RobertNashville
-
Posts
6,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44 -
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by RobertNashville
-
-
"...with Smith saying, "You're dying." It's followed soon after by another shot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."
That right there alone would do it in TN too. As we've discussed here many times, our "castle doctrine" does not license you to execute a perp. If it can be demonstrated that you were no longer in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, the default supposition of that evaporates for your actions past that point.
- OS
Which is as it should be...we have the right to stop the threat; not kill. I'm afraid there are more than a few who don't truly understand the difference.
-
The entire issue of the alleged infringement of property rights of property used for business purposes (i.e a parking lot for customers, employees, etc.) when a state forbids the owner/controller of a parking lot from forbidding the presence of arms in a vehicle parked there really rests on just one issue; is there demonstrable harm to the owner of the parking lot!
To the best of my knowledge, and I've followed this issue for some time now, NO parking lot owner has ever been able to actually show any harm meaning no infringement on their rights to the property. In fact, the excuses I've heard make about as much sense as those gun-grabbers/haters when they start claiming that there will be "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets" whenever some expansion of firearm rights are proposed (such as the so-called "guns in bars" bill).
Until someone can show actual harm all these arguments are pointless aside from the intellectual stimulation they provide; not that I don't enjoy them. ;)
-
Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises? Not sure how mind control gets introduced here. Or, home for that matter, as most employees aren't likely to bring their house to work with them and park it in the employer's lot. But most employers in question own the parking lot. I just don't see how government intrusion on how an individual or entity rules its own property (as long as it doesn't violate laws) does any good.
The "good" is that those who can otherwise legally possess and transport arms for their protection (or any other reason) can do so and not have to travel without the protection such arms offer. Contrast that "good" with the absolute lack of any demonstrable infringement to the entity that owns the parking lot and the logic of laws that protect the contents of a person's vehicle is obvious. Further, in many states a person's vehicle IS considered as much their "home" as the physical structure they call "home".
As to the "lockers"; there is a difference and an obvious one between a person's vehicle and the vehicle's contents sitting in a public parking lot and vs a "locker" that is both not the individual's property and situated not in a parking lot but (presumably) inside of the business's physical building(s). The government telling the parking lot owner that they cannot dictate what can be in a person's vehicle is in no way an infringement on the parking lot owner's "right" (which is what the courts have held). The bottom line is that none of the businesses that have sued over this issue of firearms in vehicles in parking lots have ever been able to demonstrate how they are harmed and/or their rights infringed by these laws - I would suggest that is because there simply is no real infringement and if there is no infringement then all the angst about the parking lot owner's "rights" is what my Dad used to call "cat's fur".
That said, I fear this thread is getting far off course...these laws don't even effect those in Tennessee...have a nice day!
-
1
-
-
Yup. But probably no more facile than the suggestions of some that the gubment should further erode at-will employment by restricting an employer's ability to terminate employees and telling them what is/is not allowable on their property.
Yuup and no employer should have the power to control the contents of a privately owned vehicle any more than the contents of someone's home (or someone's mind). Further, we aren't just talking about employer's with this issue either...we are talking about parking lots where the public (be they customers or employees) is/are invited to be.
Our country has, for at least 100 years or more, treated property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes in order to maintain a civil society which is actually one of the few necessary functions of a government. Another of those few functions of government is to seek a balance of rights when there is a conflict; that is, when one "right" (property rights in this case) comes up against the right to arms. In the case of parking lot owners by law, not being able to forbid legally transported arms inside of a vehicle parked in the parking lot owner's lot, there is clearly no infringement on the rights of the parking lot owner (as the courts have consistently found as these laws have been challenged).-
1
-
-
I think it's pretty facile for a self-employed person to suggest to someone who is not self-employed that they quit their job when they do not know what's going on in that person's life that affects his/her decisions. Not everyone can be self-employed, and there are way too many unemployed at this time.
