Worriedman

I surmise that the intent of the Republicans at this point it to pass an extremely watered down version of a "Parking Lot" bill that will keep the dollars flowing from Big Business to the coffers of the keepers of the faith (symbolized by knees bent and hands out). They will push McCormick's newly sponsored bill, so that they can say it was Republican sponsored, not wanting to give the appearance that a Democrat had anything to do with the passage of a "2nd Amendment" issue. That it will end up limiting the ability of a permit holder, much less the non permit holder, to keep a weapon in their vehicle is of no consequence, and I suspect that there are conversations taking place behind closed doors to facilitate a perception that the Majority fostered such a "fair and equitable" bill that will be signed, and the sound coming through the doors of said meeting rooms is laughter.

Bingo.

Access to the discussion seems to be somewhat weighted, not sure of the metric used to score the contestants for entry. (sarcasm off)

Evidently there is an amendment coming that will re-write the bill, (HB 3660) of course no one in the public has been made privy to the content. Supposedly elements from the Chamber, "Business" interest, Hospital concerns, and upper management from Police Departments etc. have been involved with framing the discussion, and the resultant language. It has been suggested that Leadership has demanded that any bill that is to be passed MUST be sponsored by a Republican, and that the current HB 3560 does not pass muster relative to the fact that a Democrat sponsored it in the House.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/12/companies-pacs-send-29-million-to-lawmakers/?local

Sorry razorback2003, but the current make up of the legislature is not conducive to the passage of any reasonable firearms laws, or more truly the repeal of those that should not be there. Leadership likes their money from Fed Ex too much to be concerned with right and wrong.

Now to this point, from 1796 to 1870, the Constitution of Tennessee gave an unequivocal Right to every non-criminal to keep and bear arms for the common defense, (and common defense includes personal defense in any discussion of rational people) it was the carpetbagging Republican Party that re-wrote the Article to give power to the legislature to restrict the wearing of arms, and instituted the "intent to go armed" clause of the TCA, primarily to forbid the freed slaves from being able to carry arms, so the restriction put the ability to bear arms firmly ensconced into the ruling elite's purvey.

It is absurd to suppose that your "ownership" of property gives you "Rights" to do with it as you please. Regrade your yard and concentrate the runoff onto a neighbors property and it causes damage from the change, TDEC (your peers and the law of the land all rolled into one) will be along shortly to fine you and make you take corrective measures. Build an old style water collection system, (cistern) and run afoul of the Federal and State Government, the rain falling on the earth, your particular piece of it, is not yours to control. Desire to put up a structure on said property, and your peers have decided you must seek approval, permits and allow strangers on you property to inspect every aspect of what you do on your "own" land. Erect a shed closer to your property line than the setback distance in your particular area, again, a distance decided on by your peers, not you, and you will tear it down. Spray grass or weed killer on 'your" yard and catch a rain and let it wash on to adjoining property, your decision to control the flora environment on that particular piece of ground can cost you big, if it kills a swath of planting on a downstream location. Own a piece of property along a river in the South, one say that has been in your family since the State was founded, let TVA eyeball it and decide they need to put in a hydroelectric system to generate electricity for you peers in the area, or to ship the power generated to needy cities a 100 miles away. Does anyone here suppose the graves of your ancestors beneath the 300 year old Oak Tree out back of your ancestral home will suffice as important enough, or your "Right" to your property be strong enough to keep the power of imminent domain from sweeping away your title to said property? Build a store and post that no women, blacks, or Muslims are allowed to shop there. It is your property, and surly, you should be able to control what comes onto that piece of ground...

You are correct in that the Union Constitution does not, (the State Constitution is a different matter, it actually has a Declaration of Rights) it simply is a list of "chains" or restraints if you will, placed on the Federal Government by the States, or rather, by those Founders who wished to retain sovereignty over the Federal Government by the States. (So sad that their intent did not survive, but then they could not have envisioned carrier politicians). The Amendments (Bill of Rights) list what were considered to be the most important, they do not grant them, as those who put them down on paper to entice the remaining States to ratify the whole of the Constitution realized that they were already ours. I personally consider the 10th to be as important as any, and the 9th the most misunderstood and least adhered to: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That simple statement verifies that there are natural rights that not even the Government can abridge. It may by force refuse to allow them to be enjoyed, (just as ruthless men can) but, they can not be "denied" by the Government as they were never the Government's to allow or disallow in the first place. Every statutory law has its basis in the Constitution, or the Amendments, of the Union or the State, they are the metrics that the courts use to measure their applicability against. (However well or poorly that is accomplished)

So do we throw out the 5th and 14th Amendments, and equal protection under the law? Why have due process at all, if the Citizens are not to enjoy protection from any other entity but Government. So slavery is OK as long as it is just a Private Citizen holding the chains and not some Government entity?

Schedule for the sub-committee hearing on this bill has been moved to 8:00 A.M. Wednesday morning of March 7th, from 11:00 A.M. A little unusual, and smacks of gamesmanship on the part of the Triad.

How would one know that they had something objectionable if it were left locked in their vehicle and not brought out, shown or handled?

Wish in one hand... You are not free of the Government simply because you own property of have a business.

Who owns title to the land while the mortgage is held by another? Do you have title to that land as long as the mortgage is unsatisfied? Buy a car, do you get title till it is paid off? Fail to make a payment and see who the law allows to take possession. "Buy" a home, the mortgage holder will require an inspection, if the inspector notes a lack of smoke detectors, you will be required to install them prior to getting the loan. Who has control?

