Jump to content


Active Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by JayC

  1. And they have never been challenged before SCOTUS. They are blatantly unconstitutional and every city/state that has sued over them settles by writing a check. Somebody with a very large check book has to file suit, and stick with it to get things like this ruling to become the law of the land. And you'll note this was a STATE level group (helped by the GOA), you know who you NEVER see helping back one of these lawsuits? The NRA - and yes the NRA filed a brief AFTER SCOTUS took the case so they could claim this was an NRA victory. For crying out loud John Cornyn is still listed on the NRA website with an A+ rating - https://www.nrapvf.org/campaigns/2014/vote-cornyn/
  2. They're counting homemade AND guns recovered where the serial number was removed. The VAST majority are guns recovered where the serial number has been removed.
  3. I know I'm late to the party but, Branca fails to look at any Texas case law. There are a number of cases where the cover attached porch of a house has been considered the home for purposes of the Felony Burglary statue in TX. Carruth was committing a force-able felon under TX law when he removed Reed from his 'home'. As such the chance Reed was ever going to get charged was slim to none, because there was already case law on point in TX that the porch was part of the home, and removing somebody from their home was a forcible felony, which basically provides self defense protections under TX law. Under TX law this would be no different than a kidnap victim killing somebody removing them from their house against their will, fear of serious bodily injury or death is presumed under TX law. Carruth had a long criminal record, including a long prison sentence, which probably didn't encourage any prosecutor for wanting to go to bat on this shooting.
  4. I suspect much like the bump stock ban, the 6th and other rational district(s) will block this from taking effect. It clearly has no basis in the law.
  5. Sorry, I didn't quote both of his responses, in the second response he clearly indicated he had an enhanced permit. So he's always been able to carry both openly and concealed with that permit.
  6. If you have a carry permit in TN, you've always been able to open carry. There is no requirement under TN state law to keep the handgun concealed. The new law once it goes into effect July 1st will allow any non-prohibited adult over 21 (18-20 military or honorably discharged) to carry a handgun both openly and concealed in in public. The language of the current law does pose issues for parks and greenways, so keeping you permit handy wouldn't be a bad idea until we get an AG opinion or a 'fix it' bill comes along to clarify that issue.
  7. What is it exactly you're trying to accomplish? The population at large is pretty safe with firearms with no mandated training. Citizens at large are 5.5 times LESS likely to kill an innocent person in a justified shooting as a police officer. People with and without training can and do safely use firearms for self defense everyday in this country, so what problem are you wanting to spend our hard earned tax dollars for exactly? Accidental gun deaths in this country are very low, somewhere around 430 a year for the entire country. Most of those deaths are males, ~25% of those deaths are males 20-29 that consumed alcohol, ~47% for that age bracket. So we're going to create a course to teach people gun safety, once we account for stupid people who are handling firearms while drunk - I doubt there is much we can do for them - we're trying to start up a training program on the tax payers dime to stop an issue that has less than a 1 in a million chance of happening in a give year. Eddie the Eagle for schools make sense, lots of kids may find themselves around a gun someday, I'm all for spending tax payer money on something like that. But, some form on mandated training for adults? No, that is a complete waste of time and tax money. Don't get me wrong, I strongly encourage range time and lots of training, but you just can't force somebody to go and do it, and nothing in the statistics provides a compelling reason to try.
  8. @Worriedman what is the effective date of this law? When signed, or July 1st?
  9. Just remember that SCOTUS ruled back in the 30's that a federal law prohibiting you from growing wheat in your backyard for you own use was constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Don't believe me? Google Wickard v. Filburn, just make sure you have some antacid nearby it will give you heartburn. This case and others that used it as a foundation are what 'allow' federal gun laws to survive constitutional muster today. Because you building a gun in your basement for you own use might impact the commerce of the gun market in theory, Congress can regulate the sale and transport of all firearms. It's all complete nonsense to anybody with a pulse and half a brain, but then again we're talking about Federal Judges and Congresscritters.
  10. I'm not suggesting that people don't need training, only that requiring training before being 'allowed' to carry a firearm is wrong and provides very little benefit that couldn't be reduced to a youtube video.
  11. Well, I tend to agree you, my only exception is excusing possible unconstitutional actions on the part of the police officer as being justified by her driving a car legally. Don't get me wrong, she hit ever branch of the stupid decision tree on the way down... But, that doesn't excuse questionable acts by the officer that landed both of them in that situation to begin with.
  12. I took it to mean he was asking for her drivers license (or other documentation), and the way he responds to finding the possible drugs he says 'what is this?', not 'is this it?'. So if he smelled drugs, he never stated that in the video, and you'd think they would have included that part of the video if he did. And her going back into the vehicle to retrieve something from her purse makes more sense if she was hunting for her ID (or other documents) than he smelled drugs and wanted to conduct a search of the vehicle. If you're right, I believe he violated even more department policies than already highlighted. Again without the entire video we're left with gaps... but my impression is when the video restarts with him standing next to her and the open car door, is that he wants to ID her, and ask her questions about where the wanted felon is, not that he smells drugs and he's going to conduct a search of her vehicle.
  13. Can you tell me where you're hearing that, I've watched the MNPD video twice and must have missed it both times?
