Fallguy

Perhaps help for the boonies is just around the corner... FOXNews.com - FCC Opens Unused Airwaves for 'Super Wi-Fi'

Mainly been second guessing myself on the move back to Parsons. Better off for a few, very important "not as tangiable" reasons, but financially it has been a bit more of a drain than I had tought. Guess that is the difference between a commute of roughly 16 miles a week and now back to about 233 miles a week. But anyway.....I'm not happy unless I'm unhappy about something.......

Just because a business owner doesn't allow HCP holders to carry in their place doesn't mean the owner and/or his employees aren't armed. So "Please Rob My -------" may not be the best advise just because a place has posted a 39-17-1359 sign... Just my thougths.....

I could be wrong, but I thought TICS was in response to Federal law, not TN law. Right or wrong though despite the words "shall not be infringed" SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" can be applied to the purchase and possession of firearms. I can't point to a specific case, but I'm sure there has been one that requiring background checks before purchase is "reasonable" But on TN law I do agree that IMO most of the laws that restrict carry don't seem to have anything to do with "a view to prevent crime" as laid out in Article 1, Sec 26 of the TN constitution.

Much better than your post before you edited it IMO Stay safe....

Oops...Can NOT Corrected, thanks.

Here is what I sent to CTAS was looking on the CTAS website, but was unable to find the information I was seeking. I was hoping that maybe you could help. One question I had was, I wanted to verify that only counties that have adopted of Charter form of county government can pass County ordinances (T.C.A. 5-1-211) that aren't otherwise authorized by T.C.A. 5-1-118? Such as a Noise Ordnance etc... If this is correct, do you have a list of counties that have passed a charter form of government? Thank you for any help Here is the reply I got The answer to your question according to our attorney is stated as follows: That is correct. There are two counties (Knox and Shelby) that have adopted charters under TCA 5-1-201 et seq. Three counties (Davidson, Trousdale, and Moore) have adopted metropolitan charters under TCA 7-2-101 et seq. Both of these forms of government are discussed in Chapter 10 of the Tennessee County Government Handbook. Don J So it would appear there are only 5 counties in TN that can make their own ordnances, two as charter counties three as metro governments.

It's legal to carry in government (except Federal) buildings as well, again unless they are posted. One exception you can not carry in a room where a judicial proceeding is taking place. But that doesn't make the whole courthouse off-limits, it doesn't even make the courtroom off-limits when a proceeding is not taking place. Another misconception that pops up a lot.

One of those myths/rumors that just won't go away. In some states that is the case, but not in TN. Banks are only off-limits in TN if they are posted.

A few years ago I would agree....and still think it ought to be. But rule changes have almost prevented the QB from being breathed on wrong, let alone tackled like that. The main thing is it should be enforced equally....and that would have easily got a flag in other situations.

Well said....

Little bit about it on the web... Titans wanted penalty on sack where Vince Young was body slammed by Steelers' James Harrison and Brett Keisel I've even seen unnecessary roughness called on tackles of running backs when they have been lifted from the ground and "driven" into the turf.

At first I would have wondered why the search and question about weapons of witnesses, but considering the call from the other neighbor guess you were suspects as well. Glad all went well. Way to be part of a neighborhood watch instead of a neighbor who just watches. Although it sounds like the old lady across the street has it pretty well in hand also ...and not to side track this thread, but as said before the only place that "consuming" while armed is illegal is inside of a place open to the public that serves alcohol for onsite consumption. Otherwise it is illegal to carry a handgun while "intoxicated" Intoxicated being a judgment call of the LEO.

There is more detailed thread on this somewhere where one of the lawyers explained it better. But basically I think it is the type of expungement that TN issues doesn't completely satisfy something in the Federal law so in the end it is like there was no expungement basically.

I've seen it called for a lot less.

You are right in the sense that if you are just standing there, doing nothing and aren't suspected of anything a LEO can't just walk up to you, detain you and ask to see your permit. However if you are OCing, stated you have a weapon or the LEO has some other reason/justification to think you are armed, he very well can detain you and ask to see your permit. Since as stated as others have said carry in TN is against the law and having a permit is only a defense to that. So if you obviously armed or suspected (to whatever legal extent needed) of being armed, you are breaking the law as far as the LEO is concerned until you do show your permit.

Well wasn't actually Bud Adams that put Vince back as the starter last year? ....and I don't think NFL Europe exists anymore. I don't think it was quit as much mental for Vince this Sunday as it was purely skill (or lack of) against Pit's defense.

Yep...ended his 100+yd game streak

Yes.....but You buy the gun from the FFL in TN. Some point later you sell it to me while I'm a resident of TN. I then move to SC at some later point. Without any paper trail how do they know whether I was living in TN or SC when you sold it to me other than our statements? If you don't tell them or remember that you sold it to me, how do they even know to come to me about it?

Yeah yeah..... 7 turnovers and the only TD they could get was on the opening kick off....

I think most of the "threats" are coming from the other side. The closest the pro-carry side has come is stating they will not eat in a place that is posted. If the other side was simply stating they would not eat in a place that isn't, then so be it. Also as you point to in your other post, plenty of blame can be laid at the legislature for giving signs the weight of law in the first place, considering that does nothing to "prevent crime" which is supposedly the only constitutional way (TN constitution Article 1, Sec 26) the legislature can pass laws that effect carry of there otherwise recognized right to keep and bear arms. I agree with what you are saying about convictions of 39-17-1359, but one really shouldn't have to even think about facing that, especially at a place that hasn't posted by their own free choice. I guess more than anything is just the extreme case of not knowing when they've lost by the other side that is getting me..... We have had the law and logic on our side and I'm getting tired of their emotional tempter tantrums and trying to pull others into it..... Anyway....guess we'll see what happens.

If you dine at a place that has not posted, make sure to talk to the manager and thank them. While I guess it is working to some degree for the other side, I'm not sure "teams" of confrontational people are the best approach for our side. I wonder how many people from this group actually patronize these restaurants. You would hope the words/wishes of paying customers would mean more than those from an activist group. I'm not sure how restaurants have got places in the middle of this. I can't understand how this has got to be such a "burr in the saddle" of the other side. But anyway....

Good point about "titiled" items and their ownership being transferred. +1 on a good return.

Sometimes when you talk about signs you have to be more specific, especially when it comes to alcohol. 57-3-204(e) and 57-4-203(k) used to require that places that sold alcohol for off-site and on-site consumption to post signs that notified you of the penalty for carry in those places when they were off-limits. These signs never prohibited carry, only gave warning of the consequences. After the law was changed (in 2001 I think) to allow carry where alcohol was sold for off-site consumption, other parts of the law still required that these signs be posted. Previous to that no 39-17-1359 signs were required as carry was illegal by 39-17-1305 Even with the first restaurant bill in 2009, the requirements for the warning signs in title 57 were not removed even though it was legal, for a few months. However the new restaurant bill, SB3012 which is now Public Chapter 1009 removed parts 57-3-204(e) and 57-4-203(k) from the TCA in sections 5 & 6. Of course many places may not know the requirement of those signs has been removed and/or may not remove them, but only a 39-17-1359 compliant sign can "prohibit" carry.

I agree on both points...(unfortunately on the second) I don't think the commerce clause was ever indented to allow the Feds to control an item from production and then forever on.... thanks for the correction (have gone back now)....mind is starting to go I guess....lol