."less than upright citizens" . A very small percentage of people actually carry...even among "gun people". The accepted ratio is about 10% of the people who have a permit carry on a regular basis. Do people carry without a permit? YES. But it is still less than 1 percent of the population. 

Just because I would like for people not to be numb skulls does not mean I'm anti liberty or want to ban guns or any other illogical crap. I simply think the more people that are aware of safe gun handling practices the safer we all are. How do we MAKE that happen? Don't know. Should the govt mandate it? In theory no. And even if it did you can't legislate all people being conscientious any more than you can legislate all people being moral or legislate all people using deoderant.... At least with the current HCP law in place those who choose to get a permit are a captive audience for some safe gunhandling and leagl education. Without it they are not. But then again.....is it a really big deal since less than 1 percent of the population is armed at any particular time? Who knows. 

[mikegideon]

53 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Yes. The "mandate" is a tough issue.

 There is theory and practice. In theory people should be able to not murder each other, steal from each other or rape each other ...unfortunately a small portion of society do those things on a regular basis.

In theory all people would know how to safely handle a gun and be conscientious of the fact that doing something dumb might have effects on people 500 yards away....but unfortunately that is not always the case.

So in practice, states have mandated that people get a permit and most states have mandated some form of training. Do I think that there will be "blood in the streets" with constitutional carry? No of course not. But I also don't think constitutional carry will suddenly make numb skulls stop being numb skulls either..... now they'll just be armed potentially with no one having ever exposed them to proper gun handling and when my family might potentially be down range from those people I am a little bit concerned. It is not that I think people should not carry. I think people who refuse to avail themselves of education in safe and proper gun handling should have the common decency to not carry and handle guns in public. 

Ain't anybody walking that believes in the power of stupid more than me. With that being said, they need to be weeded out like dangerous drivers. not by raising the bar. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

54 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

My friend, never forget the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

That makes a great bumper sticker but there is a difference between what we might want that to mean and what it historically really meant.

A well regulated militia (meaning disciplined  and well equipped- with personally owned weapons) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It speaks to the citizenry being armed and able to repel foreign invader, Indian raid, and ultimately, oppressive government.  But it historically was not a carte blanche "everything goes" kind of permission. It is like the 1st amendment. There are limitations IF the states want to impose them. The 2nd is binding on the Federal govt. The states can (and do ) impose more restrictive laws with regard to being armed in public and always have. If you look at the actual history of pre AWI America (American War for Independence) there just simply was not a gun in every belt under every coat or even in every closet or over every fireplace. It took almost 2 days to turn out the whole militia during the events of April 19,1775 part of that is because not everyone had a gun.  That is just reality. Now on the southern frontier there were far more guns in homes but not as many  in the cities of Charleston or Norfolk or Savannah. And that is the reality of the world that Madison lived in when he wrote the document.  Point is that while we may WANT it to have meant NO REGULATIONS of any kind that is just unfortunately not what the history really says. And occasionally (like US v Miller) the Supreme Court overreaches and gets it wrong. But that is a story for another time..... 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke

[JayC]

3 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

If it does not apply to you then it does not apply to you.....

But there are A LOT of people moving into Nashville from California who are bringing their voting patterns with them.

 

As to Eddy Eagle I'm all for it. As a public service children should be taught gun safety in school just like they are taught to ride their bicycle with the flow of traffic and how to drive in drivers ed. And frankly on a personal level I'd rather people who are carrying loaded guns in public have at least a rudimentary knowledge of gun safety and the law. But you will find far more people here at TGO (or at least the far more vocal) who think you should be able to carry ...period. And they will claim any differing opinion is driven by either hate of freedom or of love of monetary gain if you are an HCP instructor. I assure you, I make far more money off more advanced classes than HCP classes and in fact I rarely even teach HCP classes any more so if the HCP went away I certainly would not be crying because of the loss of revenue. 

 

My own personal opinion is that on your own property you can be as educated or uneducated with regards to firearms (and everything else) as you want to be. In fact I think it should be like cars....you can buy ANY car (or gun) and drive it (or shoot or use it to defend yourself) on your own property without a license.  But once you step out onto the public streets then you have a duty to be safe and conscientious since the whole world is now down range.

But how to MAKE people be safer is the question...or should the govt even have the ability to mandate that ?  Or at least how do we try to make sure they are exposed to the information if not through a mandated class?  By law (as it is now) ? If not then how? That is the question. As far as the TN state constitution goes it clearly states the state has a right to regulate the wearing of arms and that has not been successfully challenged so as it stands they CAN require a permit to carry in public. My view of the upside to that is that since they DO require it then at least people who otherwise would NEVER avail themselves of learning anything about the law or even how to safely operate a gun are now "forced" to be exposed to it in order to get the permit. So while we can argue whether the permit requirement is good or bad I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument about how people being less safe is better for them or society....

