Jump to content

JayC

Active Member
  • Posts

    3,125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by JayC

  1. I suspect if the current opening is filled before the midterm elections, we'll see SCOTUS taking up a LOT more 2nd amendment cases. Remember up until this point, nobody knew exactly where Kennedy would vote on the 2nd Amendment, Heller was a massive compromise of the conservative justices, to get Kennedy to vote their way. It's unlikely to be any question where the line will be drawn after the current vacancy is filled, and I suspect we'll see a lot more 2nd Amendment cases taken up by the court.
  2. 9 men and women in black robes far away do not decide what my natural rights are or are not. My natural rights come from my Creator, or for those of you who don't believe, they come from my humanity. They are mine, and I refuse to give them up, period.
  3. Removing somebody's rights even temporarily without the ability to defend themselves is not moral or constitutional. Bring criminal charges or prove they are a threat to themselves or others, otherwise we can't remove somebody's God given rights.
  4. Or, just mind your own business, make note mentally on why you don't carry like that, because at the end of the day at least he has a permit and is carrying a gun and that is good for society.
  5. Well I'm happy to show my math If you think my estimates are way off, but I based it on 4 major school shootings per year which seems to be the norm, and averaged it over 100 years to get the number up to a point people could see how small it is, but how much money it would cost. I agree that your average street cop probably does have a better ability to deal with high stress situations, BUT that isn't how the SRO programs work for the most part. SRO's are not street cops, they're special dedicated police officers who do nothing but baby-sit the schools in most departments. Their job is no more high stress than mine, or yours. Most will go months or years without performing an arrest let alone dealing with high stress events on a day to day basis. As for numbers, I agree most smaller schools could get by with 2 or 3, remember that you're covering more than just the 7 hours of school per day, many schools have after school activities, weekend activities, and other stuff at the school where a large number of children and/or parents would be on site... So 2 might not be enough when you consider scheduling, sick days, vacation, and not working a lot of overtime. Middle Schools, and High Schools will depend on the layout of the campus, and how many ingress and egress points. When you look at the school where this latest shooting took place, it has 10-12 different buildings with multiple points of entry to many of them, they have large athletic fields, and parking lots. I don't think you could security the entire facility with 10 people on duty, without turning it into a mini prison. Dave, I have friends who are police officers, and work in law enforcement, I've been offered to join a local department as a reserve officer (my work schedule prevents me for taking them up on that offer), I also provide free consulting to 3 different law enforcement departments on technical matters when they need help, and generally have great respect for what officers do to help the community. I do have a lot of concerns over the way departments in general conduct themselves, but those are policy discussions. My opinion of teachers and public schools is much much lower I promise you, but I don't want to see teachers and children die at those schools. I worry about exposing children to the 'security theater' that is the TSA on a daily basis, because that is where we're headed if we start down this path. I don't want to expose most children to a mini-prison environment where they think it's perfectly ok for law enforcement to rummage through their bags, and order them around. And I'm concerned that police officers are trained to make arrests, which is NOT want we need in our schools on a daily basis. But again, these are policy questions about the long term good of society not attacks on police officers. Finally, I think you're under estimating the ability of most grown adults to know when they're in a life or death situation and when it's justified to shoot somebody and not. Going on the offensive is different that securing choke points and waiting for backup from law enforcement. I think most HCP holder who wanted to could learn those tactics over a weekend training course. Remember it doesn't take much to turn a gun free zone into just as dangerous as everywhere else, which is pretty safe.
  6. I don't see how many regulation on the matter will survive a challenge is court, the NFA clearly doesn't prohibit bump stocks, or binary triggers...
