TMMT

Tardy Tennessee lawmaker parks on sidewalk WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | Tardy Tennessee lawmaker parks on sidewalk

Whats shocking is that the Tennessean didn't blame it on gun owners...

Most dangerous states in America | tennessean.com | Nashville Local News | The Tennessean

Is the cost of the TN HCP equal to a de facto ban on poor people? I've asked this question before in response to another posters thread with no real answer, so I'm asking again. Is it? The state charges you $115 to apply. To apply you must complete a gun safety course that will run you anywhere from $75 up to $125 depending on where you take it. Some of you might miss a day from work, taking it off to attend the class. All of this adds up to very real money for the working poor, arguably those who could benefit more from a CCW than someone who lives in an uppity Bell Meade hood... I just watched an interesting show on, of all things the Green Channel. I know its an enviro-wack-job channel but every once in a while they do have on an interesting show. This one was called 30 Days and it was about a guy and girl who had to live for 30 days on minimum wage in Cleveland Ohio. They went into some detail on budgetary details. They lived in a very low rent apartment, as well as the need to exploit the missions who give away stuff like free dishes and furniture. But back to the money. Someone living like this can in no real way afford to miss a days work much less come up with $200 on average to get the permit. Lets say you are in their shoes, your married, no children. You live in Memphis, in a questionable area. You work as a handyman doing odd jobs while your wife is a server at a restaurant. But you have a .38 revolver your granddad gave to you years a go, you hang onto for protection and sentimental reasons. The show, showed you in detail how living on minimum wage even two folks working sometimes two jobs will barely pay for you to eat and survive. So with the state charging you a $115 fee the requiring you to spend around another $100 just to be "legal", how is this not a de facto ban that affects the poor, those who would most benefit from owning and carrying a gun?

You need the governments permission to exercise your right to carry in this state and oh BTW it will cost you between $175 and $225 as well, depending on the cost of the state required safety class... Welcome to Tllinois or Tennsylvania....

Opus X Cigars | Buy 2009 Opus X Fuente Charity Box - 22 Count | - CigarsDirect.com I'll stick to my Rocky Patels

According to te FBI this group popped up out of nowhere about 30 days ago. The website domain name was registered the same week the group came to the attention of the FBI. Personally I think it has to do with that anarchist group encouraging its members to crash the Tea Parties scheduled for April 15th, by showing up under the guise they are members of the Tea Party then causing serious trouble by attacking the police or vandalizing property. To give the media something to focus on while being able to blame the Tea Party itself.

Umm... how the heck does it know this?

I vote for the psychopath(s) driving the KC-135, that was impressive!

What I use to tell all the Rookies, the bad guys never tell you they are carrying. Your first clue is when a person/driver hands you their HCP, GA Firearms License (what they are called in GA). It never ceases to amaze me the number of cops who still freak out when someone hands them a HCP. And they go into this mode, bordering on felony stop mode. To me that usually shows one of two things, either a poorly trained officer or one with serious reservations (over reactions) about their abilities to do the job.