 

I'll take you up on that challenge, and it's a very simple to show that by requiring people to go through a permit class that is largely a complete waste of time, it harms society more than not having the permit system at all.

What do I mean by the permit system largely being a complete waste of time, you run permit classes, what is your failure rate?  State wide it's well under 1%, my guess is that virtually everybody passes your HCP classes, you can probably talk about a couple of examples where somebody failed, but it's rare.  So clearly the permit system doesn't prevent a nearly blind idiot from passing, so what does it do?

It acts as a barrier to keep otherwise law abiding citizens from getting a permit, so lets talk about some examples...  The poor or lower income middle class.  The permit system is expensive and very time consuming, you have to take 1 day from work, pay for the class, and pay for ammo, lets say that costs somebody at least $175 total (including lost income).  Then they have to go apply for the permit, taking half a day off of work at some locations, $150.  Finally, they have to go do the fingerprints, which takes another 2 hours, ~$20 - BTW ever wonder how many people get denied because of their fingerprints, 0 in the 20 years we've had the permitting system.  Total cost around $350.

Now not only do you have a cost barrier, you have a time barrier, and a waiting period of 30-90 days.  So if you're a female with a stalker, or a businessman who was just threatened, or an abused spouse, you have to wait at least a month after going through all of that mess to carry a gun.  

At the end of the day, the HCP process costs lives of otherwise law abiding citizens, who don't have the time or money to jump through hoops to get the permit, or have a limited but immediate need to carry and the permitting process takes to long.  That costs society lives, a lot more lives than the current HCP system saves.

So lets underscore a reason why we can infer all of this to be true, two years ago we allows all law abiding citizens to carry loaded firearms in their vehicle, and have seen no uptick in crime, or ND's, there is no running of blood in the streets, nothing bad has happened from passing that law, why should we believe allowing unlicensed carry would be any different.  Every time we've talked about removing stupid restrictions on the current system people including people inside the '2nd amendment' community say bad things will happen, yet they never do.

Again, EVERY state that touches TN allows unlicensed carry except for GA, they don't seem to be having the problems you describe, why should we believe TN would be any different?

And if we do need a permit system we should streamline the process, the shooting part of the test is a complete waste of time, the fingerprints in 20 years have never been used deny a permit, get rid of both of them.  Have the state setup a website that shows the videos follow by a simple true/false test, pay by credit card $55 for the permit, and you get it in the mail within 2 weeks.  You drastically remove the barriers of obtaining a permit, while providing all of the information that you need to legally carry in TN.  I wouldn't support it because it's just a make work project for TDOS, but it would be 1000x better than the system we have today.

And honestly I don't think we should do away with the gold standard permit system we have today, because it allows us to carry in other states.

[JayC]

3 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Yes and I don't at all buy the "since trained people occasionally hit bystanders then training is irrelevant" argument. In that vein then why require a drivers license if licensed drivers still have wrecks..... ?

You make a very valid argument that we should also do away with drivers licenses as well   Or just take the test online and receive you drivers license in the mail after paying $10.

It's nothing but make work for government employees, and does little to protect society.

[xtriggerman]

40 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

That makes a great bumper sticker but there is a difference between what we might want that to mean and what it historically really meant.

A well regulated militia (meaning disciplined  and well equipped- with personally owned weapons) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It speaks to the citizenry being armed and able to repel foreign invader, Indian raid, and ultimately, oppressive government.  But it historically was not a carte blanche "everything goes" kind of permission. It is like the 1st amendment. There are limitations IF the states want to impose them. The 2nd is binding on the Federal govt. The states can (and do ) impose more restrictive laws with regard to being armed in public and always have. If you look at the actual history of pre AWI America (American War for Independence) there just simply was not a gun in every belt under every coat or even in every closet or over every fireplace. It took almost 2 days to turn out the whole militia during the events of April 19,1775 part of that is because not everyone had a gun.  That is just reality. Now on the southern frontier there were far more guns in homes but not as many  in the cities of Charleston or Norfolk or Savannah. And that is the reality of the world that Madison lived in when he wrote the document.  Point is that while we may WANT it to have meant NO REGULATIONS of any kind that is just unfortunately not what the history really says. And occasionally (like US v Miller) the Supreme Court overreaches and gets it wrong. But that is a story for another time..... 

^^^^ Thank You...... threw the eyes of detailed reality. 

         For what its worth, I brought 4 new conservative/libertarian leaning votes to my new home state here. And yes, you need to be concerned about the new city populations growth. The cancer normally always starts in the cities.  "When we get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe" Thomas Jefferson

       Also, since Iv already been bashed as that DY from the north, most of the locals I talked to here have no idea how thankful they should be to their forefathers for keeping their counties "diverse-less" all those years ago.  I had a belie full of Diversity in the Prison system. Most folks don't seem to know how good they have it here!