I agree. On a different forum I once had someone call me names I couldn't repeat here just because I wasn't willing to quit my job and throw away a 20 year full pension to "protest" the fact that my employer didn't allow firearms on their property. There are jobs and there are careers and while the two are similar they aren't necessarily interchangeable...more to the point; each person should do what he/she believe is best for them (which I think that's what liberty is supposed to be about). ;)
-
I love dogs (as you can probably tell from my pic) but you've gotten some good advice here...I strongly suggest you think about your priorities and whether they are aligned correctly. If you are an adult then it's time to be in your own place and to be blunt, if you can't afford your own place then you really shouldn't be looking for another pet.
I'm sure your dog is lonely but most dogs adapt to their owners being away and getting another dog it no guarantee that they will hit it off and be friends; you may just make the situation worse.
-
1
-
-
You know there is a simple solution to this problem? Go get a job with a company that cares about your safety to and from work. It's not the governments job to make your life easier, you choose to continue to work for a company that requires that you be unarmed to and from work, nobody is forcing you to stay.
I think suggesting that someone just get a different job is really rather ridiculous. We have more people out of work in this country today than any other time in the country's history - anyone who currently has a job had damn well better keep it. There is nothing wrong with looking around and keeping options open but there is more to a career and finding the right position than whether a company allows firearms on their property.-
6
-
-
When they piss me off enough times.......
A gun isn't some sacred thing, it's just a tool. When it refuses to function in a manner that satisfies me, I sell it, trade it or depending on the severity of the infraction, I whoop it against the Bradford pear tree in the side yard. Which ever brings me the most joy. In the end, that's all life is, the experiences. You can't take any of this crap with you.
I ain't clingin' on to nothing that doesn't have some use to it. Even told my wife that :stir:
Having a bunch of guns doesn't interest me anymore. I have a lot more respect for the man who has one rifle and learns to use it well than someone whose closet looks like the NRA museum. Great to be an American ain't it!?!? We still get that luxury; trying to do what makes us happy.
Some people collect firearms because of their history or mechanical perfection or beauty and/oor various/similar reasons.
Some people own guns only as tools for protection, hunting, etc.
Some people do both - I have enough "tools" and I have no problem selling them or buying them as. I also have a few that I have just for the pleasure of owning them and will likely NEVER sell (and intend to pass them down to family when I take the "long walk" to whatever comes next.
-
I decided not to answer the poll because none of the choices "fit" my circumstances...I carry as often as I'm able which is most of the time but circumstances (mostly where I'm going to be) often dictate how often that is.
Also, if I'm going someplace where I believe I NEED to be armed then I don't go there! ;)
-
No...
And in the case of BHO; they aren't prevented from running for or holding office either!!! ;)
-
I just wanted to bump this back up for any updates and/or new suggestions.
I completed Book 6 of the Holding their Own" series by Joe Nobody (Bishop's Song) and found it to be right on par with the rest of the series, meaning, imho, excellent.
I'm just starting the "Dark Grid" series and the first book looks promising so far.
Robert:
What do you think of "The Carrington Effect: a novel of hope" by Andrew B. Dill so far?
I'm a little behind although catching up with my reading now.
I caught up with all the 299 Days series then went back to "Holding Their Own"...as soon as I finish the current book in "Holding Their Own" I'm going to start the Carrington Effect!
-
Good changes and as I'm currently residing in Savannah GA for a while I'll get to take advantage of the new laws! ;)
-
The way I see it; if you committed a felony that is serious enough that your right to keep and bear arms is taken away forever then you ought to be locked up forever. If your crime isn't serious enough to warrant a life sentence then your 2A rights should be fully restored once your sentence has been served!
-
3
-
-
The leadership is so far up inside the governor I doubt they would even allow a vote to override his veto if they were in session.
Can't say I disagree; unfortunately. :(
-
Not sure what happens if he vetoes it after Session adjourns, though. Aren't they about done? I guess they have to wait till next session to override or not, or do they have to start over?
There's no "pocket veto" in TN though.
- OS
The legislature can come back into session specifically to override the veto if I recall correctly...also if I recall correctly that's exactly what happened with the first (or maybe it was the second or both) "guns in bars" bill(s).
