Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Belle Meade votes to amend city ordinance 11-602 by deleting it proposed ord. 2010-7

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Belle Meade votes to amend city ordinance 11-602 by deleting it proposed ord. 2010-7

    Today ordinance 2010-7 passed upon first reading. This ordinance amends current ordinance 11-602 by deleting it. This means there are two ordinances on the table, both have passed on first reading. The first, 2010-2, passed in February, illegally bans the carry of handguns. The second, 2010-7, passed this afternoon, deletes the city's weapons ordinance. Who knows what will happen at the next Commissioner's meeting. Stay tuned.

    link to today's agenda

    link to ordinance 2010-2, this has been defered monthly since February.

    audio of today's meeting


    Actual ordinance as it currently exists

    11-602. Weapons and firearms generally.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver, or any other dangerous weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand. However, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to members of the United States Armed Forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations nor to any officer or policeman engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process, or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committed crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or policeman to assist in the discharge of his said duties. (Ord. 71-6, 2.12. 1987 Code, 10-212)

    If 2010-7 passes people will be able to carry knives in the city again.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 08-18-2010 at 08:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Today ordinance 2010-7 passed upon first reading. This ordinance amends current ordinance 11-602 by deleting it. This means there are two ordinances on the table, both have passed on first reading. The first, 2010-2, passed in February, illegally bans the carry of handguns. The second, 2010-7, passed this afternoon, deletes the city's weapons ordinance.
    Good...
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Good job Leonard!

    You have effectively defeated one ridiculous law. Now those who wish to carry with various forms of protection in that city can do so freely.

    Well done!
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Taking advantage

    I like how in the letter they say you were "taking advantage" of the law rather than following it to the letter. Funny how at the end of the letter they say they want to balance the rkba with the city's "right" to protect their city. Idiots, government doesn't have rights it only has delegated powers. It is a crying shame what this once great nation has turned into . That being said I think I'll go throw up.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Thos.Jefferson View Post
    I like how in the letter they say you were "taking advantage" of the law rather than following it to the letter. Funny how at the end of the letter they say they want to balance the rkba with the city's "right" to protect their city. Idiots, government doesn't have rights it only has delegated powers. It is a crying shame what this once great nation has turned into . That being said I think I'll go throw up.
    You caught those comments too. Excellent.

    I also like this:

    "The commissioners became aware of this specific..."

    Might be trivial but it just seems funny to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    I picked up a copy of the proposed ordinance this morning. It still has to pass second reading and the 15 day wait.



    There were only three outcomes possible.

    1. Keep the old ordinance. It is valid under TN law, but questionable under the United States Second Amendment. May subject the City to a lawsuit.
    2. Get rid of their ordinance. One less law they have to worry about, but they won't make any money from a violation.
    3. Amend the ordinance and therefore have a law which has already been ruled unconstitutional by the TN State Supreme court plus it wouldn't be covered by the preemption exception. May subject the city to a lawsuit.

    I'm guessing by October Belle Meade's 2010-7 will be in effect.


    Laws/court decisions which further restrict guns in Tennessee after radnor lake and bellemeade 0. Laws/court decisions which put less restrictions on gun owners after radnor lake and belle meade 3 (mcdonald v chicago, guns in bars, belle meade).
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 08-19-2010 at 03:18 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    "This racially derived law remained on our books for 100 years, and was only recently brought to our attention by a gentleman who decided to abide by the law, while going for a stroll in our fair city. Shortly after we stopped him and our officers incorrectly informed him he was wrong, we thought it would be best to address the law like we should have done in the first place.

    We decided to harass him anyways, and in response to his law abiding behavior, we really reached deep down to find a way to deny the right to carry common self defense items in our town. Unfortunately, with so much overwelming proof of liberty in contrast to our inner desires to limit freedoms in Bell Meade through the guise of "our RIGHT to provide you with safety", we were forced to concede to lady liberty.

    We're going to point out that Leonard caried an AK with a "pistol grip" in a state park, in hopes to tie these two legal acts together to incriminate him. This way all of you opposed to legal firearm carry, can guffaw in his particular direction, while we try to find new and inventive ways to usurp your rights.

    In the meantime, enjoy the liberty that falls more inline with Constitutional definition.

    P.S. - Please do not come after our permissions slip process. It will make us lose revenue. "

    Sincerely,

    A somehow relevant truth



    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 08-19-2010 at 06:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    So what exactly did you change? I've been open carrying in Belle Meade for years and have never had a problem.

    All you've done was have them take a 100 yr old law off the books that they never enforced. The only good thing that came out of it was an attention seeker looking to produce a situation in an attempt to sue for personal gain got his permit taken away.

    Laws/court decisions which further restrict guns in Tennessee after radnor lake and bellemeade 0. Laws/court decisions which put less restrictions on gun owners after radnor lake and belle meade 3 (mcdonald v chicago, guns in bars, belle meade).

    As far as this quote goes, it's my understanding that your name was mentioned in at least one city voting on banning guns in parks which they voted no on. So actually your action did have a negative effect.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    So what exactly did you change? I've been open carrying in Belle Meade for years and have never had a problem.

    All you've done was have them take a 100 yr old law off the books that they never enforced. The only good thing that came out of it was an attention seeker looking to produce a situation in an attempt to sue for personal gain got his permit taken away.

