Falcon1

Actually, in the initial offering of what became the Bill of Rights, our First and Second Amendments today were the third and fourth on the list. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/uc004829.jpg The second on the list has now been finally approved as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. As for Adam Dread's website...well, Forrest Gump said it best.

Interesting...the suit alleges that self-defense and vigilantism are the same thing.

#1. Yes, it sure would. #2. The attorney I spoke to advised me to do this when picking up my son from college (he carries and does the same when picking up his son from college; also, I often drive a truck, so trunk separation is not an option): lock the unloaded firearm in a gun safe, lock the ammunition in a separate container with a different key, THEN do absolutely nothing wrong--obey all traffic laws, etc. And his last comment to me was, "And you are still taking a chance on a felony charge."

It sounds like it's okay to change and use.

Murfreesboro's will be on the square at 5:00pm on 10 July 2009. It's billed as a tail-gating party.

Someone once referred to this as the "trigger-pulls-the-finger" hypothesis. It is, of course, silly. Just like those 225,000 permit holders have been shooting up Shoneys, Cracker Barrel, Bellacinos, etc. I'm pretty certain this link has been posted on this forum before, but I think this article may be germane to some of the attitudes displayed by the "hoplophobes" in the Tennessean article: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Not necessarily. I have spoken with an attorney on this, and ((1) may also apply: The affirmative defense of Chapter 39-17-1310 does not apply to staff members (and there is no definition in TCA of "intent to go armed," which means you are depending on the tender mercies of a prosecutor to decide to charge you with a felony or not). Until a court rules in precedent on this, you are taking your job and your freedom/criminal record into your hands. I am a public-school educator, and I would not test this. OMO, YMMV.

Too true, I fear.

All three of which may not be the case if current trends in legislation continue....

Exactly correct...I was just responding to the question of how he could be shown to have voted no on the confirmation itself. Part of the problem is that Republicans on the national level are often afraid to use the power they have...Democrats are not.

I think Alexander voted to break the filibuster; that vote made Koh's confirmation inevitable, even if Alexander voted against him in the actual confirmation vote.

Yes. I talk to my students about "bread and circuses" frequently.

So far, this still hasn't gone any farther than this (thank goodness): Of course, it could be buried within another law that no member of Congress bothered to read before they passed it....

Be certain to write the Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce and let them know that!

You are absolutely correct there.

The law as passed is, however, pretty definite about what a restaurant is: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA0204.pdf Some locations will not meet that definition, even though they do serve food. We here know what those locations are. Evidently some folks and the media do not.

IIRC, the federal law says people can carry IAW the laws in their state. I think you've hit on it. In those states where open carry is legal without a permit, it would be legal in the National Parks. IANAL, however. Then again, I may be thinking about the overturned rule, not the law....

Local politicians are afraid of having to take a stand. The law has shielded them from doing this for years. Now, it doesn't. They know the numbers of permit holders are growing, and they know that, depending on their margin of victory in their last election, they risk angering a highly motivated segment of the electorate that may just help "un-elect" them in the next cycle. They must fish or cut bait, and they are whining over it.

Here should be the whole shooting match, since the House Bill was the one ultimately voted on by the Senate: Tennessee General Assembly Legislation Here is the vote detail for the Senate: Bill Votes This is a copy of the email I sent to Senator Tracy, who voted PNV on the bill (he is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights in general): Here is his reply:

I would have said something to the effect of "Since you find it offensive, I will indeed no longer call you by the term of respect by which I refer to all of my other superiors." Then I would have answered every other question she asked directly and never once called her "Senator."

I apologize to those wonderful professional and amateur people who have sought to pursue a noble art...but not him.

You answered your own question...he's a clown.

I just sent this to Channel 5:

I think it may become more common, though. At this point, most owners are going to have access to resources (like Tennessee Hospitality Association) that will tell them exactly what the sign needs to say, and how it is to be displayed, to be compliant. If the sign is non-compliant after all that, they are either abysmally ignorant, or playing both sides of the fence. OMO, YMMV. As to the OP's question, for me it will probably depend upon the points OhShoot noted.

I saw a poll result on Today this morning that was not encouraging with regard to the populace's attitudes. Essentially, the poll said that 46% of the American people think that President Obama's deficits are President Bush's fault. I don't agree with everything President Bush did, but I don't think he wrote President Obama's budget.