That said, I rather doubt that the legislature we have now (at least the leadership) cares enough to come back into session. -
I am forever thankful that we have an "Easter" to celebrate and for all of God's blessings (even though I can't think of anything I've done to justify receiving them; which I suppose is rather the point isn't it!). :)
-
I find it very disconcerting that on the forum by TFA there is only one entry on this subject under "State Legislative" and that was on April 8 after the Senate passed the bill. Even John Harris has made no comment on the TFA forum.
While TGO is an obvious exception; many, many forums have simply ceased to be a place where there is much activity any longer...most especially true on fast moving subjects. TFA does most of its communicating through its email distribution list and through Facebook because that tends to be the more efficient way to reach people quickly.
I belong to many different forums covering many different subjects that in years past have been extremely active yet probably half or more of them today have extremely low traffic.
Me, I called it DOA when it got to the House. The Republican leadership in this state wants to keep the anti-gun, liberal-leaning voters happy so they can get some votes. It was all a show so they could say to the rest of us, "We tried"
The "Republican Leadership" has been and continues to be the problem. I was surprised the bill passed the senate...I was surprised it made it to a vote in the senate at all for that matter and as long as we have this current leadership (Gov, Lt Gov and Speaker) it's unlikely we'll see ANY decent firearm related legislation out of the Tennessee legislature. The only way I see that we can get permit-less carry, open carry, etc. out of this leadership would be with some massive demonstration such as we had with the horn honkers (that I am proud to say I was a part of). However, when I look at the discussion in this and related threads and I have doubts that there is enough cohesiveness among firearm enthusiasts to get that sort of demonstration going.
-
So, we are ok with someone with no gun handling experience carry a gun? That person will get themselves (or worse someone else) shot/ killed. I agree that 2A rights shouldn't be limited but I also think people need to prove they have adequate knowledge to USE a gun.Just carrying it doesn't help anybody. Come up with a way that keeps our freedoms free, but requires sufficient training to use a firearm and then you have my vote. You have to keep the irresponsible and uneducated from just strapping on a gun and feeling empowered and then trying to use.
Bring on your arguments
I go around and around in my head with this issue myself...I've hunted with a firearm since I was big enough to fire a 410 shotgun...I've owned my own 12ga since I was 12 (and I think it was still legal then :) )...I've owned and do own many firearms and I believe in training and try to do at least two major classes per year as well as my own training regiment. I really DO understand how important it is for someone to KNOW how to use a firearm properly and safely and how dangerous a person can be to themselves and other innocent people if they DON'T KNOW.
HOWEVER...
I ALSO believe that people have a basic, natural/God-given right to carry ARMS for their own protection and for the protection of other innocents...that includes but is not limited to firearms. Our Constitution recognizes and protects that right and there is nothing in our Constitution that requires "training" to bear arms any more than the Constitution requires a certain level of IQ and/or education before being allowed to exercise (or not exercise) their chosen religion or to engage in free speech. So...I am left to conclude that "permit-less" carry is what our Constitution demands and that ALL laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
-
4
-
-
I don't like leaving my firearm in my vehicle but I like being unarmed a whole lot less. Therefore, I carry everywhere and anywhere I can legally do so which means I often must leave my firearm in my vehicle; locked in a lock box secured to the vehicle with my other firearms in my safe at home.
While not completely "safe" in my vehicle, my significant gun safe in my home under multiple layers of security isn't "completely" safe either which means that if being afraid of someone steeling my firearm is the ultimate determinant of having one then the only logical conclusion is that no one should own a firearm because NO ONE can absolutely guarantee that the firearm(s) in their possession is/are totally and completely secure 100% of the time.
That said, Mr. jh225 makes an interesting claim about how bad an idea vehicle carry (and leaving the weapon in the vehicle) is but I would suggest we look to other states where vehicle carry without a permit is already allowed as it is here in Georgia (where I happen to be now). I wonder if Mr. jh225 has any data to substantiate his claim...can he show that his alleged problem actually IS a problem where permit-less vehicle carry is already legal?