    Laws/court decisions which further restrict guns in Tennessee after radnor lake and bellemeade 0. Laws/court decisions which put less restrictions on gun owners after radnor lake and belle meade 3 (mcdonald v chicago, guns in bars, belle meade).

    As far as this quote goes, it's my understanding that your name was mentioned in at least one city voting on banning guns in parks which they voted no on. So actually your action did have a negative effect.
    If I had open carried my ak pistol you're saying they wouldn't have been able to enforce their law against me? Remember officer Howell? She is the cop that said," I can't write him for not having a reflective vest." Then 3 joggers go by without any reflective clothing against city ordinance.

    Please cite where and when my name was referenced in banning guns in local parks.

    Your username is pretty enthusiastic for someone who comes in her and on their first post criticizes an open carrier who obeys the law.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 08-19-2010 at 09:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    I've been open carrying in Belle Meade for years and have never had a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    If I had open carried my ak pistol you're saying they wouldn't have been able to enforce their law against me?
    Actually, it might have gone better because of the Metro PD BOLO articulating that your AK was indeed a legal pistol, your permit, then, was valid, etc.

    I doubt very seriously...no, I bet you might even would have had another boring encounter, this time with BMPD.

    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    If I had open carried my ak pistol you're saying they wouldn't have been able to enforce their law against me? Remember officer Howell? She is the cop that said," I can't write him for not having a reflective vest." Then 3 joggers go by without any reflective clothing against city ordinance.

    Please cite where and when my name was referenced in banning guns in local parks.

    Your username is pretty enthusiastic for someone who comes in her and on their first post criticizes an open carrier who obeys the law.
    I'm saying that if you were to carry responsibly instead of begging for attention then you wouldn't be bothered at all and you would still have your carry permit. I open carry everywhere I go and have never had a problem and I have been open carrying for years. Then again I carry a pistol in a belt holster and don't seek to provoke confrontations with law enforcement in the hopes of a get rich quick scheme. I carry for personal protection, not to make headlines for 15 mins of fame.

    I was told your name had come up during the vote in Tullahoma and referenced your irresponsible carry at Radnor Lake.

    As far as my user name goes, I promote responsible open carry, not carrying for attention or to bleed a community with a frivolous lawsuit.

  12. #12
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    If I had open carried my ak pistol you're saying they wouldn't have been able to enforce their law against me?
    They probably would not have. You did say that they did not know about the law, even their own ordinance before you told them, didn't you?

    How could they enforce what they did not know about?
    Remember officer Howell? She is the cop that said," I can't write him for not having a reflective vest." Then 3 joggers go by without any reflective clothing against city ordinance.
    If you really want to retaliate against Belle Meade, park along Belle Meade Blvd and call in all the joggers and walkers not wearing reflective vests!! Clearly those folks would be violating the ordinance and by not wearing the vests they are endangering themselves and vehicle operators.
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by RussP View Post
    They probably would not have. You did say that they did not know about the law, even their own ordinance before you told them, didn't you?
    If you watch the video, Cpl. Goins actually acknowledges right away that he is aware of the law. He just states that it is an "old law" (Um. Most laws are "old").

    Quote Originally Posted by RussP View Post
    How could they enforce what they did not know about?If you really want to retaliate against Belle Meade, park along Belle Meade Blvd and call in all the joggers and walkers not wearing reflective vests!! Clearly those folks would be violating the ordinance and by not wearing the vests they are endangering themselves and vehicle operators.
    Again, watch the video. They clearly knew about it.

    Also, you missed sorely, the entire point behind Leonards commentary.

    I am hoping not on purpose.



    Procarryguy,

    What is your criteria for "responsible" carry.
    Also, do you feel your proscribed method is in line with Constitutional definition?

    Thanks in advance!
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  14. #14
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    If you watch the video, Cpl. Goins actually acknowledges right away that he is aware of the law. He just states that it is an "old law" (Um. Most laws are "old").
    Your comment is incorrect.
    Again, watch the video. They clearly knew about it.
    Yes, after Leonard recited facts about the law, they understood why he was carrying as he was. Cpl. Goins also stated they operated under State law, national law, and then he said under Belle Meade law. Note the sequence, slow. State law is first. Not Belle Meades "old" ordinance.
    Also, you missed sorely, the entire point behind Leonards commentary.

    I am hoping not on purpose.
    Please tell us, what is the entire point behind Leonard's commentary?
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by RussP View Post
    Your comment is incorrect.Yes, after Leonard recited facts about the law, they understood why he was carrying as he was.
    So you cannot say they were unaware of it. My comment is entirely correct.

    Cpl. Goins even expressed that he believed it was a "civil war law". So no, you cannot say he was "unfamiliar or unaware of it".

    Quote Originally Posted by RussP View Post
    Cpl. Goins also stated they operated under State law, national law, and then he said under Belle Meade law. Note the sequence, slow. State law is first. Not Belle Meades "old" ordinance.
    That sequence is nice and all, but you are once again forgetting that preemption applies to laws after the year 1986. Leonard has provided full, and concise documentation to this effect. So again, to clarify:

    Preemption does not affect this law.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussP View Post
    Please tell us, what is the entire point behind Leonard's commentary?
    Note he commented about the officer exercising discretion and obvious prejudice towards Leonard by stating that she would love to give him a ticket for not wearing his reflective vest.

