Worriedman

I am a veteran of the Insurance wars. Wife had a kidney transplant 4 years ago, prior to that, dialysis for 7 years. I keep up with the cost of health care. We paid a separate Medicare premium for 3 years prior to the transplant, it becomes your primary through the transplant and for 3 yeas after, then they drop you. Anti-rejection drugs cost me about 12k a year above what my private insurance pays, plus the myriad of Dr. visits necessary at $40.00 a pop for co-pay. This new plan we will have to get under will cure that, I will be bankrupt in another year, and she will be dead in 2-3. 56 year olds who are not employable will get no care, they will council us on "end of Life" considerations. It will be good for the job market though, all the new bureaucracies to dole out the increased tax bite on the luckily still employed going to the ones who can vote for the next 40 years, will create a lot of jobs in the Government, of course the taxes start now, the free health care is 4 years in the offing. Wife was in college when her kidneys failed, had been for 4 years. She had just finished nursing school, which I paid for, when she got sick. We applied for her Social Security disability benefits, found out she had none, they now average the last 10 years, so her 18 years of paying the full 16% self employment tax was lost, she gets no benefits, and is not eligible for Medicare now, and never will be. Medicare is tied to Social Security eligibility, so we are screwed there. Government plans are not the answer, as a lot of folks are going to find out.

Personally, I see the only hope in turning this situation around, is by getting involved, especially on the local level. The City Council Members and County Commissioners should know each of us by name, and on sight. If we are diligent in making sure that the local legislators are aware that we are watching, (and helping to form policy), we gain experience in effective techniques that can be used to advocate on the State level, and, gain recognition, as the State Representatives converse with the local party apparatus. We may not be able to affect a Federal Representative or Senator, but we should be able to reach and influence our local group, and that is going to be more and more important as time marches on.

Placed on sub-committee calender of Financial Ways and Means for 03/24/2010, and the Amendment is finally up on the TN Legislature site.

I would like to see your reasoning relative to the danger of the Second Amendment being repealed.

I was thinking possibly the reaction against Belle Meade was going off half cocked......

I think maybe, they are zeroing in on a specific situation, and possibly a specific person of interest with this move. State preemption will no allow a HCP Holder to be denied their ability to carry by this change, as the permit itself is a defense against the charge of "intent to go armed".

Been traveling today, did HB 3125 get out of committee?

This ruling was made with Heller as a precedent. I suspect that after June, and a ruling by SCOTUS on McDonald v. Chicago, there will be a challange.

The battle will be in the House chamber, pretty sure it will be a go in the Senate.

When my brother-in-law got back from active duty in Viet Nam, he and my sister moved to Maryville, he to finish college at UT, she to teach school there in Maryville. I remember moving them from my hometown (Milan) up there after a football game, Earnie and I had loaded the U-Haul that afternoon, we played Bolivar, and after the game we headed out to drive through the night. Sister was carrying the new baby, (a present from R and R visitation his last year in) with my parents the next morning. It was my first trip to East TN, and I loved the town and the people. When we got up there, he had rented a basement from a Methodist preacher as an apartment. Daylight found us unloading the truck, and some folks from the neighborhood came over to help. We actually painted the whole apartment that day as well, as it was a little shabby. The neighbors had paint left over from a re-do of their own place, not only donating their goods, but the brushes and their time to help as well. 38 years ago, but I have nothing but good memories of the town and the people, would be a shame if the charm is gone from that nice little place in my mind.

I think that is because Tennessee is an "At will" state, and most professions have no protection for jobs such as this. In fact, teaching is the sole entity that enjoys this situation.

I hit it as well, this one needs to go to ar15.com-hometown.

Interesting articles. In almost every discussion I have read, it seems to be almost a consensus that Slaughter-House needs to be set aside, and, this issue is part of nearly every McDonald debate I have seen.

Campfield's Amendment to HB 2718 spanked UT pretty well. Haynes said Hamilton "may have overreacted just a bit" with his pronouncement, and said UT had no problem with the Amendment. He was tossing the proverbial "hot potato"!

It actually is a State Powers issue under the Tenth Amendment, as States being a Government have Powers, not Rights.

I am not "missing" that by any stretch. I do understand though, that our Legislators need to craft their laws such that there is no ambiguity. The AG has appealed the Bonnyman ruling, but how long till that is heard? It is the way of our system, Legislators pass laws, courts hear them to see if they pass muster. Anybody can sue for anything here. Make the laws clear and without question, and the courts do not get to slant them with their interpretation.