  14. The probable cause to pull the vehicle over was iffy at best to begin with, officers aren't allowed to break down your door and search your house with just an arrest warrant, they are required to get a search warrant or have exigent circumstances to search the home (such as seeing the wanted felon through the window of the home). This officer pulled the vehicle over for what seems to be the sole reason the vehicle was owned by somebody with a warrant. He clearly didn't see the owner in the vehicle, he couldn't claim to have even seen a male who *might* have been the owner. Now with current case law, this might have been a valid stop (it shouldn't be, it's clearly unconstitutional but that is another matter). But the instant he knew the vehicle didn't contain a male, any probable cause he had for pulling the vehicle over went out the window. Why would you or the officer think she stolen this vehicle? Why would you or the officer think she was involved in drug dealing? Remember a hunch doesn't count, you have to have specific reasonable articulable suspicion that crime is afoot. People borrow others cars all the time, there doesn't appear to be a broken window, or damage to the vehicle that indicates theft, and she clearly has the keys to the vehicle. There doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest she stole the car. As for being a drug dealer, I didn't see a set of scales, or large amounts of cash in the vehicle, or anything that would indicate proof that she was involved in dealing drugs. Did you see something I missed? Even the police's own video doesn't claim the officer stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation, which lets be honest is such a low bar to violate somebody's civil rights it's a joke IMHO. And again, I'm not trying to suggest any of this was a good reason to resist arrest or shoot the police officer. I'm just pointing out the start of this interaction, and the continuation of it after he saw the sole occupant was a female seems to be questionable at best.
  15. I was at the range with some buddies about 15 years ago... We all took turns shooting the hcp qualification course blind folded... 4 out of 5 of us passed. Remember that 99+% of people pass the HCP class. Citizens with no training are 5 times less likely that police officers to shoot and kill an innocent person in a justified shooting. I'm not worried about a guy who is legally blind shooting me, but I think he should have any option he feels comfortable with to protect his own life.
  16. Ok, I'm probably in the minority here, but what was his reason for continuing the stop after he determined there was no male in the vehicle? He lost all probable cause to continue the detainment of the female driver instant he knew the wanted felon was not present. Why was he going through the drivers bag to begin with? He no longer had the right to detain her, he didn't have her consent to search the bag. We can talk about the fact he was nice to the lady, but the truth is it appears he violated her constitutional rights and escalated the situation into an arrest without probable cause that a crime was committed at the point he was digging around in her purse. As she said, 'him having warrants has nothing to do with me'. Don't get me wrong, she should have just shut up and let the arrest go forward, a good lawyer would have been able to throw shade on the detention and the search of the bag, might have even got the drugs thrown out. \ Shooting the cop was wrong, but the situation is a lot more nuance IMHO.
  17. The eligibility requirements are laid out here: https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequirements.html You don't have to have training, you don't have to pass a background check. Per the currently amended bill. Basically you can't be a prohibited person, with some added stuff like DUI/DWI convictions, not receiving SSI for a mental disability, etc. Basically if your background would allow you to be issued a permit, you can carry without a permit. There is one good thing about the current wording, if passed as is, you would not be required to ID to law enforcement unless you were carrying in a location that required a permit to carry, even if you've been issued a permit.
  18. 99+% of people who take the HCP class pass it, it's nothing more than corporate welfare for ranges and instructors. It provides no tangible benefit and only succeeds in making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Any don't even get me started about the finger print requirement.
  19. I'm pretty sure you can get a permit too. So unless your stay was less than 3 years ago, you can get a permit, 10 years is only if a court ordered you to go to rehab. Or this.
  20. There is a TN state law that says it's a crime to wear a mask with the intent to deny someone their civil rights. That is the ONLY state law about wearing masks that I'm aware of. 39-17-309 But, no it's not against the law to carry while wearing a mask. Or generally to wear a mask while in public.
  21. If there is probable cause to arrest, then arrest and take the guns as evidence. If somebody made threats to kill themselves, place them on a 72 hour hold, but they don't get to confiscate guns when doing that. If you don't have PC for an arrest and there isn't enough evidence for a 72 hour hold, the cops are out of luck, the constitution protects one's right to property. And that is how it should be. I think if my wife (who would never do such a thing) called the police and made up a story about a threat... They would show up and interview both of us... if there was PC for an arrest I should be arrested, otherwise, I should be allowed to leave the house and take my property with me.... And under TN state law today, the police are required to not keep my firearms per 39-17-1351(t). I can't stop them from breaking the law, but I have legal recourse should they break the law. Police Officers don't need more authority than they have today, frankly we should be discussing limiting a number of police powers. If they have PC for an arrest make an arrest... Otherwise they should have to take it to a judge where you have a chance to cross examine witnesses and provide a defense before the government takes your property against you will, and violates your fundamental civil rights.
  22. But, you're talking about allow the police to either get an ex parte order, or allowing the confiscation of firearms before a court hearing where you have representation. But of those violate due process.
  23. All permit holders have much greater protections today, unless you're under arrest they must return your firearm(s) when they release you. 39-17-1351(t) How would a red flag law that would allow a police officer to take your guns, and at some later date a court might return them to you give us more protections? If the police feel you are a threat, have a hearing before a judge (where you have representation) and request an order to have your firearms removed. That is the only form of a 'red flag' law that has true due process. Anything less is unconstitutional on it's face.
  24. They're free to ask you anything, but you're under no obligation to show ID to anybody except the police if they ask to see your permit, or your drivers license while operating a motor vehicle. They obviously can ask you to leave if you refuse. Frankly I'm not going to show my ID to a store clerk for any reason, unless it's a gun store and I'm buying a firearm I'd be happy to confirm I have a permit and that it's on me, but no way I'm going to give out my personal information like that to a random stranger. If they push back, I'd ask to speak the the manager and express the liability they excepting by requesting to see my personal information in relation to firearm ownership, ie identify theft, targeted theft of firearms, etc.
  25. Mt Juliet City Hall, also houses the police office as well, they likely think they need to pass an ordinance to allow carry within the building since by default state law would prohibit such carry. They may also have court hearing (traffic court) inside the building as well, both of which would make the building no go under 39-17-1359.


Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.