    Note again that clearly, many joggers in the area do not even bothe to abide by that ordnance, yet the officer in question was certainly happy to "have that one in the bag" to pull out and use at her disposal, when she saw a law abiding citizen doing something she did not like.

    You cannot deny that's precisely what happened there.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 08-20-2010 at 11:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    If you watch the video, Cpl. Goins actually acknowledges right away that he is aware of the law. He just states that it is an "old law" (Um. Most laws are "old").



    Again, watch the video. They clearly knew about it.

    Also, you missed sorely, the entire point behind Leonards commentary.

    I am hoping not on purpose.



    Procarryguy,

    What is your criteria for "responsible" carry.
    Also, do you feel your proscribed method is in line with Constitutional definition?

    Thanks in advance!
    Hi Slowfiveoh,

    I believe responsible carry of a handgun is when you safely carry a pistol for personal protection. I feel it becomes irresponsible when a person forgets about safety and personal protection and carries simply to attract attention to provoke police into a confrontation. Doing so endangers himself and possible bystanders. What he did was technically legal but it wasn't in the best interests of pro gun rights. Also it wasn't in the interests of his personal safety or the safety of others around him.

    Guns are not toys and shouldn't be played with as such or used in an unsafe manor to simply sue for profit. Walking at night with a gun in your hand is simply unsafe for him and others who he might make contact with. Had he walked up on someone and they saw a gun in his hand most peoples first thought would be he's a nut who's gonna shoot someone. Many people don't carry so their first instinct would be to run away to safety. Possibly not thinking straight and being scared could have caused them to run into traffic seeing as how he was walking down the median.

    Had he come across someone who carries for protection he may have been shot out of fear. Or possibly cause someone to draw a gun and when you only have seconds to react you don't have time to explain and in self defense he could have shot someone. When your scared and your hearts pounding and blood is pumping though your ears you tend to not hear so well. There wouldn't even have been time for him to try and explain what he was doing to someone who was scared and reaching for a gun.

    What would have happened had he been shot by police? All it takes is a man with a gun in his hand to make people uneasy especially in this day and age where you hear on the news about someone going postal and shooting random people for no more reason than hating their job. All it could have taken was a twitch of his hand and he could have lost his life by an officer who was only doing their job and responding to a call about a man with a gun. Just the call alone puts an officer on edge going into an unknown situation involving a gun.

    Also he made it clear why he chose the AK pistol. He wanted a pistol that would get attention to make someone call the law. He stated that very reason before. I know a little something about AK's considering I have 24 Ak variants myself. I know what they are capable of and the damage they can do. I also know how a pistol version is less accurate and unwieldy since the platform was never intended to be a pistol. I have two SBR krinks, one a side folder, the other an underfolder and I have shot them with the stocks folded and know how its not a practical weapon for personal protection in an urban environment. Simply using an unwieldy weapon itself is unsafe much less one that fires a rifle round. Add the fact he was looking into using AP ammo and it's even worse. A person is responsible for a bullet that leaves their weapon. Seeing as how its impossible to see through walls, AP ammo is a very poor choice in urban areas. The fact that he doesn't think so tells me a lot about his safe handling of a firearm in public.

    Not to mention he knew in advance that he would be in a confrontation with police. That was his reason behind painting the tip orange because police don't shoot people with airsoft guns. A responsible person would never go out in public intentionally looking to start a confrontation with police involving guns. That's unsafe for himself, police and any innocent bystanders. Guns are not to be played with in an unsafe manor, period.

    Same with the Belle Meade incident. The caller was not someone who happened by and saw Leonard with a gun. That was someone who called for Leonard so he could try and make that confrontation as safe for himself as possible. Does anyone really think someone could identify a black powder pistol driving by while someone was walking with it in their hand with the sun going down? Also they said he looked like a nice guy, like a doctor. What about him looked like a doctor? I've met a lot of doctors in my life and I never saw one with a gun in their hand and a reflective vest. That was added into the call to make Leonard appear to be less dangerous to help keep him from getting shot by police.

    Living in Tennessee and being an avid gun collector and shooting enthusiast I've heard of Leonard and have read all about his actions to sue for profit. He's been quite clear about his intentions from the start and they have nothing to do with fighting for gun rights. The majority of the masses are simple sheep when it comes to guns and know nothing about them except what they see in action movies and hear on the news being reported by a biased left wing media outlet.

    Things are changing for the better as far as gun rights go and now is the time to educate people about guns and gun safety, not to frighten them by attention grabbing, in your face confrontations with police. That's in no way what so ever to get people who are in the middle to come to our side.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    ...well thought out reply here...
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Hi Slowfiveoh
    Hello to you too! Please note that I do not know you, and you have not presented yourself to be capricious, nor pretentious, so I will say to you now that nothing I am about to say is meant as a personal insult or degredation of your character.

    Ok?

    Cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    I believe responsible carry of a handgun is when you safely carry a pistol for personal protection.
    As to the application of Constitutionality, do you feel that your limitation of personal defense weapons is truly, and specifically limited to "pistols"?

