| Author | Post |
|---|
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:47 am |
|
33 Yes / 67 No
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 06:03 am |
|
Nice. The wife and I were talking about a trip down to Memphis and Beale St in the near future following the law change. That's off now as far as I am concerned.
TN is one of the highest crime rate states and Memphis is consistently in the top 15 most dangerous cities. Even if Beale itself is safe (and it generally is) one has to get from point A to Beale and back. With this new rule that means leaving my firearm in the car (dangerous in such a city) or traveling to Beale unarmed (dangerous in such a city). The solution seems to be to continue to not spend my free time or money in Memphis.
PS Yes I voted.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:51 pm |
|
Still 33 YES
67 NO
|
TFred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 1643 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
It looks like Tennessee needs some major help in "voting with dollars". We need some pro 2A restaurant owners to start speaking up, and to start offering to take the business away from all these brainwashed anti-gunners.
Gun bills backfiring
It looks like the legislature's Republican majority has created a fine little mess for itself by enacting all those gun laws.
All across Tennessee, bar and restaurant owners are slapping up signs to ban guns. Starting this summer, visitors to Beale Street will have to go through some kind of screening process to make sure they're unarmed. The Tennessee Hospitality Association says more than 80 percent of its members are banning guns.
"We still haven't been able to figure out the problem that existed that caused the need for this legislation," the association's Walt Baker says.
But Pith always thought the guns-in-parks law was the one that would really backfire on Republicans. It's one thing to endanger the lives of drunks and barflies. It's another when families don't feel safe anymore at their city park because a few assclowns insist on striding around with guns on their hips. Local governments are rushing to opt out of that law, and everyone's wondering what exactly lawmakers were thinking when they passed it.
In Murfreesboro, the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association is threatening to hold Spring Fling somewhere else unless the council bans guns in parks. The weeklong high school sports tournaments bring more than $3 million in tourist dollars into the city. Also in Murfreesboro, they're worried about whether guns in parks might violate Little League baseball's safety policy.
Says one former ump: "If [Murfreesboro Little League organization] Optimist has to cut its Little League affiliation because of this stupid law, every Murfreesboro council member and legislator in Tennessee should be required to line up and get whacked in the head by a 12-year-old with a Little League-approved bat. Those are the only weapons that should be allowed in a ball park." JEFF WOODS
|
SomeKid
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 01:16 am |
|
TFred wrote:and everyone's wondering what exactly lawmakers were thinking when they passed it.
By "everyone" they mean liberal anti-gunners in the media.
|
turbodog
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:11 am |
|
Remember guys, don't just hit the poll. Take time to give the news outlet your opinion of what Beale St is trying to do. Especially y'all from out of state. Loss of tourist dollars are taken seriously.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 08:49 am |
|
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?
An article I read about it sounded like the Beal Street Enterainment area is sort of like a City owned Entertainment "Mall". City owns the buldings on either side and are least to business entities. There seems to be some kind of dispute between the City of Memphis and the party that was contracted to manage the leasing. Anyway, the leasees have to agree to certain terms and such, like they would if they were leasing space in a shopping mall. The same "blanket" rule may apply in the Beal Street district as it would a major mall. Either you play by the City of Memphis Rules or get kicked out of the sandbox.
|
Xeni
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 18th, 2009 05:49 am |
|
Mike wrote: And keep hitting the poll fe "Beale Street Tactics"!
--
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=10551474
--
Somebody needs to file a federal lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 seeking an emergency injunction as violative of the Fourth Amendment.
Mike Stollenwerk
--
"Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country."
-- Judge Gerald Tjoflat, writing for the unanimous 11th federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel quashing the use of metal detectors to "screen" demonstrators in public areas on 15 October 2004 in
Bourgeouis v. Peters, Dozier, and the City of Columbus, GA at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216886p.pdf.
Mike, it would seem to me that this would be a pretty easy slam dunk 4th amendment case. Recently, in DC the DC police tried 'crime prevention' checkpoints and that got killed by the appeals court. I hate to say this to my southern brethern but the ACLU would probably take this case in a heartbeat.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200907/08-7127-1195636.pdf
Here's a good snipit;
We further conclude that appellants have sufficiently
demonstrated irreparable injury, particularly in light of their
strong likelihood of success on the merits. See CityFed Fin.
Corp. , 58 F.3d at 747. The harm to the rights of appellants is
apparent. It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive
upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other
city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their
access. As our discussion of the likelihood of success has
demonstrated, there is no such constitutionally sound bar in the
NSZ checkpoint program. It is apparent that appellants’
constitutional rights are violated. It has long been established
14
that the loss of constitutional freedoms, “for even minimal
periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)
(citing New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713
(1971)). Granted, the District is not currently imposing an NSZ
checkpoint, but it has done so more than once, and the police
chief has expressed her intent to continue to use the program
until a judge stops her.
III. CONCLUSION
In short, we conclude that appellants have established the
requisites for the granting of a preliminary injunction. They
have made a particularly strong showing of the substantial
likelihood of success on the merits and that they would suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The district
court did not address the other two elements of the preliminary
injunction test. Accordingly, we reverse the district court and
remand for further proceedings.
|
Neo
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Tue Aug 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | Huntsville, AL |
| Posts: | 58 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 05:30 pm |
|
Just found this thread and hit the poll
No = 30%
Yes = 70%
|
Current time is 11:25 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