  7. There are 100,000 schools within the United States, and over a 100 year life time of the school (trying to keep math simple most schools won't last 100 years) there is a 0.4% chance of an attack like the one is Florida. And 0.4% over 100 years is probably on the high side. Most sites are going to need at least 2 or 3 full time security guards, and many of the larger sites are going to need 6 to 10. Lets say the average is 5 which I think is a low number, but to keep the math simple. That is roughly 30 BILLION Dollars per year, more than 50% of the federal Department of Educations budget. That isn't pocket change, it isn't money that can be found from current budgets without cutting educational programs. Finally, I don't know if it's a good idea to turn 5 police officers/security guards loose inside each of our schools, and the unforeseen consequences. Remember we've already seen a lot of 'abuses' from within the current SRO program around the country, turning minor disciplinary issues into cuffing 8 year olds and tossing them into the back of squad cars. And I question if it's more dangerous to our society to expose virtually all children to the security protocols needed to protect the school from such a RARE risk. Allowing parents with HCP's (and teachers with them as well) to carry within their children's school is a good compromise, require that it be concealed, require that it only be on the parents person, but place a question mark in the mind of any attacker that they could be confronted by an armed parent would deter a vast majority of these attacks. And would more likely lessen the number killed even in the event of an attack. And is largely costs nothing, nor does it turn our schools into mini prisons with armed guards all over who have nothing to do but look for minor crimes to justify being there. I agree the current HCP class doesn't do enough to train people to deal with an active shooter, so lets put pressure on our state or local law enforcement to provide that training - at cost - to ANY HCP holder in the community, and if they can't or won't do that, lets pressure the NRA, TFA or if all else fails start a non-profit group to provide the training. Basic defensive training is pretty easy, and could be taught in a single weekend, how to secure a room, and how to cover the fatal funnel, how/what to communicate to law enforcement in the event of a school shooting. Teaching HCP holders to be that last line of defense when a mad man strikes, leave the room clearing, and going towards gun fire for law enforcement or those with prior military training, but defensive tactics work, and are easy to teach. That's just my 2 cents worth on the subject, as somebody who has a daughter in school right now, and can't believe my wife who volunteers there on a regular basis can't carry to protect herself and my daughter when at school.
  8. About 8% of non-felon adults in TN have a HCP, they are just as unlikely (if not more so) than police officers to be convicted of a serious crime. Their children are in these public schools, and I'm sure a number of them would be more than willing to participate in helping defend their own children as volunteers. School has parents volunteer constantly in school, to help out doing things they can't afford staff to do, why on earth not use this model to better protect the school. Sure more training would help, and having highly trained and paid security might be a better option, but at the end of the day parents will die to protect their children, and in most of these shootings just controlling a fatal funnel would be well within the abilities of an average HCP holder with very little training. And could very well save lives. It's a crime that I can't have a loaded firearm on my person at my daughters school, I'd be a lot more active if I didn't have to completely disarm every time I go there, even after hours for meetings.
  9. You're reading the wrong section of federal law, scroll down a little more to 922g - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 922g just lists all the standard 'prohibited person' stuff that prevents you from owning any firearm, it makes no mention of age, or of handguns specifically. Neither does 39-17-1316, nor any of the USC's listed within it. While 922(b) does prohibit the selling or delivering of firearms by an FFL, it doesn't prohibit possession, selling or transfers by a private party. So an 18 year old can legally purchase a handgun under 39-17-1316. 922(d) covers private sales (by non-FFL's) and clearly doesn't prohibit sales to persons under 21. 922(x)(1)(5) goes futher to address this issue by clearly defining the term juvenile as a person under the age of 18. Even this anti-gun group got it right - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/#federal So, clearly a 18 year old can possess or receive any firearm under 922g, unless they're otherwise a prohibited person. And 39-17-1316 doesn't prohibit them either. So, loaded firearm carry in a vehicle is clearly lawful as to the plain reading of the law unless the person would otherwise a prohibited person. The law is so broadly worded I can't see any reason a 16 year old couldn't posses a loaded rifle or shotgun (handguns would be a different issue - see 39-17-1319) in their car under this law. Although I doubt the legislature meant to do that, 922g and 1316 do not mention any reason they couldn't.
  10. IANAL but the law is very clear. Short answer is she can legally in her car, but not walking around in public. But read below for a more detailed version. Any person over the age of 18 may legally purchase a handgun in TN as long as their not otherwise a 'prohibited' person, such as a drug user, convicted felon, etc - The same things that would prevent you or I from lawfully owning a firearm. Assuming above is true, under 39-17-1307 she may legally possess it in her car while loaded. The plan reading of state law is clear and there isn't any known case law on the subject, so the short answer is they can. They can also have a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicle per state law. She can also carry the firearm at her residence, her place of business, or any other property she owns within TN. She can NOT take advantage of the 'parking lot law', and the 'school exception' those are limited to HCP holders. The confusion above is from people quoting the WRONG portion of Federal Law 922b is not 922g and therefore isn't on point for this discussion. 922g just lists all the ways somebody can become a prohibited person (DV, mental adjudication, felon, illegal alien, etc) and doesn't mention AGE at all. Even though 39-17-1316 is referenced to include all of USC 922, nothing in 922 prohibits an 18 year old from purchasing a handgun, only prohibiting an FFL from transferring a handgun to somebody under 21, remember the wording is key. It's good to see more people quoting laws, but quoting the wrong law causes a lot of confusion.