    Just curious as to your take on this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    I feel it becomes irresponsible when a person forgets about safety and personal protection and carries simply to attract attention to provoke police into a confrontation. Doing so endangers himself and possible bystanders. What he did was technically legal but it wasn't in the best interests of pro gun rights. Also it wasn't in the interests of his personal safety or the safety of others around him.
    I think this statement is a reaction of irrational fear that is wholly parallel to the claims that antis make. As firearms enthusiasts we often get caught up in our own personal bubble of what is "appropriate" or not. Heck you can see this dissent on this forum all day long, every day. All of these little impositions that are somehow rationalized away, only to realize that one mans rationality is not a spotless mirror of anothers.

    You may believe that your way is right. The reality is that we all must understand that to be truly equal, we need to cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free.

    Despite the well worded scenario you have provided as being "dangerous", the only danger imposed is that of the reaction of the police, or the law abiding citizen you and another poster before you, have determined will simply shoot a man for having a firearm in the hand.

    If anything, this is just another level of fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment. I understand you do not agree with Leonards carry, but many shooters don't believe you need that underfolder either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Guns are not toys and shouldn't be played with as such or used in an unsafe manor to simply sue for profit. Walking at night with a gun in your hand is simply unsafe for him and others who he might make contact with.
    I did not see any handling on Leonards behalf that would, or could, in any way be construed as "played with like a toy". I did however see an officer who claimed to be a NRA Pistol Instructor handle the firearm in such a manner.

    Is it your assessment that merely by abiding by the law in Bell Meade, that Leonards carry directly forced the officer to handle the pistol in an unsafe manner?

    If this law was so unsafe, why was this activity legalized in the first place?

    Might it be that the activity itself is safe, and that it is inappropriate societal fallacies that have allowed themselves to be normalized?

    I do believe the latter to be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Had he walked up on someone and they saw a gun in his hand most peoples first thought would be he's a nut who's gonna shoot someone.
    Without a doubt the first thing a lot of people think when they see an open carrier.

    You cannot change a thing, without challenging it, or addressing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Many people don't carry so their first instinct would be to run away to safety. Possibly not thinking straight and being scared could have caused them to run into traffic seeing as how he was walking down the median.
    You do know that the presence of a firearm has been affirmed as not being legal basis for a charge of "disturbing the peace" yes? It does not clarify that the presence of a "'properly holstered' firearm" either.

    Since it is a normalized activity, as well as one that is specified by Bell Meade law, I think one would have quite a case to present were they to jump unreasonably into traffic because of a firearm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Had he come across someone who carries for protection he may have been shot out of fear.
    Classic officer rebuttal for simple open carry. Just thought I would point that out. This is along the lines of "thugs will target you because you have the gun".

    This same type of rationality would lead one to believe that they were justified in shooting for no reason at all. If the mere presence of a firearm in the hand were all that were needed, then so could the statement apply to other objects of less lethality.

    BANG!

    Oops.

    Cell Phone.

    My bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Or possibly cause someone to draw a gun and when you only have seconds to react you don't have time to explain and in self defense he could have shot someone.
    This is why it would behoove people to learn the qualities of tactical assessment.

    The "seconds to react" argument is unsustainable. Such ambiguity lends itself to flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    When your scared and your hearts pounding and blood is pumping though your ears you tend to not hear so well. There wouldn't even have been time for him to try and explain what he was doing to someone who was scared and reaching for a gun.
    Which all justifies cold blooded murder. Yes?

    If it does not, then clearly there is something wrong with the assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    What would have happened had he been shot by police? All it takes is a man with a gun in his hand to make people uneasy especially in this day and age where you hear on the news about someone going postal and shooting random people for no more reason than hating their job. All it could have taken was a twitch of his hand and he could have lost his life by an officer who was only doing their job and responding to a call about a man with a gun. Just the call alone puts an officer on edge going into an unknown situation involving a gun.
    Well it's a good thing he is a law abiding citizen and was not brandishing the firearm. hence why despite your hypothetical scenario, he was not shot.

    Most people are killed when told not to move by an officer and they proceed to pull or reach for something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Also he made it clear why he chose the AK pistol. He wanted a pistol that would get attention to make someone call the law. He stated that very reason before. I know a little something about AK's considering I have 24 Ak variants myself. I know what they are capable of and the damage they can do. I also know how a pistol version is less accurate and unwieldy since the platform was never intended to be a pistol.
    Great!

    So you know that the firearm is more clunky to use as a defense firearm, and that the mass-murdering that certain posters have claimed quite frankly would be very difficult to pull off with that firearm.

    Any engagement, at any time, possesses the possibility for collateral damage. Attaching firearm models to said truth is absolutely pointless.

    You can knock over granny at 200m with an errant .357 shot. .357 should not be carried for personal protection. Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    I have two SBR krinks, one a side folder, the other an underfolder and I have shot them with the stocks folded and know how its not a practical weapon for personal protection in an urban environment.
    Pretty hard to mass murder and kill people with then I would imagine. Right?

    --Inaccurate
    --Lack of stock aids muzzle climb
    --Terrible sighting system precludes consistent sight picture
    --Weight bias of firearm drastically reduces presentation.

    Sounds like if anything, Leonard would have had a tough time defending himself.

    Here we go with the "practical weapon" thing again.