More food for thought, according to Article 1 Section 8 of the TN Constitution: "Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." (There again is that pesky numerical or spatial arrangement of hierarchy seen so often in the posting by our Framers, "life" first, "property" last.) Evidently, due process trumps personal property "Rights", and the judgment of ones peers, or the law of the land can offset any perceived special consideration of a property owner, be they private or business entities. Then there is this consideration, outside of any property owner that has made that final payment to the mortgage holder, who really "owns" the property? Fail to make your payments and see how much longer you remain in control of the property. Even once it is paid off, your peers have obligated you to pay tax on that property, (by virtue of their election by your peers and support of, whatever tax authority has control of your specific area) if you fail to render unto Caesar the required dole, you lose ownership and control, the law of the land will take it for sale to satisfy the tax obligation. There is no absolute authority to what may occur there by virtue of "Ownership" of a physical piece of land because a piece of paper says an individual has title to that property. There are restraints to use and obligations imposed for the "private" property owner to keep that mantle.

The facts related to governance of the People's Right to carry weapons in Tennessee are thus, under our State Constitution, the legislature has the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, that power "must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." (Article 1 Section 26) Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).†For good or ill, right or wrong, it is the procedure in place, codified in the State Constitution. And yes Dave, you are correct in your assertion that any carrying of arms is a violation of the current law, and that the statutory law in TN does not recognize a "Right" to wear arms, but one step at the time. The majority of Legislators do not understand that, they think the permit process changed that, but then, that same majority of Legislators are not experts in the Law and simply believe that criminal connotations to the act of going armed have been removed by an individual perfecting a permit under the current structure set up for that purpose. One could, if so inclined, take their grievance regarding this situation relative to the current enforcement of statutory law to the courts for validation of their own opinion, (seems that I remember reading that you Dave, have attempted that tack with less than stellar results) but it is the option for an individual to challenge the status quo. We are guaranteed the ability to petition our legislature for the redress of what we consider to be "bad" laws, and that is another path as well. Private property ownership does not give unbridled largess to do with, or act in any manner desired by the owner toward another human being while on their property, or to use said property in what might be beneficial to the owner without restraint. Put a pig farm in the middle of a subdivision and see how that works out for you. Manufacturing methamphetamine for resale as a recreational drug would most likely be a lucrative endeavor, but is precluded by law for the private property owner in Tennessee. One may not kill another, invited to their property, because they do not like the appearance of that individual, simply because they own the property. Statutory law, codified in our TCA, is supposed to be guided via an oath taken by the legislators to defend and support the Constitutions, and as such, puts the Constitutions as the basis for that codification. So the insistence by some that individual Citizens enjoy no protection of their Constitutional Rights while on private property is ludicrous.

Yes sir, that remains to be seen, just how strong armed it will be.

Sorry I do not agree, carrying a gun or any arm for that matter is truly a God given Natural Right, North Carolina accepted British Common Law as part of their Constitution, as did Tennessee when we formed our State, and the old Common Law expressly gives the People the right to be armed on their travels. Virginia even REQUIRED travelers to be well armed on their transits. It has always been our right to use weapons for our personal protection in America, we have simply allowed ourselves to forget that.

Not just that Sam, they intend to amend it to make it worse, and then pass it.

The "Fed Ex" Bill has been transfered to Gerald McCormick as Sponsor, and has been put on notice in the Employee and Consumer Affairs Sub-Committee next Wednesday, the 7th. This bill really does nothing but assure further donations to the Leadership Triad of the House. Not sure who was the original Sponsor as I did not pay any attention to this less than desirable piece of scat. Probable amendments from McCormick will include School parking lots, (which will take away the ablility that has been enjoyed by non students for years). Harwell at her finest.

This Administration reminds me of an angler desperate to fill their creel with crappie, they locate a good tree top on a rock slope, but tire quickly of getting hung up, so they drop a weighted grapple and pull the offending branches out, makes it easer to present a bait, but destroys the cover and drives off the fish. Said angler understands a little of the game, water=fish, but the intricate wisdom escapes him. Maybe he was raised by purse seiners on the open ocean and their historical knowledge and experience just do not translate well to the current local and species.?? Problem is, this Administration is at the helm of the only boat,and we all suffer or prosper from the direction and methods of the "Captain".

The Law of Money Talks and BS Walks. The more money one has, the more politicians one can afford, the more politicians on board the more money one makes, more expansive than logarithmic, "great oaks from little acorns grow". Some folks buy cars and vacations, guns and such, then there are those who are inclined to politics and a City Councilman or two on the pad to make sure zoning goes right start an upward spiral...

http://www.etymonlin....php?term=slave One must keep in mind, that the target group discussed by the OP is less than 13% of the total population.

Direction of action should now be turned to Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey's office. the University of Tennessee is jumping into the fray, and is going all in to defeat this Bill. Appears that what will remain after Senate action, through monetary pressure on the top levels of Leadership, will be exemption of all college campus parking lots, and all "secured" i.e. fenced (FedEx) lots. Evidently money still speaks louder than voters. Included in the antis re this issue are the Chamber of Commerce, Fed EX, UT everything (including our taxpayer funded MTAS and CTAS). Key will be this coming Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where antagonist get to speak without rebuttal, and then a vote to advance or kill the Bill.

We will hold our March Stated Meeting Thursday the 8th, at the Old Country Store, located in the Casey Jones Village, Jackson, TN. Our room will be available for those who wish to share a meal and fellowship at 5:30 P.M. The Meeting Proper will begin at 7:00 P.M. after a brief report about current Legislation. Our featured Speaker will be Mark Patey, candidate for Circuit Court Judge of the 26th Judicial District, Division III, which is comprised of Madison, Henderson and Chester Counties. Mark will open with comments, and we will have our normal Q/A session following. Membership is NOT a requirement to attend, all are welcome to join us for this informative evening.