NY Times: Repeat Felon Law Is Found Unconstitutional Appeals Court Faults New York Repeat Felons Law - NYTimes.com A key provision of a New York State law under which repeat offenders can be sentenced more harshly is unconstitutional because the longer prison terms are based on findings by judges, not juries, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday. Although the ruling did not directly strike down the provision, it indicated that the state law was flawed. Some prosecutors said new legislation could be required to preserve the politically popular principle that repeat offenders should be subject to longer sentences. The appeals court’s decision also opened the way for what could be hundreds of challenges to sentences by inmates convicted of felonies like robbery, assault and drug distribution since 2004, defense lawyers said. The ruling applies only in New York. But it is the latest in a string of rulings based on Supreme Court decisions over the past decade that have rejected sentencing laws that the justices have said curtailed the constitutional right to have all disputed facts decided by jurors with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The New York law, the persistent felony offender statute, directed trial judges to determine whether longer sentences were called for after examining “the history and character of the defendant†with three or more felony convictions and to consider the circumstances of the crime. In the ruling handed down on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan said those findings amounted to facts that should have been determined by a jury. In one of five cases considered by the court, a man convicted of the theft of a wallet at a bus terminal had been sentenced to 20 years to life in prison as a repeat offender because of more than 70 similar thefts. Without the persistent felony provision, he would have faced a maximum of four years. New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld the state law three times in recent years. After a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2004 on the issue, the federal appeals judges said, findings about issues like the character of a defendant could no longer be viewed as permissible judicial fact-finding. Such findings, the panel said, “are amorphous and do not involve hard facts.†Andrew C. Fine, a Legal Aid Society lawyer who argued against the law in the appeal, said the decision was a judicial reminder of the constitutional role of juries. “It reaffirms the important principle that critical factual determinations that could lead to increased sentences should be made by jurors rather than judges,†Mr. Fine said. A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, Richard Bamberger, said the decision was being reviewed. The state could ask the appeals court to reconsider the ruling or could ask the Supreme Court to review the case. But Kathleen B. Hogan, the Warren County district attorney, who is president of the State District Attorneys Association, said the decision was a blow to prosecutors’ efforts to protect the public. “The most egregious offenders,†she said, “are no longer going to be able to be sentenced to the kinds of sentences courts have imposed.†In the cases of four defendants who challenged their sentences, the appeals court directed that the trial judges review the sentences. But the appeals judges left open the possibility that those sentences would be approved. They said trial judges could decide that the factual determinations had been “harmless error.†One of the defendants, who had prior drug and robbery convictions, was convicted of threatening a companion in violation of four orders of protection. Another was convicted of kidnapping after a history of drug charges, parole violations and a carjacking. A third man, William Phillips, was convicted of robbing a candy store in New York City. His history included minimal sentences, early parole and community service in place of more severe sentences for earlier crimes. The trial judge found that Mr. Phillips had shown “that he cannot be trusted to function normally in society†and sentenced him to 16 years to life. Without the persistent felony law, he would have faced a maximum of 15 years. In the ruling on Wednesday, the federal court rejected the appeal of a fifth man, saying he had lost his case before the Supreme Court decision in 2004 that the judges said clarified the law nationally. The ruling on Wednesday was by Circuit Judges Ralph K. Winter Jr. and Robert D. Sack and District Judge John G. Murtha. It was written by Judge Winter. James A. Cohen, a criminal law expert at Fordham Law School, said the ruling could create new problems for the defense at trials. To repair the flaw described by the appeals court, Mr. Cohen said, judges may require prosecutors to present evidence about defendants’ criminal histories to jurors. One result, he said, is that jurors might learn about a defendant’s past violence, previous crimes and resistance to rehabilitation. Under the state provision at the center of the appeals court case, jurors are often not told about such inflammatory facts. “It puts a set of facts which had previously been in the judge’s discretion squarely in the hands of a jury,†Mr. Cohen said. Sometimes, he said, the last thing a defense lawyer wants jurors to consider is the long criminal past of a defendant.

I don't buy the movies and TV theory because I was raised on John Wayne, James Bond and Dirty Harry. Every Sunday I always loved dinner at my grandpas and the usual afternoon selection of war movies. Its gotta be something else.

Questions to he masses... What outside variables are influencing this? Is this just a blip or the start of a wider phenonomina? Economic and social changes causing this? X factor?

Attorney Says Nashville Criminals Aren't Afraid, Criminals Not Looking Past Tomorrow Attorney Says Nashville Criminals Aren't Afraid - Nashville News Story - WSMV Nashville NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- There was a day that even the meanest, toughest criminal will stop short of shooting it out with police. That day appears to be over, as about once a week someone decides they're willing to shoot it out with officers. Police officers have shot suspects in violent, unpredictable situations five times in the last five weeks. "They don't look past tomorrow," said Sgt. Gary Kemper, who's in charge of policing gangs in Nashville. "They really don't care. To them, a person being old is 25, 26 years of age. They're living for the now. They're not worried about what tomorrow brings." On Feb. 26, officers exchanged shots with a drug dealer who didn't yield to their warrant. On March 11, Pedro Barragan was allegedly beating up his girlfriend when police arrived and he stabbed Officer John Timm in the neck, back and groin. Police backup helped shoot Barragan. On March 12, fleeing burglar and career criminal Reginald Wallace was beating up an officer and his dog at the same time, police said. He reached for something in his pocket, and Officer Joe Shelton shot and killed him. On March 25, undercover Officer Justin Fox shot three men during an armed robbery at the Hyatt Place Hotel in Brentwood. Tuesday, Nashville Crip Aaron Gooch got in a shootout and wounded Gangster Disciple Kenneth Ellis. Officer Gerry Hyder jumped out of his undercover truck and ordered Gooch to drop his weapon. When he didn't, Hyder shot Gooch. Fraternal Order of Police attorney John Brown reconstructed all five shootings moment by moment and said he found a common criminal denominator. "They're just not afraid. They're not afraid of police. They're not afraid of being injured. They're not afraid of going to jail," said Brown. "If they go to jail, they are not afraid they're going to go very long." Brown also said all five shootings were unique in that they were life-and-death situations. Two of the shootings involved two armed robbers who had been paroled after serving just two years of their eight-year sentences. The armed robber bill that would force first-time offenders to serve six years or a minimum of 75 percent of their sentence has been flying through the Legislature and could be voted in to law as early as next week. Previous Stories: March 30, 2010: Suspected Gunman Shot By Nashville Detective March 12, 2010: Child Sees Officer Stabbed, Man Shot March 12, 2010: Metro Officer Fatally Shoots Burglary Suspect March 26, 2010: Officer Shoots 3 Robbery Suspects In Brentwood

All them big fancy tacticool models are fine-n-all but what you really need is... Stoeger Coach Gun, 12-Gauge, 20-Gauge, .410, with 3” Chamber I went with the 20 inch 12 ga, blued model. It is a sweet gun.