    People should ONLY carry .22lr

    That's my take.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Simply using an unwieldy weapon itself is unsafe much less one that fires a rifle round. Add the fact he was looking into using AP ammo and it's even worse. A person is responsible for a bullet that leaves their weapon. Seeing as how its impossible to see through walls, AP ammo is a very poor choice in urban areas. The fact that he doesn't think so tells me a lot about his safe handling of a firearm in public.
    People are certainly responsible for the round that leaves the weapon.

    Which is why officers miss 2/3's of their shots in a role that supposedly necessitates high levels of marksmanship. All with 9mm's and .40's.

    I would bet Leonard (and any OC'er on this board for that matter, even YOU) could do better than most police officers.

    I will simply word it like this--

    *Please provide for me a list of rounds you deem safe for urban use*

    Go a step further even. Send said list to your congressman. Share your firearms enthusiast/collector background, and use that to propel an "era of responsibility" by submitting said list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Not to mention he knew in advance that he would be in a confrontation with police. That was his reason behind painting the tip orange because police don't shoot people with airsoft guns. A responsible person would never go out in public intentionally looking to start a confrontation with police involving guns. That's unsafe for himself, police and any innocent bystanders. Guns are not to be played with in an unsafe manor, period.
    Unfortunately, for those angry about the orange tip, Leonard proved his point beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    The ranger did in fact stop and ask him if it was airsoft, easing the ranger into a conversation.

    A criminal wouldnt have bothered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Same with the Belle Meade incident. The caller was not someone who happened by and saw Leonard with a gun. That was someone who called for Leonard so he could try and make that confrontation as safe for himself as possible.
    Do you have proof of this, or is this meaningless supposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Does anyone really think someone could identify a black powder pistol driving by while someone was walking with it in their hand with the sun going down? Also they said he looked like a nice guy, like a doctor. What about him looked like a doctor? I've met a lot of doctors in my life and I never saw one with a gun in their hand and a reflective vest.
    I would not worry any at all if he just had it in his hand. Remember, I am armed too. Maybe dude couldnt afford a holster.

    Peole are weird sometimes though. Maybe guy literally thought it was one of his practicioners. Who knows.

    [QUOTE=Procarryguy;1336091]That was added into the call to make Leonard appear to be less dangerous to help keep him from getting shot by police.

    This is more supposition.

    We could sit and theorize about aliens and ufo's too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Living in Tennessee and being an avid gun collector and shooting enthusiast I've heard of Leonard and have read all about his actions to sue for profit. He's been quite clear about his intentions from the start and they have nothing to do with fighting for gun rights.
    Yet the citizens of Bell Meade may now LEGALLY arm themselves, as well as carry any protection they really want so long as it is not a NFA or CLass III item due to Leonards actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    The majority of the masses are simple sheep when it comes to guns and know nothing about them except what they see in action movies and hear on the news being reported by a biased left wing media outlet.
    I agree.

    To be fair though, many purported "firearms enthusiasts" are too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    Things are changing for the better as far as gun rights go and now is the time to educate people about guns and gun safety, not to frighten them by attention grabbing, in your face confrontations with police. That's in no way what so ever to get people who are in the middle to come to our side.
    Education has been going on for YEARS. Education was going on when the Brady Bunch was pushing their acts. It is only when introduced to an economy where departmental budgets are getting cut and officers laid off, coupled with rising crime rates due to unemployment and stress that the truth of the 2nd Amendment begins to reveal itself unto the masses.

    Open Carry in and of itself in most states was something that people would respond to just as you have in regards to Leonard. Many have in fact responded that same way.

    "Blood in the streets"
    "People will start shooting each other!"


    Yet it never happens.

    Thanks for your thoughts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  18. #18
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Remember officer Howell? She is the cop that said," I can't write him for not having a reflective vest."...
    Exactly when did she say that and to whom?

    slow, you are the Belle Meade audio expert. Perhaps you want to respond.
    Last edited by RussP; 08-20-2010 at 05:42 PM.
    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  19. #19
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    I'm saying that if you were to carry responsibly instead of begging for attention then you wouldn't be bothered at all
    Let's replace carry with pray:

    I'm saying that if you were to pray responsibly instead of begging for attention then you wouldn't be bothered at all.

    How about this, you fritter you rights away a little at a time and let the big boys take care of our rights.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    [QUOTE=slowfiveoh;1336259]Hello to you too! Please note that I do not know you, and you have not presented yourself to be capricious, nor pretentious, so I will say to you now that nothing I am about to say is meant as a personal insult or degredation of your character.

    Ok?

    Cool.



    As to the application of Constitutionality, do you feel that your limitation of personal defense weapons is truly, and specifically limited to "pistols"?

    Just curious as to your take on this.

    As far as carrying in public, yes I feel a pistol is not limiting a person's ability in self defense. By your way of thinking, why stop at a rifle caliber pistol? What about a sawed off shotgun shooting 00 buck? But why stop there, why not a 50 BMG? Surely limiting it to only a pistol for self defense in public is against the constitution. But if they did limit it to 50 BMG would that be fair? What about people such as myself who own NFA items. Should I not be allowed to carry a FA AK or UZI? What about a DD? I'm sure a 40 mm round would be a good deterrent to any offender wouldn't you say?

