Worriedman

Per Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp:   "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."    Our Governor consistently exhibits a penchant for considering Stalin's Bourgeoisie in need of having direct supervision for most of their requirements, more especially those which relate to deciding who their Judges should be, how and why they are to avail themselves of the Right to keep and bear arms, those niggling issues one would assume that the Constitution of the State's Framers intended to be finalized when they left ink on the issues.

Her foes "suspect a political agenda."?  As my 4 year old grand daughter says "Duh?"  What would they consider actions the IRS has been doing related to Conservative and Tea Party Groups as of late?  And, SWAT Teaming Gibson Guitar because the CEO donated to Republican candidates.

  Movement by various individuals and groups to re-address the issue.  Was hoping that there were other municipalities that had reversed their previous stance.  I had been contacted and asked if I knew of any that had changed their stance so that they could use the information in their attempts to convince their City Councils and County Commissions to re-evaluate the issue.

Are there instances of municipalities reversing their original "Opt Out" stance regarding allowing carry in Parks?

1983 Toyota 4-wheel drive pick up, 5 speed, no air. Sold it to the guy who ran the service department of the Toyota House on the West Side of Ft. Worth when I got my '95 Extra Cab.  His son drove it to Austin for college, then brought it back to his Dad, he is still driving the thing.  I tried to buy it back and he will not turn loose of it. Would love to have it to run to the farm to deer hunt on the cheap.

  Yeah, he can.

  Glad I did not have to spend time at an establishment that was that short sighted.

You are kidding?  Sen. Corker put himself in proximity to all those evil guns...why one of those dangerous machine guns might jump up and go off.

Seems the chameleon has decided he might NOT be satisfied with his knowledge of the Benghazi affair...   http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4ff58acd-e445-4c1b-b8e6-c6a5fbaba337/05-10-13_SFRC_GOP_Benghazi_Hearing_Letter.pdf   Which is it, you do like chicken, you don't like chicken?

I remember several folks talking about percentages of Republicans and Democrats, and then those in the squishy middle.  If that figure is equal with regard to the hard liners, say 20% each, that leavers a big bunch in the center, The Independents so many chant about. If it comes out that the Administration is using its power to target its enemies, it may just wake up some in that filling between the hard cookies to the fact they might be added to that list if for some reason the powers that be take a hankering to put the screws to their particular place of interest in life. Once it becomes apparent that the troops holding the high ground are capable of atrocities, scrutiny of their intent becomes self preservation. I see the media taking that stance after hearing that Big Brother just scorched their particular little bailiwick, once you have been given a wedgie, it is hard to turn your back without reservations again...

  On this you are 100% correct.

  They may just get Vince Fostered...

  Happening every day.  Has to take place at the County level to work. Henry County just had a real RINO thrown out as County Chair-person, even had Chris Devaney (Tennessee Republican Party Chairman) there to watch as the Establishment took a whoopin', and a good man with real Conservative principals led 75 "strangers" to victory over the Elitist.  Stunned is the best term to describe the look on his face. It can happen!

Carney is simply a mouthpiece, he will not be charged with anything, other than maybe in the court of public opinion, (but I suppose as he suffers from a "Baghdad Bob" persona already, that will be the worst of his punishment).  He can only repeat what he is told, doubt anyone could convict him of drumming this stuff up... However, the head of the Treasury Department, and the Chief council of the IRS are political appointees, there at the pleasure of the White House.  Whether it be Obama or Valerie Jarret as the picker of those partridge, Obama will be the one presumed responsible, as his is the office chair.  If this moves inter agency, it could well point to the executive branch. Targeting "Political enemies" with a branch of the Federal government under the direction of personally appointed officials is not something one wants to have on their resume, it tends to lead to throwing terms like impeach around.   The game is afoot methinks.

I suspect the rats (press) are hedging their bets about now.  They want to show that they are all for apple pie and the American way, figuring if the facts lead to a change in control of the White House, they could be targeted just as the Patriot groups have been under a different type of totalitarianistic junta.  Now it is time to remove the ability of an administration to do so.

"Veto Proof" being the operative clause here, Dear Governor can NOT shut it down if the legislators stand their ground.

I agree wholeheartedly, that the 9th is extremely important in this conversation, however possibly from a different perspective than held by you:   Using that argument, your earlier supposition that due process (5th Amendment) "trumps" if you will, the Right to keep and bear arms is erroneous I think.  It, (the Right to keep and bear arms) IS an enumerated right, and the regulation of it is left to the States by the 2nd and the 10th Amendments, specifically spelled out as such. From your insistance that the 5th Amendment is germane to this conversation, is allowing a 4th Amendment violation (Illegal search or seizure. How can keeping a legal item, vouchsafed by a purchased license from the State, background checked by the Federal, State and local governments be construed as a violation of the law). Especially when the "intent" of the State legislature is to empower employees who are terminated for simply keeping their legal weapons in their personal, private property to file lawsuits against such egregious actions such as termination respondent to such an act, when the same legislature has worked so hard to reduce or eliminate "frivolous" lawsuits? (sarcasm off)

No establishment that allows parking by individual employees has "no firearms", they have no legal firearms, criminals pay no attention to signs or laws, never have, never will.

  Sorry but you understand it wrong.  The OSHA argument was one that the Appellate Court ruled against, the taking was another.         http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166-0.pdf

Asked and answered in Ramsey Winch v. Henry when the courts found that temporally allowing a legal gun owner to keep their legal property (firearm) inside their private property (vehicle) did not constitute an illegal "taking" of any right or privilege.  Allowing another to keep a legal item inside a personal vehicle is not an infringement of any property right.

  If there is public money spent on the parking lot, (and in 99% of the factories being built today anywhere, there is a LOT of public, e.g. tax money being spent on the construction of facilities for industry) it is in fact, quasi-public property.   Case in point, Hemlock in Clarksville, millions of dollars of State tax money spent on the purchase of land and infrastructure production, and yet they acted like it was "private property".  Every "Big" employer that comes into TN now is plied with bribes from the public treasury, but so many tout their "Private Property' Rights. I have many times before asked this question, and will again, what Constitutional protection of private property exist in TN?  The only text relating to private property I can find Constitutionally, explains how a group of your peers can take anything you possesses, (including your life) from you if they feel it in the best interest of the community, on a State, County, or City level.

Not that I always agree with Hamilton, (or even usually), but even he gets it to a major degree, Federalist #33 para. #5:   “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine] Remember in the 10th Amendment: The 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 People, still have a place, and a responsibility in our governance, if they would just get off their arses and exercise it.    

  6.8, you are wise beyond your years, and like me, you have a few miles on you already, so that makes you a pretty smart fellow!

Don't forget our own dear leaders, Brian Kelsy, John Stephens, Lowe Finney, Jim Coley, and Vance Dennis...

Only if the laws under consideration are couched in the Constitution.  If the Federal law under consideration is unconstitutional, (in the opinion of many States) then the States have the ability to question such instruments, and together to petition the SCOTUS for a ruling.   Dred Scott comes to mind as a reading of law that was upheld at one point Federally, but ultimately decided to be unconstitutional.