Much like the poorly named "guns in bars" issue...the anti gun crown loves to claim that allowing such will result in shoot outs in bars yet in no state where it's already allowed has there been any significant problems (not that a lack of data keeps the anti crown from continuing to make the same claim). I can't help but think that this claim of Mr. jh225 has about the same merit as the old "blood in the streets" mantra.
-
Have a unique first and last name like I do. Mine is usually approved before the dealer can get his hands off the keyboard.
Well that didn't help me...less than 100,000 people in the world with my last name and not all of those spell it the same way but I was arrested because my first and last name matched the husband of the husband and wife team the police were looking for!
-
How is it with the TICS system you can be green lighted one time and denied the next?
Seriously!! I found the gun I was looking for and drove an hour to get it. I get there and bam!! denied. Just last week I picked up a gun I had ordered a month ago. Went in and not even 5 minutes was approved. Today after 10 minutes of waiting I was denied.
You would think that with the money that they make it would be a better system than it is.
Just curiously how often does this happen? Has anyone else been through this?
Once I was approved one day and made a purchase; went in the next day for another purchase and was denied.
In my case it's a "charge" (wrong person/same name) from almost 25 years ago - the charges were completely dismissed of course but whatever records TICS checks only show the "charge"; not the fact that the charge was dismissed. I guess it just goes to show just how unreliable such "records" and/or how lazy or incompetent the government is at doing...well...at doing just about anything (which is why I'm just so happy that they are now in charge of everyone's health care).
-
Muslims are such peaceful folks. I hope and pray only the shooter dies.
Rather early to assume this is either a terrorist and/or Muslim related event isn't it?
I mean it may be both but could be neither...I guess we'll find out as details start to come out.
-
3
-
-
Well as we have n0 real pro firearms laws either, I am not too impressed. The status quo has you as a criminal when you step outside your personal property with a loaded firearm, and that is just your brick and mortar.
Yuup...the sad part is that, as I read the TN constitution; the problem is not so much with the constitution (although the language could use significant improvement) but rather, how we have allowed the legislature to apply their "understanding" to the firearm related laws they pass.
If the firearm laws they passed really were done "with a view to prevent crime"; most of the laws we have that restrict where/when we can be armed would not exist or would at least be more favorable to the citizen wishing to enjoy his God given right to be armed.
-
1
-
-
Term limits won’t fix anything. All you will have is more politicians with nothing to lose being cycled through at a faster rate. We get to vote for who we want and if they do their job we get to keep them in office.
There isn't any one or any easy fix to the problems we have with our governments at all levels but term limits could well be one arrow in a quiver of arrows that could work to set things right.
Right now, politics is a viable career path for people, not unlike being a CPA, a firefighter, or any other profession - in my humble opinion, our ancestors never intended it to be that way. Rather, they envisioned successful people truly sacrificing their own lives for a period to serve; I truly don't think Madison or Jefferson ever thought people would want to do it "full-time".
So, term limits could change that reality.
If people knew up front that they would have only a specific number of potential years in office it might alter the perception of politics as a career which could lead to "leaders" stepping up who have what is often referred to as a "servant's heart"...leading by serving...sacrificing part of their lives for the benefit of their country.
At the very least, it might be worth trying at the federal level.
Minn. man convicted of murder in home invasion
in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
Posted
Isn't it always one or two key details (or even how we handle ourselves after a shooting) that can turn a legitimate self-defense homicide into a homicide that garners the shooter a murder charge?
I was fortunate to attend the free seminar in December (2012) given by Mr. Cain (Cain Law Firm) and I then took Massad Ayoob's two-day class on rules of engagement last year. One of the things I loved about both (and especially Massad's given he had two days) was all the actual examples of cases which really brought home the truth of how quickly and how badly a good SD shooting can go based on one or two little details. This case seemed pretty much a slam dunk as a murder to me but yeah...change one or two details and it could certainly have gone the other way.