I never took the class, my POST certification exempted me from it, but I still had to pay the ridiculous fee...

All gun control laws are Jim Crowe Laws Thats where gun control got its start, was keeping guns out of the hands of blacks.

True...

I've asked the same question of Tennessee's process. At what point does the cost of the completed process place the license out of reach of some people? If, in the case of tennessee the cost of the class then the fee for the license itself places it out of reach of working poor? Coming up with $175 to $225 just to exercise your rights is repulsive to me. $200 bucks to some in this state is a weeks take home pay, groceries for half a month. A car payment or half a rent payment. Basically the difference between eating and starving every month. Isn't the state basically denying them the right to self defense by pricing the HCP out of their reach? I think it cost too much for a D/L but as we've been so aptly told by the courts over and over driving is not a right its a privilege... so okay, 20 to 30 bucks for a privilege is fair. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Those of you who think this state is gun friendly are living in Obamaland, its gun tolerant, not gun friendly.

A Gun Ban By Any Other Name... FOXNews.com - A Gun Ban By Any Other Name...

There is a lady in my office who admits that she voted for Obama, yet the week after he was elected came to me and another Investigator and asked us to help her pick out and purchase a handgun. When I asked her why she wanted one her response was for protection and because she feared that Obama would ban them. My partners response was why the hell did you vote for the guy then? She never answered...

More women may be turning to firearms More women may be turning to firearms - Washington Times American women are buying guns and taking aim on firing ranges in growing numbers, according to a recent study and interviews with gun-shop owners. A 2009 study found 70 percent of shop owners reported more female buyers. The study, conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Southwick Associates, also found 80 percent of the female gun-buyers who responded said they purchased a gun for self-defense, followed by 35 percent for target practice and 24 percent for hunting. Women and shop owners interviewed by The Washington Times offered similar, narrow-ranging explanations for the increases — largely self-defense and concerns about the possibility President Obama would further restrict gun ownership. Erika Gonzalez, of suburban Washington, was raised as a Quaker and grew up thinking guns were unsafe — until a series of life-changing events. Her grandmother was murdered about 15 years ago in a small town, then her marriage fell apart and she was on her own. "I was very anti-gun for a long time … and I guess my thinking evolved on that," said Ms. Gonzalez, who owns a Glock 9mm and started a shooting club to practice and share similar interests. "I was probably motivated to buy the gun because I separated from my husband and was living alone." Hilary Gotzh, a single 26-year-old, wants to buy a gun this year for protection and recreational uses, but, like Ms. Gonzalez, thinks ownership is a private and personal decision. "It's not a common thing that women sit around tea and talk about their firearms," Ms. Gotzh said. Jack Donald, a Washington-area gun dealer, said he's noticed a recent increase in female gun sales, with most women looking for protection. He also said he witnessed a surge in overall sales after President Obama was elected in 2009. "Our gun sales volume increased dramatically after the election," he said. Despite such observations, a recent National Opinion Research Center study shows the demographics of U.S. gun ownership have changed little during the past 29 years. Women owned roughly 10.5 percent of this country's guns in 1980, compared to 10.8 percent of the more than 200 million guns in the U.S. in 2008.

First off this is about nothing more than the money the state gets when one is found guilty or pleads guilty and is placed on probation, ordered to pay a fine and probation fees. Its also about the almighty criminal history. A permanent record you carry with you forever. The only way to get rid of it, is to die. The fact that a prosecutor never wants to miss an opportunity to put a permanent spot on your record in the form of a criminal history disposition. Its about control of your life, for the rest of your life. Courts and Judges, (despite what you hear) have access to your full criminal history during judicial proceedings, especially during the sentencing phase of any trial. Including those arrests and convictions which are not visible to others during background checks for employment etc... Another unintended consequence this will have is to ensure that an already clogged and packed court calendar will now become completely overwhelmed with cases. There is no chance of any type of deal to keep this off your record so, if you believe that you are not guilty then your only option is now to go to trial and warm up a jury. The number of trials in Tennessee will increase by five fold instantly. At a huge cost to an already overburdened taxpayer funded system. And cases on court calendars which now take months to work thru will take years. I was once told by a DUI lawyer that he tries to, and in most cases succeeds in getting a DUI case prolonged for up to 24 to 30 months. Its not hard to do with motions, hearings, continuances etc... the reason being is that a good number of police officers last about that same amount of time in a given job. So there is about a 45% chance that once the case goes to court the cop will be long since left the job, quit, fired or moved on and it will cost the state money to have him or her brought back for a trial. Case dismissed. He said it works about 4 out of 10 times. As of late even military deployments have given them the ability to get cases dismissed. All this will do is to serve that purpose even further. Lawyers love delay and the longer a case is delayed the better the defense chances are of winning.

First-time offender option in Tennessee may vanish First-time offender option in Tennessee may vanish | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Georgia Supreme Court upholds sex offender registration for non-sex convictions Sentencing Law and Policy: Georgia Supreme Court upholds sex offender registration for non-sex convictions