    There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Maybe you feel it's been drawn too close, but someone else might think it should be drawn further than you. So who would be right?




    I think this statement is a reaction of irrational fear that is wholly parallel to the claims that antis make. As firearms enthusiasts we often get caught up in our own personal bubble of what is "appropriate" or not. Heck you can see this dissent on this forum all day long, every day. All of these little impositions that are somehow rationalized away, only to realize that one mans rationality is not a spotless mirror of anothers.

    You may believe that your way is right. The reality is that we all must understand that to be truly equal, we need to cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free.

    This is where your way of thinking fails. You think the way people react to a man with a gun is wrong but they react that way for a reason. Just because you don't think it's right doesn't mean it's not the way it is. Sure in a perfect world we can all "cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free." But I'm afraid the world doesn't work that way and it never will. That's just the way the world is, nobody said it was fair.

    Despite the well worded scenario you have provided as being "dangerous", the only danger imposed is that of the reaction of the police, or the law abiding citizen you and another poster before you, have determined will simply shoot a man for having a firearm in the hand.

    If anything, this is just another level of fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment. I understand you do not agree with Leonards carry, but many shooters don't believe you need that underfolder either.

    There you go thinking outside of reality. You think its just a fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment but in actuality its people reacting to a situation in a way that mirrors real life situations. A man walking down the street at night with a gun in his hand isn't a normal situation that you see everyday. When people see this type of situation with a man walking down the street with a gun in his hand it's on TV and he's taking pot shots at people as they run for cover. In this day and age you never see a man walking with a gun in his hand down a street that isn't up to no good.


    I did not see any handling on Leonards behalf that would, or could, in any way be construed as "played with like a toy". I did however see an officer who claimed to be a NRA Pistol Instructor handle the firearm in such a manner.

    The whole act of him creating a confrontational situation is whats unsafe. For some reason you don't see that but I believe you're looking at it as "what should be" instead of "what is". There's a huge difference between the two.

    Is it your assessment that merely by abiding by the law in Bell Meade, that Leonards carry directly forced the officer to handle the pistol in an unsafe manner?

    From the video I watched the officer was pointing the gun at an angle into the median. I've seen the stills of people trying to show other wise but you can plainly see the red line drawn level does not follow the barrel.

    If this law was so unsafe, why was this activity legalized in the first place?

    See here you are trying to justify what was done in this day and age to a law that was written 100 years ago. You can't compare the two, they were much different times by which people in general viewed guns.

    Might it be that the activity itself is safe, and that it is inappropriate societal fallacies that have allowed themselves to be normalized?

    I do believe the latter to be the case.

    That's correct. But that doesn't in any way make what he did right in this day and age. People react to situations based on what happens now, not by what happened 100 years ago. I'm sure you can agree that times have changed and people are different than they were 100 years ago.



    Without a doubt the first thing a lot of people think when they see an open carrier.

    You cannot change a thing, without challenging it, or addressing it.

    You educate people in a way that makes them want to hear what you have to say. Not scare them into thinking your way is right. You can't force someone to change their way of thinking or scare them into it. Many people feel that gun collectors are nuts anyhow. How do you feel dressing down in camo and walking through a park with a gun that looks like one people only see on TV when the news is showing footage if Afghanistan is in any way showing them we aren't nuts?



    You do know that the presence of a firearm has been affirmed as not being legal basis for a charge of "disturbing the peace" yes? It does not clarify that the presence of a "'properly holstered' firearm" either.

    I never said it was.

    Since it is a normalized activity, as well as one that is specified by Bell Meade law, I think one would have quite a case to present were they to jump unreasonably into traffic because of a firearm.

    Carrying a gun in the hand walking through town is not a normalized activity, that's why we are having this discussion now. Like I said before, you're trying to justify what someone did by a law that was socially accepted 100 years ago, not today.



    Classic officer rebuttal for simple open carry. Just thought I would point that out. This is along the lines of "thugs will target you because you have the gun".

    This same type of rationality would lead one to believe that they were justified in shooting for no reason at all. If the mere presence of a firearm in the hand were all that were needed, then so could the statement apply to other objects of less lethality.

    BANG!

    Oops.

    Cell Phone.

    My bad.

    I'm not sure if you're married and have children but if you do, how comfortable would you feel if you just dropped your child off at school and when you were leaving you saw a man walking toward your child wearing a trench coat, ski mask with an AK pistol in his hand? I'm sure it wouldn't bother you in the least and would drive off feeling your child is safe and secure because the gentleman did nothing wrong since a trench coat and ski mask are not illegal and he is obviously a good citizen for caring enough about his safety that he would carry the proper firearm for protection. Am I right?

    The fact is people are a product of their environment and seeing a man dressed to look like a thug carrying a gun people associate with terrorists only cause alarm and fear. It doesn't show them how safe they are, it leads them to believe we need stricter gun laws to keep things like that from happening.



    This is why it would behoove people to learn the qualities of tactical assessment.

    The "seconds to react" argument is unsustainable. Such ambiguity lends itself to flaws.



    Which all justifies cold blooded murder. Yes?

    If it does not, then clearly there is something wrong with the assessment.

