| Author | Post |
|---|
Neo Sharkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 05:26 pm |
|
I just voted, it's running 50/50.
|
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
49/51
|
carracer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Nampa, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 06:31 pm |
|
53% No
47% yes
|
Tex4OC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 09:20 pm |
|
I've been hitting this all day, and we're up to 56% but it seems like I'm the only one working it.
|
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 04:44 am |
|
We're at 59%.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 05:20 am |
|
I was able to pul the page up, but I wasn't able to vote. 
|
Barnett3006
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
just voted, 41% yes and 59% no 
|
Tex4OC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 11:13 am |
|
ok, got us over the hump to 60%, that ought to be enough to make our point!
|
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 11:52 am |
|
| Voted. 60% NO. 40% YES.
|
Flocker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 03:08 pm |
|
| 60 no - 40 yes
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Do any of you TN residents know the details about Beale Street?
What about setting up a protest outside Beale St. if police in fact do establish an illegal gun ban check point? I wonder if tourists will come to see the picket line too?
Damn makes me wish I was in Tennessee I would be up for this. This is a blatant affront to our liberties.
|
WCrawford
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 06:20 am |
|
Mike wrote: I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue.
Can somebody in TN take the lead on this, find out the particulars, and consider filing a lawsuit? Under Section 1983 prevailing Plaintiffs usually recoup atty fees and costs.
I think we need to take a stand now against "Beale Street Tactics" or every localitiy in the coutnry will start doing monkey see, monkee do policy making.
I just found this editorial about an ongoing lawsuit between the some of the controlling intrests of Beale Street. It clearly states the City of Memphis is the owner of the street.
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=42768
So would state preemption laws prevent the city of Memphis from banning guns here? Definately need someone more skilled in the law than I am.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 06:59 am |
|
WCrawford wrote: Mike wrote: I'm thinking some open carriers might need to try to visit Beale st. and be barred entry to ensure they have standing to sue.
Can somebody in TN take the lead on this, find out the particulars, and consider filing a lawsuit? Under Section 1983 prevailing Plaintiffs usually recoup atty fees and costs.
I think we need to take a stand now against "Beale Street Tactics" or every localitiy in the coutnry will start doing monkey see, monkee do policy making.
I just found this editorial about an ongoing lawsuit between the some of the controlling intrests of Beale Street. It clearly states the City of Memphis is the owner of the street.
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=42768
So would state preemption laws prevent the city of Memphis from banning guns here? Definately need someone more skilled in the law than I am.
Doesn't Tn Statutes allow municipalities to regulate firearms on such owned properties? Although, I'm not sure how that would play out since the City of Memphis leases the buildings to private entities for business purposes.
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:31 am |
|
The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.
Still, I hope it goes well.
|
autosurgeon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
NightOwl wrote: The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.
Still, I hope it goes well.
In my humble opinion the higher cost would either make some businesses change their tune or at least cost them more... not only would they be losing the business of firearms carriers but they would have to employ 1 or 2 guards per facility during the entire time they are open... I say it would serve them right!!!!
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
NightOwl wrote: The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.
Still, I hope it goes well.
I don;lt think so - the city owns the whole palce and it is run by an agent of them - [preemption should apply.
|
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Morgan, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 2582 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
Yes.
35%
No.
65%
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:42 pm |
|
Mike wrote: NightOwl wrote: The most a lawsuit would manage is to put the security guards at the businesses instead of at the ends of the street. Still a win, and resulting in a higher per-business cost to maintain the no-firearms policy for every business on the street, but a pretty similar end result. The security guards can do a metal detector pass (or require full nudity with clown noses, for that matter) at the businesses themselves, as it's the individual's choice to agree and enter, or disagree and not enter.
Still, I hope it goes well.
I don;lt think so - the city owns the whole palce and it is run by an agent of them - [preemption should apply.
I don't believe that is correct, though I most certainly could be wrong. According to this link it is a mix of public and private property (National Register of Historic Places application .pdf, it's a bit of a slow load): http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/66000731.pdf I'm understanding that as the street itself being public, with the businesses/buildings (some/most?) being private. I couldn't find an exact listing of who owns each individual property or what was owned by the city and what was private business not owned by them, for which I apologize.
I do want to clairify though that I support the effort. In no way should a public street be allowed an exemption to the law. I believe it should be up to each individual business to determine their own policy, but that policy ends at the property line.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
35 YES
65 NO
Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:47 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 01:54 am |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: 35 NO
65 YES
Dyslexic much?
Its the other way around...
|
Current time is 11:27 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