  11. My wife shot a pistol for the first time when taking her carry shooting test, she passed with flying colors... Have your grand daughter focus on 3 and 5 yards and she'll ace the test no problem.
  12. Seeing as a violation of 39-17-1351 nor a class B misdemeanor is not a reason they can deny you issuing you a permit, I don't see how they turn down the application. I said at the time, Voldemort could really mess up their day by just simply re-applying for a permit. Nothing in the law allows TDOS to deny the permit... and lets remember that TDOS's track record in court on permits is like 0% success rate. Either way, the chance you get charged with 1359 is slim as long as you stay away from Airports, and don't give any reason for the officers to look for a charge. (Again not suggesting that people should violate the law, but walking past clearly unlawful signs while concealed is not the risk some folks are making it out to be.)
  13. I'm not aware of any suspension/revocation from a violation of 1359. Even though Voldemort refused to show his permit, and that technically was a violation of 39-17-1351 they didn't revoke his permit using 1352a6 they used the public risk clause, probably because if they revoke your permit under a6 you could re-apply the next day and they'd be forced to grant you a new permit. Also, I'm not sure how TDOS gets notified of a misdemeanor conviction to begin with?
  14. I'm pro-property rights which is why I don't associate with the TFA anymore... But there are certain circumstances where you're not dealing with a regular business. Before the recent law change I often was forced to go into government buildings, unlike your local restaurant or chain clothing store, there is no other place to 'go' to "buy" these services. More importantly in many cases these 'services' are mandatory, as in if you don't partake the government will send men with guns to force you to pay one way or another My logic is simple if you're a government entity and you can't be bothered to follow the letter of the law in posting no firearm signs, then I shouldn't be required to disarm. Hospitals are another grey area in my book, my Doctor isn't anti-gun, but he sometimes refers myself or my family to a Hospital where they are, he doesn't have privileges anywhere else - not that in Nashville there are any Hospitals which aren't anti-gun to begin with. Anyhow the Hospital in question has no firearm signs outside their ER entrance and main Hospital entrance, but doesn't have them from the Parking Garage entrances. So I put a bug in my back pocket in a wallet style holster, and don't ask/don't tell carry. And frankly I don't feel bad about doing it. Obviously if somebody asking you to leave you should leave. But, while I part of a business that has a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' sign on the door, I don't expect the government to charge people who ignore it with a crime, I ask them to leave and so far they all have left, just as I suspect would be the case with the vast majority of HCP holders.
  15. First, the key fact that everybody here seems to forget, we know of only a few cases where permit holders have been charged for violating 39-17-1359 and ALL of the known cases involve carrying firearms into the secure area of an airport. Second, violation has been changed to a class B misdemeanor with a fine only, so if you're found guilty you're not facing any jail time, you're not facing loss of your permit, you're facing a $500 fine. I highly doubt you'd even get arrested, just cited and told to leave. Obviously I'm not recommending knowingly committing a crime. While I won't spend money in a business that is posted, there are times that I'm forced to carry into 'unfriendly' territory, and will carry past a sign that doesn't comply with the statue, or use an entrance that isn't posted. I carry concealed, and nobody is the wiser. If I get caught and charged, I probably won't hire an attorney, $500 isn't much more than a very bad speeding ticket money wise, and I think I could properly put together a motion to dismiss and argue the legislative intent was clear, any sign that fails to standards set out in the law were meant to be unenforceable. If not I write a check for $500 and have a great story to tell. If some employee comes up and asks you to leave, then leave. If some officer walks up to you and tells you to leave, apologize, tell him you have a HCP and didn't see a valid sign, then offer to leave. I seriously doubt you'd find many officers who are going to try and make a case out of it when you act reasonably to resolve the situation.
  16. The news article is a mess, who can tell exactly how many people were involved and what each of them did... As a general rule I believe most law abiding citizens with a HCP are trying to do the right thing most of the time, until we get an article that explains who did what to whom, I'm going to reserve judgement. I'd encourage everybody talking about retraining, hold fire until we have more details. But, I'll point out that confronting somebody you see committing a crime is LEGAL in TN, and if in the process of that the criminal pulls a gun on you, you'd be legally justified under our 'stand your ground' law to use deadly force. Whether it's smart of not, I don't think it's likely we'll see any criminal charges against the HCP holder, unless something else not reported happened.
  17. That sounds like a voluntary admittance, so he should be good to go, let us know what happens please. These forms are pretty complicated, but as a general rule if you'd marking YES to one of those questions it's going to cause you to be denied.