    I call it being justified. If a person would have walked up on me in the dark with a gun in his hand I could only assume he means trouble because normal law abiding citizens would not do such a thing. It's part of being aware of your surroundings. Maybe where you live people walk up to you in the dark with a gun all the time and mean no harm but where I'm from walking up on a man in the dark with a gun in your hand will get you shot. Who is to say it's wrong? The man on the ground with a gun in his hand and a massive chest wound? No he's not saying much, the report will be one sided and told by the man who was in fear for his life in what would appear to anyone to be a justified shooting. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but there is only one side to the story being told. So I feel if a law abiding citizen doesn't want to be shot dead, don't carry a gun in an intimidating fashion in the dark on a public street.



    Well it's a good thing he is a law abiding citizen and was not brandishing the firearm. hence why despite your hypothetical scenario, he was not shot.

    He was not shot because he was trying to fabricate a confrontation but in the safest way he thought he could. Just because he wasn't shot this time doesn't mean he couldn't get shot the next time.

    Most people are killed when told not to move by an officer and they proceed to pull or reach for something.

    Can you post links to prove this?



    Great!

    So you know that the firearm is more clunky to use as a defense firearm, and that the mass-murdering that certain posters have claimed quite frankly would be very difficult to pull off with that firearm.

    See this is where you fail again. Accurate fire isn't the only way to kill or harm someone. A blind man with a semi auto AK pistol pulling the trigger repeatedly in a room full of people can kill many innocents without aiming could he not?

    Any engagement, at any time, possesses the possibility for collateral damage. Attaching firearm models to said truth is absolutely pointless.

    This is where you are wrong again. A well placed shot by a person aware of their surroundings has less of a chance of collateral damage than someone firing off rounds out of an unwieldy weapon. Why use a sniper rifle when you could use an UZI? Because it does matter what weapon is used for a given situation. Sure a surgeon could use a chainsaw to remove a tumor but a scalpel would be a better choice.


    You can knock over granny at 200m with an errant .357 shot. .357 should not be carried for personal protection. Correct?

    You like extremes, no middle ground. You're to the far right what the Brady Bunch is to the far left. You think it's all black in white but it's not. That's why a lot of your thinking is flawed.



    Pretty hard to mass murder and kill people with then I would imagine. Right?

    --Inaccurate
    --Lack of stock aids muzzle climb
    --Terrible sighting system precludes consistent sight picture
    --Weight bias of firearm drastically reduces presentation.

    Sounds like if anything, Leonard would have had a tough time defending himself.

    Here we go with the "practical weapon" thing again.

    People should ONLY carry .22lr

    That's my take.

    Again an unwieldy weapon is more dangerous, not less. Kinda like a gang banger with a MAC 10. Sure he's probably not gonna hit what he's aiming at but the 6 people who were standing around the intended target are dead or wounded. Again your point was flawed.



    People are certainly responsible for the round that leaves the weapon.

    Which is why officers miss 2/3's of their shots in a role that supposedly necessitates high levels of marksmanship. All with 9mm's and .40's.

    Can you show proof of this or did you read that on the Brady website?

    I would bet Leonard (and any OC'er on this board for that matter, even YOU) could do better than most police officers.

    I doubt Leonard would. I remember seeing a post awhile back of him saying he didn't need the practice. Maybe it was on ARFcom, I can't remember exactly. I've never met a person yet who didn't need to train to be able to better handle a gun or an adverse situation. You can't plan for everything, that's the point of training as best you can.

    I will simply word it like this--

    *Please provide for me a list of rounds you deem safe for urban use*

    So by your way of thinking any and all calibers are perfectly fine for every situation? I thought I had read in one of your posts that you have a military background? If that's the case you should know that certain calibers and bullet types are better for certain situations. If not then maybe you should double check your training and question your trainer as to why you weren't trained properly. You can clear a room with a bazooka but I wouldn't recommend it.

    Go a step further even. Send said list to your congressman. Share your firearms enthusiast/collector background, and use that to propel an "era of responsibility" by submitting said list.



    Unfortunately, for those angry about the orange tip, Leonard proved his point beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    Proving a point and being lucky are two different things. Even a blind pig finds and acorn every now and then.

    The ranger did in fact stop and ask him if it was airsoft, easing the ranger into a conversation.

    That didn't ease the ranger into a conversation, that made him wonder why a grown man would have a real gun painted to look like a toy. Something wasn't right which led to Leonard spread eagle on the grown after being told to lay the weapon down.

    A criminal wouldnt have bothered.

    A responsible citizen wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with if they carried correctly.



    Do you have proof of this, or is this meaningless supposition?

    Can you prove I'm wrong?



    I would not worry any at all if he just had it in his hand. Remember, I am armed too. Maybe dude couldnt afford a holster.

    So people can generally afford a pistol but not a holster? Now you're just reaching. And you being armed too doesn't matter because your gun is holstered. A man with a gun in his hand would have you dead to rights before you could draw.

    Peole are weird sometimes though. Maybe guy literally thought it was one of his practicioners. Who knows.

    You're reaching again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    That was added into the call to make Leonard appear to be less dangerous to help keep him from getting shot by police.

    This is more supposition.

    You've made a lot of assumptions yourself about Leonard, about his ability to effectively handle his unwieldy gun. Him being a better shot than most cops. Are your assumptions in some way better than mine? Are yours more educated than mine which would make your assumptions correct and mine wrong?