I think the most enjoyable part of the Legislative session last year was Naifeh becoming Ex-Speaker. I am surprised his suit made it through the session, what with the rending of his clothes and gnashing of teeth at the loss of his strangle-hold on the State. The passage of every gun Bill must have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to his soul. I believe we have a unique opportunity to effect change this year. With the mood of the electorate, if we can garner just a few more Conservative seats in both the House and Senate, (along with putting a true Tennessean in the Governor's seat), there is no telling what we might accomplish.

I understand the question before SCOTUS. Do I think the Second Amendment should be Incorporated, yes. Do I think it will be, yes. Heller was vital in that it gave individual vs. a collective "Right" precedence. Although not being a State, the DC decision left the incorporation against States issue unresolved. McDonald will set that straight, it will render outright bans illegal, but it will not give carte blanch to tote whatever weapon one wishes, wherever one wants. Each State has its own Constitution, and each has restrictions of a type. The chance to fight, State by State, unreasonable restrictions will be given life with this decision, but the battle will not be over by a long shot.

Putting it another way, the Federal Government has no business involving itself in the discussion of limiting the ability of its Citizens to keep and bear arms (have and carry), except to affirm that each individual has that right under the Second Amendment. The Tenth lays out that all other Power not given the Federal Government is to belong to the States, that would include restrictions of all types, severe or lax. The Federal Government's only duty in regard to arms is to protect the individual's "Right" to keep and bear them.

Not at all, I believe they must incorporate the 2nd against (or rather to) the States, and then it is up to the citizens of each State as to what they will require of their Legislators. My view is that the Federal Government must admit they have no Power to involve themselves in infringing on the "Right" to keep and bear arms, that it in fact it is solely the responsibility of the States as to what laws are written regarding the issue.

A "Right" is simply a guarantee against Government Power and intrusion into the issue stated. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, there is a substantive guarantee that the Federal Government, "shall not infringe" the "right" of the people to keep and bear arms. That means, for those who understand the language, that the Federal Government has no stake in the question of the individual Citizen's ability to have and carry arms. Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill dealt with a tyrannical Government attempting to confiscate arms without due process, against natural law of the individual to provide for their own defense. The Crown knew that the only way to contain the unrest against the issues fermenting toward Revolution was to disarm the populace. The Constitution itself is a list of chains placed on Government, it does not enumerate "Rights", in fact the word is used only once in the entire document, and that in restricting the Power of the Federal Government with respect to the proceeds of writings, art and inventions of an individual. Jefferson and Madison did not believe at first, that there was a need for a list of "Rights", assuming that having come through the trials of the Revolution that any listing was necessary, and might even if provided, give the Government power to take any not enumerated. The Bill of Rights was added just in case the Government would presume to overstep its bounds. The Tenth says any Power not expressly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution belonged to the States, or the People. The issue of arms, having and bearing, is precluded from Federal Government involvement, by the "not be infringed" statement. These issues are left to the States, and to the People by virtue of "consent of the governed". Article 1, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution contains the controls of arms ownership and ability to bear them in our State. It is given as a Power to the Legislature to restrict the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. We have the ability to elect those Legislators and to effect how the laws and codes are written and enforced. If we do not like the laws we have, we can elect new Legislators and replace the laws. The map is laid out in the Tennessee Constitution, it is up to us to demand and control what comes out of Nashville in respect to what we, the People will allow.

Isn't that Randy Rayburn and Adam Dread's group?

In the Fifth Amendment, is states "no person", which is synonymous with "the people", The Fourteenth states "nor shall any state deprive any person". No allusion to a group, strictly individual. Pretty clear cut.

As originally written, (1796) Article 11, Section 26 stated: Reconstruction at an end, the 1870 rendition changed and added to the original: Legislators being what they are, we will never get them to relinquish that power. I would be happy to get them to abide by the letter of the law as written, and force them to provide empirical data to prove that their restrictions actually reduce crime, requiring repeal of any restriction on the books that could not be proven to do so.

If the Amendment does away with the "Restaurant" designation, and allows HCP carry in all establishments that serve alcohol, then there is merit in the Bill. If that is not accomplished, then we need to defeat it. Giving credence to any legislation that supports the "Good Ol' Boy" ABC back room control by the Liqueur Lobby needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.