JayC
-
Posts
3,135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6 -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by JayC
-
-
No offense but most of the people on this forum don't even understand TN gun laws (yes they're crappy and make no sense what so ever), how do you expect anybody to understand all the combinations of federal and state gun laws that exist out there?
We have a republican legislature that can't even pass a pro-gun law that doesn't make the gun laws even more stupid and hard to understand. I use to be able to carry into the small town city hall where I went to high school, I can't now because in the basement is the police office. How many city halls in TN have been shot up by permit holders? None, yet we have to make the law even harder for a otherwise law abiding citizen to follow.
Somebody please explain to me, how when we had a democratic legislature we got more and better gun laws passed than we do under a republican one?
-
It's a long shot, but we need to push the legislature to allow permit holders to carry long rifles. It doesn't make sense in today's day and age that we can carry AR pistols, but can't carry a rifle in public. We can carry them on our property, houses, and in our cars without a permit, but a permit holder can't carry one for protection.
Church's are a soft target, we should expect to see more attacks on them over the coming years, and while I'm a decent shot with a Glock 19, but I don't want to get into a gun fight with a body armor wearing bad guys with a rifle, with just a 9mm.
Until then, to stay within the legal limits of TN firearms law, AR pistols with a 10 inch barrel are the way to go IMHO.
-
On 11/11/2017 at 12:40 PM, DaveTN said:
I figure my chances of being shot by a cop because I’m carrying are zero.
I figure my chances of having a cop point a gun at me are the same as any other citizen; armed or not. That could happen without any input from me, and without me (or anyone else) being armed.
While true, the chances are 8 times more likely that you'll be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
https://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist
The fact is police officers are violating TN law daily without having a specific reasonable belief that a permit holder needs to be disarmed for their protection. And they get away with it because nobody will hold them accountable.
You and I are expected to follow the law to the letter, and if we violate the law would likely face criminal sanctions. Shouldn't police officer be held to a higher standard of conduct than the citizens they are sworn to protect?
-
2
-
-
On 11/4/2017 at 3:14 PM, JPS said:
My soldier son has a week of leave from Fort Bragg beginning Monday 11/6 and will be home until (probably) Saturday. He has asked me to see if he can take a Carry Permit class while he's here.
Anyone know of a reasonably-priced class available in the La Vergne, Smyrna, South Nashville area this week with any openings?
If he has a pistol certification from the military he can just go down to TDOS and apply for the permit with a copy of that documentation. He doesn't have to attend the class.
-
Wireless Plus
1136 Myatt Blvd, Madison, TN 37115
They did the radio (Icom 7000) install for me and did a very good job. You're going to need to bring with you EVERYTHING they need antenna mount wise.
-
6 hours ago, monkeylizard said:
I agree with that first sentence, but I don't think the second one is true. The disparity between civilian-grade weapons and military-grade weapons today is simply too great for we mere civilians to overcome. The thought of going up against that with small arms, automatic or otherwise, is a fantasy.
If we're ever forced to fight on our own soil against our own government, we'll have to use tactics that make SA vs FA irrelevant until we can scavenge enough of their equipment.
Still, it's not the government's place to tell us what we can and can't have. That's supposed to go the other way around.
I'll point out we've basically lost a war to illiterate goat herders with nothing more than AK's, mortars, and arty shells to use as IED's.
Mind you, they don't speak our language, there aren't millions of them who understand our tactics and weapon systems as well as current active duty service personnel, and they don't have access to the homeland where the basic supply chain is completely unprotected and families live in near complete safety.
All those fancy weapon systems require 100's of man hours of maintenance, replacement parts, and a bunch of civilian contractors to keep them running.
If you're scared of fighting the military on our soil, trust me the military is 100x more scared of fighting an insurgency here.
-
2
-
-
If you're an NRA member you need to call and complain that they are caving on the 2nd Amendment and their stance must change. You will refuse to donate anymore money to the NRA until they reverse their stance.
Then turn around and donate $20 to the GOA who doesn't compromise on gun rights no matter what.
And yes I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, and this is exactly what I did this morning.
-
2
-
-
On 8/11/2017 at 7:22 PM, DaveTN said:
How he did it wasn’t smart; but it was legal. The state of Tennessee does not believe that you have a right to bear arms. The Officer can disarm you if he so chooses.
Sorry for being late to the party, but that just isn't true. In order to legally disarm a permit holder the officer must have a REASONABLE belief they need to for their safety or the safety of others. Since the belief must be reasonable, it must also be specific to that permit holder.
So departments with policies to disarm all HCP's are illegal on their face. Individual officers who disarm permit holders every time are also acting unlawfully.
The problem? No DA is going to do anything about it. So officers are allowed to blatantly violate the law with no way to prevent them from doing so.
-
On 7/25/2017 at 10:47 AM, i1afli said:
This sounds like a search without probable cause...to ask someone for their personal property and then run what is effectively a background check on it. Although i'm sure the officer will say that he only "asked" and that she didn't have to give it to him.
orse than that, I doubt under oath the officer could articulate a reason fear to disarm her in the first place. He needs to be facing a civil rights lawsuit for the unlawful search, and everything else that spawned from his unlawful actions.
-
Alan Gura strikes again! A very interesting read:
-
Notice how she doesn't even bother to lie and claim she was a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
Frankly she can do a lot less damage to gun rights as the Governor since overriding a veto is an easy thing to do, but we should work very hard to keep her from being elected.
-
On 7/11/2017 at 7:04 PM, peejman said:
Why wouldn't you call the police if someone tried to rob you?
If you weren't doing something stupid, the soccer mom wouldn't feel the need to call the police.
I'd recommend calling the police... as I indicated in the post you quoted.
Have you met some of the soccer moms running around Nashville? I had one flip out and call the cops one day because I was sitting in a park taking timelapses of the sky with a camera. Like full on sitting on a tripod pointed 45+ degrees into the sky.
I can only imagine what lies she would have made up if she knew I had a firearm on me in said park
-
7 hours ago, peejman said:
The answer to your question is above (emphasis by me). Right or wrong, the first person to call is always assumed to be the victim. That can make all the difference.
Dave is right if you have to pull your gun on somebody call the police even if they run off. But the fact remains, if somebody with 5 charges of robbery calls the cops to complain you brandished a firearm, and you with no criminal record says, 'sure did he tried to rob me...' The chances you're getting charged are slim to none.
Same call from a 45 year old soccer mom, chances are you're taking a ride to the station. Whether you called first or not.
-
20 hours ago, Randall53 said:
I don't disagree at all. I just see it as something a person could use to possibly call the cops and say you threatened them. That's why I presented it more as a question. I could see that happening and then leading to an expensive defense lawyer to fight the charges. This may not be true, I was just wondering if that could happen.
The question is who the police see as the 'victim' in the situation. If some 45 years old soccer mom calls, the chances are higher than if a 25 year old male with a rap sheet as long as your arm calls the police. Also matters where you are, and what you're doing. On your own property dealing with a unknown person after dark, probably not going to get charged.
As Dave said the exact situation is what matters. And as in most things there is a reasonable person standard... But as a law abiding citizen likely with no criminal record, you have stuff going for you
-
On 7/7/2017 at 6:48 PM, Randall53 said:
It'd be a good idea to read this also, since it is involved in 102. Right?
39-13-101. Assault.
(a) A person commits assault who:
(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or
(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative.
So....number (2) could be construed if one has his hand on a holstered weapon? I mean it could be drawn at anytime.
If that was the case, every time an officer walked up to a vehicle with his hand on his gun he'd be committing aggravated assault. The mere act of placing your hand on a holstered gun in and of itself probably doesn't rise to the level of aggravated assault, but the devil is in the details, how those details are documented and the mood of the charging ADA.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, DaveTN said:
I’m confused. He is saying he thinks the Florida Supreme Court, not the legislature, makes laws?
He thinks the Florida courts get to decided the standard of proof, and who assumes the burden of proof in self defense shootings. I'm in agreement the judge is nuts.
-
On 5/22/2017 at 8:35 PM, btq96r said:
How did Madison's Federalist 46 titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" describe it better than Hamilton did when he wrote Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia"?
I'll direct your attention to what I consider the important part to our discussion from 29...
The terms "select corps" and "principles as will really fit them for service in case of need" permitting a permitting process with background checks to determine feasibility for service in the militia (in whatever form we recognize it today...admittedly this is something we've fallen far from intent on). Each state has their own version, but they're valid as long as they're checking a standard, not intending to prohibit or hinder lawful ownership.
That's how I see it anyway.
Couple of issues with your scholarly research.