    We could sit and theorize about aliens and ufo's too.

    Yes we could.



    Yet the citizens of Bell Meade may now LEGALLY arm themselves, as well as carry any protection they really want so long as it is not a NFA or CLass III item due to Leonards actions.

    Citizens could already arm themselves. Like I said, I open carry there all the time and have for years with no problems at all same as friends I have there. You simply made this statement up to help justify what he did when in fact what he did had no positive effect at all.


    I agree.

    To be fair though, many purported "firearms enthusiasts" are too.



    Education has been going on for YEARS. Education was going on when the Brady Bunch was pushing their acts. It is only when introduced to an economy where departmental budgets are getting cut and officers laid off, coupled with rising crime rates due to unemployment and stress that the truth of the 2nd Amendment begins to reveal itself unto the masses.

    Open Carry in and of itself in most states was something that people would respond to just as you have in regards to Leonard. Many have in fact responded that same way.

    "Blood in the streets"
    "People will start shooting each other!"


    Yet it never happens.

    People weren't put in danger by responsible carrying of a pistol. They weren't fabricating situations in the hopes someone would call the law to cause a confrontation which is what Leonard is doing. He has already said he has plans to cause more attention. How far is too far? If he continues to not be able to collect on a fabricated law suit, how far would he go to get money that he somehow feels he deserves? Eventually he'll push too far with the wrong person. Maybe it'll be a twitchy gun hand in front of a rookie cop or walking up in the dark on the wrong person with a gun in his hand. Who knows but whatever the outcome, a person can't keep knowingly make bad decisions without having to face consequences.

    Thanks for your thoughts.
    1

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Let's replace carry with pray:

    I'm saying that if you were to pray responsibly instead of begging for attention then you wouldn't be bothered at all.

    How about this, you fritter you rights away a little at a time and let the big boys take care of our rights.
    Sorry I'm afraid that doesn't even work in the same context. What else do you have? Do you have a rebuttal that's more in line with the rest of the conversation?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Procarryguy View Post
    So what exactly did you change? I've been open carrying in Belle Meade for years and have never had a problem.
    In later posts you go on about "responsibly carrying a firearm", but up until now, it has previously been illegal to openly carry a firearm in Belle Meade unless it was a Army or Navy pistol carried openly in the hand.

    You state that you've been OC'ing in Belle Meade for years. Please explain how breaking the law fits into the definition of responsibility you are castigating Leonard for not fitting into.

    Between the two of you, which one hasn't intentionally broken the law?

    Who's the responsible one?

    Well?........

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    I'd like to point out that Belle Meade's law has been enforced at a State level many times. Cases of people carrying a pocket pistols, army pistols in holsters, concealed pistols, etc have all been prosecuted. Many have made it to the State Supreme Court which has always decided that the law is valid and enforceable.

    Look up the following cases:

    wilburn v state
    coffee v state
    maupin v state
    porter v state
    andrews v state
    robinson v state
    dycus v state
    heaton v state
    barton v state
    kendall v state
    thomas v state


    It is clear that the army navy laws were enforceable in the past and could be enforced upon people now. There are many communities across the State with these laws on the books. Nashville has an army navy law, but the law allows for other carry options as well. Knoxville has an army navy law. In fact, Knoxville uses the preemption exception law, TCA 39-17-1314(a), to prohibit guns in parks. These are enforcable laws, period.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    In later posts you go on about "responsibly carrying a firearm", but up until now, it has previously been illegal to openly carry a firearm in Belle Meade unless it was a Army or Navy pistol carried openly in the hand.

    You state that you've been OC'ing in Belle Meade for years. Please explain how breaking the law fits into the definition of responsibility you are castigating Leonard for not fitting into.

    Between the two of you, which one hasn't intentionally broken the law?

    Who's the responsible one?

    Well?........
    You mean like Leonard carrying in Library where it's illegal to carry? Is that what you're talking about?


    I hate to break it to you friend but it's been totally legal to carry in Belle Meade since the state of TN started issuing handgun carry permits. If I was breaking the law you would have thought I would have been stopped by now in all the years I've open carried there. I wonder how my friends get away with open carrying there since they live there and all. Hmm really makes you think huh?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I'd like to point out that Belle Meade's law has been enforced at a State level many times. Cases of people carrying a pocket pistols, army pistols in holsters, concealed pistols, etc have all been prosecuted. Many have made it to the State Supreme Court which has always decided that the law is valid and enforceable.

    Look up the following cases:

    wilburn v state
    coffee v state
    maupin v state
    porter v state
    andrews v state
    robinson v state
    dycus v state
    heaton v state
    barton v state
    kendall v state
    thomas v state


    It is clear that the army navy laws were enforceable in the past and could be enforced upon people now. There are many communities across the State with these laws on the books. Nashville has an army navy law, but the law allows for other carry options as well. Knoxville has an army navy law. In fact, Knoxville uses the preemption exception law, TCA 39-17-1314(a), to prohibit guns in parks. These are enforcable laws, period.
    So um, which one of those have anything to do with Belle Meade? You'll have to point it out to me cause I couldn't find it. Does it only apply to outsiders cause my friends have their carry permit and have so since TN started issuing them. I wonder if they know it's illegal.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •