chances R

Mailed it out this morning

Awaiting address and of course we will all need a review in several months.....

LOL. Bought Enuff to try,. Turns out any is way too much.

don't buy........I will send you some just to get rid of it.

Memo does state long guns permissible. As we all know the law states 'firearms'.

As I have said, sources and a memo address this topic. It is not addressed to me and was given to me with the specific request not to share it. I may have already compromised that trust to a degree as my position is probably the same as yours and just wanted to let it be known. My last post explained their position and why. I am over 21 as are all of my students and really therefore not a big concern of mine. Permitless carry is not a big concern of mine, but this forum may help keep someone out of hot water. I also will mention that an ATF agent and a KPD officer had the same kneejerk reaction to an under 21 person in possession of a handgun. How many have been arrested and charged is unknown to me. I will tell you the memo was written by an attorney fwiw. I would welcome a specific AG opinion on this, but how well has that worked out for the Knoxville Fair? It would seem to me that permits for active duty/honorably discharged military would have been self-explanatory and by common sense make this not an issue. Have also heard that may be tossed around during this session. Maybe something legislatively in non-ambiguous language would be the real solution.

This has nothing to do with a local DA, only the DOS/ HCP division at the state. My review of 1317 makes reference to 922 (g) specifically. In turn (g) seems to specify only FFLs not private individuals. Furthermore 922 as a whole mentions minors (<18) and seems to avoid specificity of 18-20. I do have a letter that I will share with anyone in person, but not on a forum.

Look, I also agree with OS and you that they are wrong. I have also mentioned in another thread about being careful with private transfers to the 18-20 group for this same reason. I am just simply putting the info out from my research, not opinion. Use it or not. At the top of my class I state I am not an attorney and not all things are as they seem. It is the best advice I have from training/ reading and trying to stay on top of a very fluid subject. They should seek professional legal advice when concerned. Again I don't like not being able to be more specific and I am simply trying to be informative, not argumentative. One step further, IMO, the DOS line of thought would fly counter to the military exemption for permits for 18-20yo but I don't want to muddy the water with reason.

Well having made the recent contacts and relevant calls, as well as having a letter from a state's attorney, I will simply tell anyone that is the way DOS says it will be taught in the HCP class. If you don't mind the time, trouble, and cost, go ahead and take a chance at carrying a loaded pistol in a POV if you are under 21 and see how it turns out. You are mistaken about 1307 and the relevancy of 922. Accordingly, the attorney says it prohibits a FFL selling handguns or handgun ammo to anyone under 21; that is the basis for their opinion/position. I never said I agreed with it, but that is their position. Got a problem with it........call the State.

Don't know......just the messenger. Spoke to the ATF, KPD, several not wanting to be identified LEO, state's attorney, etc inside administration and that is the answer. Simply did not make sense to me, nor is it the way I understand the state law. But if I am going to teach the HCP class that is the song I sing. As most things/laws, if you disagree, it will cost you to prove your point.

That is the same person that will suffer the consequences. There are few absolutes and no guarantees with the law. The color of justice is most often 'green'. As I pointed out in another thread, "permitless carry" is addressed by the DOS in the new HCP power point. After several discussions I can assure you that the DOS considers the regulation of an FFL per USC 922 valid reason for someone under 21 NOT to be able to possess a handgun in a POV. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but the simple thing is to have a HCP and avoid having a handgun until permit is in hand.

Well father-in-law has the carry which I shot quite a bit before buying full size. Carry is still larger in feel than my preferred shield, and even the M&P compact. I shot several IDPA matches with the full size 320 and in my hands again the M&P 5" pro is still the winner. But then again I have shot several thousand rounds out of the M&P platform. I was going to sell the Sig, but as OS has said they may become a little scarce so I may just hang on to it. OTOH is is still a super nice shooting gun, I was just laying it out for the OP on my experience, YMMV.

Rehash...go to safety briefing, stages will already be set. Listen, watch, ask questions. You will not be shooting first so you will get to see others shoot and learn by their mistakes or example. Don't worry about speed. Shoot accurately and obey all safety rules which are your basic 4. Most everyone at ORSA is helpful and new shooters welcomed. Plan for a fairly long day (about 3PM) . About 120 shooters registered already.

Own both. Prefer M&P in all sizes to the Sig. Sig is a nice gun, but a little more 'squarish" and bulky. Better trigger and accuracy. But is not as 'carryable'. Both dependable. Sig a couple of hundred dollars more. While modular, a new configuration will run you north of $300 and you still have only one gun. Resale, a toss-up. I simply shoot the M&P better and it feels better. More after market options right now but may change after the next several years. Both are quality guns.

Well let me know how that works out for you in New York or New Jersey.

"The plain reading of this basically means that TN can NOT grant a privilege only to it's residents, and deny those privileges to non-residents." Or in other words, ....basically means that the USA can NOT grant a privilege only to its residents, and deny those privileges to immigrants. Don't think that is the way it works in either situation....just sayin'

For $50 8 hours of entertainment ain't bad.

If you haven't been it is worth at least one trip. Then there is SMKW, Jfloyd, BPS.

Good article, thanks for sharing. Always have liked Chuck Hawks' reviews.

I have had one the past 4 years and would buy it again. I do only 9mm and .45ACP, but no rifle ammo. Have no reason to believe it would be any different for rifle ammo as well.

Get the app. Legal Heat

My swimming in public is of no threat to the public (unless skinny dipping) my carrying a handgun and firing it may have grave consequences. As CHL said, if me or my family is downrange, I prefer someone has training. People simply don't know what they don't know and that is unconscious ignorance. Knowing you don't know and not training is conscious ignorance.....

Thanks for making my point. The responsibility is way more complicated. One carries a gun 99.99% of the time, maybe 100% and never using it for SD. It is those times that weapon security, not muzzling yourself or someone else, child accident/death, property damage, etc is an issue. Some instances never making the news. Point shooting SD incidents still have an extremely poor hit rate, shoot through, property damage, and self inflicted GSW still may and do happen. Then not to mention the legal aftermath. On occasion a very black and white justifiable SD shooting occurs, but a lot of time it is not that clear and simple. Education is a necessity whether one chooses to do so is the question of responsibility, not government mandates, but the HCP class is just the tip of the iceberg. Sure to a point, but realize laws came first that permitted HCP and thus the need for training programs developed by the state. Prior early 90's it was purely political favor for the most part to get authorized carry, more expensive and limited. FYI, personally I do get paid when teaching a course, but not my primary job. The first couple of years I did it without compensation just because I enjoy teaching and felt the need to 'pay it forward' for those that had shared and helped me along the way.

JayC you have your "FACTS" but I don't think one can argue with reason any one of the statements I gave. I never mentioned anything about mandated training. In fact, IMO, none of the mandatory training by any state would be sufficient. Your police example is case in point. Training is an ongoing process, not an endpoint. I have seen hundreds of shooters and few with the gun-handling proficiency that would be desired in a public self-defense situation. I would venture a guess that the majority of permit holders don't practice once a year, and fewer still study the law and aftermath actions of a shooting. The 'blood in the streets' concept is understood, the exception would be it only matters if it is your blood or caused by one of your bullets.

From the Law Center to prevent Gun Violence: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/consumer-child-safety/minimum-age/#federal And the whole point of this thread was that this is info that is put forth by a State Agency, seemingly contrary to the law. I will investigate further, but I am interested in the statutory authority for this if true. I simply want to be correct in the information I put out. I know we have discussed this thoroughly before. Just surprised me to see it on this slide. In addition, the military exception recently enacted includes 18 - 20 yo so age cannot be the criteria.