  18. I agree, but if the stay was voluntary, a simple call to Lisa, and filing an amended renewal form should be enough. In theory the state would then have to prove you were ineligible... but TDOS does some very stupid stuff that probably isn't legal on a regular basis.
  19. Not unless there is something more to this story not disclosed in the original post. The way I read her post, her husband was prescribed Lyrica by a doctor, and she didn't indicate that he was addicted or abusing it, only that he had an adverse side effect and stopped taking it. Use of a controlled substance prescribed by a Doctor is not a factor that can cause you to be denied a permit, or even the purchase of a firearm. (With the exception of pot, but there are 4 people who are prescribed pot through a federal program who can legally own firearms). So unless he is currently unlawfully using Lyrica, and/or is addicted to using Lyrica (or some other drug) then he wouldn't be denied a permit or have his rights to possess firearms revoked. I really think his issue is #13A, he either marked yes when he shouldn't, or he was involuntarily committed and won't be able to get his permit back.
  20. Look, we probably should break up the current cable and telephone companies like we did AT&T years ago. Force the companies to separate last mile infrastructure away from TV channels, movie studios, and copyrights holder parts of their business. This would create a free market in the space of entertainment, while treating the data services part of the business as a simple utility much like how we treat land-line telephone, electric and water/sewer companies or coops. Doing this would remove a lot of the 'profit' motive from messing with access. But, that would require a federal anti-trust lawsuit by the DOJ and would take 20 years to work it's way through the federal court system like the break up of AT&T did. Until then, we should regulate ISP's as common carriers, since they can only operate by granting of public easements or licenses, just like other public utilities. Otherwise we're all headed down a very bad path of walled gardens that we're forced into and will in the long run kill innovation on the Internet. Trust me, I don't like to admit defeat, under the best of times the government in a necessary evil, and we're far from the best of times, but there is no other solution to this problem other than the FCC regulating basic common carrier rules onto last mile ISP's. And unlike Crowder, I worked in the 90's as VP of Operations for an ISP, before transitioning to Computer Security for the last 18 years of my career. I understand just how bad the Deep Packet Inspection hardware Comcast and other ISP's are using could be turned against customers to censor the Internet we've had for the last 25+ years. And while Google, Facebook, and other should scare you a lot, last mile ISP's are the real immediate risk to censorship that we face today, and the only legal roadblock to such behavior was just removed.
  21. I doubt there is anything they could do, if he answer YES to #13A they're going to deny him period. Either he answered #13A incorrectly, which means he should appeal the denial, and submit a corrected form... or he answered it correctly and there is nothing anybody can do to get him a permit.
  22. I like Crowder a lot, he's really funny and insightful, but understands this regulation about as much as my 6 year old, he uses the if liberal companies like Facebook and Google love it, I should be against it as his main line of logic. Which is a straw-man argument, because it's liberal companies on both sides of the argument. Again, using cellphone companies (which we only have 4) when compared to broadband is another straw-man argument. But, since you brought up the argument of data throttle and free market pressures forcing Wireless Providers to change, they didn't. They're still throttling wireless traffic, violating the principals of Net Neutrality, and there is nothing anybody can do about it legally. All 4 of the main providers are doing the same thing, there is no alternative where throttling isn't in place. So how are those 'free market' forces working? You live in Nashville, if you're lucky you have 2 broadband providers, Comcast and AT&T, but there is a 50% chance you only have 1. There is no free market when you have liberal company #1 and liberal company #2 providing service, and no regulation in place to prevent misbehavior by either. If your home phone company (land line) started to block Sprint cellphone numbers, what market forces can you and other customer bring to the table? You can't switch home phone providers there is only 1 LEC in your area, just like for most people in Nashville, they only have 1 (or maybe 2) broadband Internet Providers. But your LEC home phone provider can't do that, because they're regulated by the FCC and are forced to follow common carrier rules. So, if there are no free market forces to change these government backed monopolies and duopolies, we should push the regulation to the local or state level right because it's a good principal of small government conservatives? But, we're in a catch 22, since the Internet is by it's nature an Interstate Telecommunications Service, FCC rules (or lack of rules) preempt state and local government from regulating them. So, there aren't free market forces to correct both wired and wireless providers into not misbehaving, and we can't regulate them at the local, or state level into not misbehaving... Our only option is to regulate them via the FCC, which is what we did since ~2005 under both republican and democrat administrations. As for using 'violation of existing law' that is what the FCC just voted to remove the existing regulation under which ISP's have been fined and sued in the past. And the next question you're going to ask, is well before 2005 there wasn't any problem how did we survive then? Well two things to keep in mind, first before 2000 if you asked ANY ISP attorney they would have told you ISP's were already covered by the plain reading of Title 2 of the Communications Act of 1934 and they were required to follow 'common carrier' regulations. Second, between 2003 and 2007 we started to see ISP's violating common carrier rules, and the FCC started to step in and remind these ISP's they weren't allowed to violate common carrier status. So, how exactly do we prevent the blocking of websites by wired based ISP's if we don't regulate them at the federal level with the FCC?