First, both federalist papers 29 and 46 were written before the Bill of Rights was written. Federalist 29 being published on Jan 9th 1788, and 46 being published on Jan 29th of the same year. The Bill of Rights was published on Sept 25th, 1789, 18+ months later.
Second, the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, was written in direct response to concerns expressed by the Anti-Federalists, I'd encourage you to read Brutus No X written as a response by the Anti-Federalists to Federallist No 29. - http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm
Third, I'd also read Federalist No 84, in which Hamilton worries that future generations will do exactly what you're doing with the Bill of Rights, which is to say you see some power to regulate when no power exists at all.
Fourth, I'd also look to the often forgotten 10th Amendment, which states:
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 2nd Amendment is a right of 'the people' and therefore neither the States, nor the Federal government should be able to infringe upon the right in any way shape or form.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, monkeylizard said:
There no question that it's a park. The issue is that Nashville and its attorney have told the legislature to get bent and it's going to take case law to resolve this issue. That means someone is going to have to go to Ascend with a ticket for admission and be denied admission because of their legal firearm, or be charged with violating 39-17-1359. Then they'll need to have deep pockets to take it to trial.
The case law is coming, TFA still has a lawsuit against Knoxville, then it will be settled law. After that I doubt Nashville will force the issue.
-
1
-
-
On 6/5/2017 at 5:46 PM, Just2Honor said:
Ascend Ampitheater in Nashville has large gun buster signs on the gates but it was built by Metro and sold to citizens as a "park". Now they say it is run by somebody else so it's not a park and the vendor has the say so. Manchester City Parks still have "no guns" on their signs, too
Somebody is lying to you
Because here is the Metro GIS parcel information:
http://maps.nashville.gov/ParcelViewer/?parcelID=09306004100
39-17-1311bHi:
QuotePersons possessing a handgun, who are authorized to carry the handgun pursuant to ง 39-17-1351, while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality, or instrumentality of the state, a county, or municipality;
Metro government labels the property as a park, it's a park, they can't under state law 'rent' the area out to get around the carry in parks law.
-
1
-
-
@DaveTN hit the nail right on the head inside the state of TN, it's lawful to carry a loaded firearm in a personal vehicle by pretty much anybody legally allowed to own the firearm. There are some places that you can still run into problems without a permit, schools, colleges, universities. Company owned vehicles are also somewhat problematic as well.
-
1
-
-
On 4/8/2017 at 2:32 PM, 300winmag said:
This state is not very 2nd amendment friendly. You have to remember that pure possession of a firearm for self defense is assumed to be illegal unless you fall under a set of exceptions. Tennessee is not like most states where the concealing of a weapon is illegal but having it in the open is legal. I've been under the impression that the state politicians want to appear 2nd amendment friendly but truly do not trust people, even people who buy the state's permits. It's quite obvious when the state government makes it illegal to carry with the state's permit in a bunch of state owned buildings by having a criminal offense behind the goofy 'no gun' signs.
I think the majority of republicans in the legislature would pass most of these gun bills... Just a hand full lead by Beth Harwell are preventing the bills from coming to a floor vote.
-
As Worriedman said this is a 'just in case' bill if the Hearing Protection Act were to pass.
-
Background checks largely do not work, why on earth would we want to increase their usage? It costs ~20-25 million in background check costs alone for each person CHARGED with violating the background check law. Fewer people are charged today with violating the law, that were before the background check system was put in place!
Not to mention the false positive rate is clearly above 50%, and in some places like TN it's approaching 80%.
-
Governor doesn't want to have to veto's pro-gun bills, and he also doesn't want to sign them, because he wants to run for President one day?!?! To help him, he's enlisted the help of a RINO named Beth Harwell who is the speaker of the house.
The governor will be gone in a little over 18 months, the key issue is fixing the long jam on gun bills, is to get rid of her in the 2018 election. Or elect a democrat governor, which the republicans will then send every possible gun bill to try and wound the democrats.
Beth Harwell needs to go.
-
3
-
The Gorilla the antis haven't identified (yet)
in 2A Legislation and Politics
Posted
Yes because we need to pass a law to reduce the 0.0066% of firearms stolen each year. It's a rounding error, just like the national background check system is a rounding error, which has a 80-90+% false positive rate.
These laws don't protect people, or do anything to reduce crime....
Stop the failed war on drugs would be the best way to reduce crime, and would save us a lot of money as well.