  23. So, here is the tough question... Was your husband stay in the hospital an 'involuntary commitment'? IANAL, If your husband went to the hospital voluntarily, then he should have answered NO to Question #13A - see https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/safety/handgunmain/handgunfaqs.html#Q10 If your husband went to the hospital under an involuntary commitment, then he would be prevented for life from getting an HCP, and most likely be a 'prohibited person' under federal law from possessing any firearms for the rest of his life. There seems to be some exception depending on the verbiage of the commitment, having to do with 'substantial likelihood of serious harm' and a 7 year sunset. If it was a 'voluntary' visit, then I'd just fill the form out again, answer #13A as NO (see the link above), and if denied find a lawyer to appeal the denial. If it wasn't voluntary, I'd probably find a good lawyer and get a professional option on how this limits your husband's firearm rights. Let us know how it turns out please.
  24. I'm sorry but you're missing understanding what the FCC did, and where the government backed monopolies get approved. First, the telephone and cable companies didn't 'invent' the commercial Internet, lots of small companies that were already pushed out of the market 15+ years ago did... MindSpring, AOL, etc provided dial-up service to end users, and started the Internet revolution. These companies received no government money to do this.... They provided the critical 'last mile' of service to end users when nobody else would. At some point around 2000, telephone companies, and cable companies saw an opportunity to leverage their 'last mile' infrastructure to dominate the ISP space, and did just that. The rest of the Internet is mostly 'unregulated' and is doing very well today. 4 years ago it cost $1 per month per Mbps of service at a data center in Dallas, today it's around $0.15 per month per Mbps, so the free market is alive and well. Every major city has an 'Internet Exchange' that is a privately run organization that provides peering services to anybody at cost, to make exchanging data between companies easier and cheaper. Most ISP's considered themselves 'common carriers' under the FCC rules regarding telephone companies, and they didn't attempt to mess with customers traffic. But around 2003-2005 some of these large companies got caught violating common carrier rules.. In one case a telephone company in NC blocked all traffic to Vonage, to prevent customers from switching away from their more expensive telephone service. Comcast got caught 'forging' Internet traffic to prevent some customers from downloading, or using VPN technology. By 2007 Comcast was caught intentionally slowing down Netflix traffic, and when customers called to complain, they recommended their own more expensive service instead. At this point the FCC stepped in to try and prevent these large cable and telephone companies from leveraging their monopolies, to create walled gardens where they got to pick winners and losers in the market space. They started by making ISP's follow basic telecommunication company rules called Title 2 which had been in place for 50+ years. Verizon and Comcast fought these regulations in court all the way to SCOTUS, the ruling basically said the internet wasn't a 'Telecommunication Service' (yet another example of why 60+ year olds in black robes make bad rulings) and therefore couldn't be regulated under Title 2, but the FCC did have the authority to regulate under Title 1. The FCC following the courts ruling moved the regulation under Title 1, and nicknamed it Net Neutrality. All this regulation said was that ISP's must treat all traffic the same, nothing more. We've had this rule in place with telephone companies for decades, where telephone companies were required to treat all calls the same. The rule guarantees that if you call a Sprint Cellphone from your AT&T land line the call with go through. This is called 'common carrier', and has been around since before AT&T was broken up into the baby bells. We've all see problems recently where conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment content is being censored on Youtube, Facebook, and other giant social media sites, because of liberal pressure (internally and externally), today there is NOTHING stopping Comcast (or any other ISP) from blocking access to websites they don't like, or to bend to public pressure to block websites that aren't socially acceptable. I'm not a huge fan of Youtube and Facebook, but I can choose not to use those sites... I only have 1 option for broadband Internet, and if they start blocking Internet sites, there is nothing that I as a consumer can do other that turn the Internet off.... Which in today's business environment would make me unemployed. I'm as libertarian as they come, but until we remove these government backed monopolies, the government should force them to behave as 'common carriers'.
  25. Except in this case these are government backed monopolies that you can't compete with no matter how much money you have. Look at what happened to Google in Nashville, even though the government bent over backwards to let them come in and compete, AT&T and Comcast were able to slow them down and block them at every turn.

THE FINE PRINT

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.