BigPoppa

best thread ever

I agree 100% and I strongly urge all of our female HCP students to avoid purse carry. The obvious reason is that if the purse is stolen, the snatcher is now armed. But another and IMO more important reason is that purse carry gives women a false sense of security. Yes, they have a gun but it's not somewhere that they can quickly and firmly access it in an emergency. As has been stated, it's much tougher for women, but worth the trouble. The place for a gun is ON YOUR PERSON. Ladies, find a way to make it happen.

LOL. free beefcake with every hog...........................

We're looking good that this course will have enough sign up to run it. If you want in, now's the time. Last one until the Spring. Remember kids, shotguns are cool..............

Thanks Phillip. I knew we'd all get on the same page

Gunner, Please come back to your thread. I'm sorry we ran you off

Seriously, sometimes these discussions are like the movie "Groundhog Day". So, finally, no....we're not on the same page. Are you able to produce a case where a law-abiding Tennessee citizen using pepper spray or a stun gun or a TASER in legitimate, justifiable self-defense has been convicted ? If so, I'd love to see it. In the meantime, keep selling that pepper spray...I'm sure you tell every customer that purchases it that it's illegal. Have a pleasant evening

You are not obligated under Tennessee law to volunteer this information, but you are required to answer truthfully if the LEO asks, and to provide your HCP card for examination. The officer may also, at his discretion, disarm you during the duration of the traffic stop or investigation. Bear in mind that your DL number and your HCP number are the same, and your HCP status will come up when your DL is run. IMO, it sets a cooperative, non-confrontational tone to let the LEO know up front that you are a HCP holder and that you are armed (and let them know in that order). Most LEO's will appreciate your honesty, and become more comfortable thereafter in handling the stop or whatever it is.

I've had mine for a year or so. Like most Rugers, the Carbines are heavy, chunky, dead nuts reliable, and reasonably accurate. The Ruger Carbine has a very simple manual of arms, very similar to a pistol. The Carbines accept Ruger pistol magazines, and I've also found some 20 round stick magazines. Ruger Carbines can be a fun plinking rifle, and a Home Defense gun that's nothing to be scoffed at. Maximum effective range is generally considered to be around 50 yards or so. The ammunition commonality and interchangeable magazines make the Ruger carbine/pistol combo an effective SHTF duo if you're concerned about such matters. IIRC, Ruger made less than 10,000 Carbines, and they've been out of production for a few years, so they're getting more expensive and harder to find. They've been selling for up to $ 700 on gunbroker.com. Check out rugerforum.com and look around there for some reviews. Depending on the trade, and the condition of the Carbine, I'd pursue this.

Some random thoughts from a Tennessee fan................. Somebody said Crompton should not be a starter in the SEC. That person is exactly right. The Monte Kiffin defense will be solid, but the offense is lukewarm at best and even a stellar defense can be on the field for only so long before they run out of gas. I have tried and tried to warm up to Lane Kiffin, and it's just not coming. I still believe Hamilton made the easy hire...someone available at that moment who didn't require a buyout. I will say that he has a lovely wife. The D will let the Vols hang around for a while, before it just gets to be too much. Florida 45 Tennessee 13

Hey Zeitgeist, We have a HCP class coming up in a couple of weeks......you can test drive my XD SC and knock out your permit course at the same time.

BIG fan of my XD-9 SubCompact Great ergonomics (for me), accurate, dead nuts reliable..........I like it.

Where there is enough information to determine, we can deduce that all of these deaths involved drug use, pre-existing health conditions, intoxication, struggle with police prior to arrest, etc.......nothing to indicate that TASER alone caused or even contributed to the deaths. TASER has been exceedingly successful in defending the multitude of lawsuits against it, soooo.................. If I Google long enough, I can find isolated instances of people dying after incidents involving bowling pins, salad tongs, leather moccasins, Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, etc.(none of which are expressly allowed in TCA either) but just because that item was in the vicinity doesn't mean it had anything to do with the death, or that the death wouldn't have otherwise occurred. I'm not a lawyer, nor a TASER dealer. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

List some cases where TASER alone and/or an aerosol defense spray alone were determined by autopsy to be the cause of death in a case. And yes of course, these items are listed in a Force Continuum.......as either "less-than-lethal" or "non-lethal" depending on the agency.

Meh.....it's mine. Hijack away. Your story sounds much more interesting anyway.

back story please..................................

creepy, unidentified creature corpse found in Panama. Video

While TASER/Defense Spray/Mace/Stun Gun, et. al. are not mentioned by name, the use of the word "device" and the description that follows can reasonably be inferred to mean them. And.............if these "devices" are lawful for protection of property, they must certainly be lawful for protection of life. 39-11-616. Use of device to protect property. — (a) The justification afforded by §§ 39-11-614 and 39-11-615 extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property, only if: (1) The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm; (2) The use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances as the person believes them to be; and (3) The device is one customarily used for such a purpose, or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used. ( Nothing in this section shall affect the law regarding the use of animals to protect property or persons. [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Well, I thought I did know my TCA.....that's why I thought maybe you could point out something I had missed all these years. But, you still haven't directed me to where TASER/Stun Gun/Pepper Spray/Chemical Defense Sprays are prohibited under Tennessee law. In fact (unless you're working as a Security Guard) these items under Tennessee law aren't just not prohibited, they're not even mentioned. IANAL, but if something is not specifically prohibited, then it is allowed. You keep saying these defensive options are "technically" illegal....what does that mean ? Isn't something either legal or not legal ? That's kinda like a woman being "a little bit pregnant". You mention this in your post: Any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death that has no common lawful purpose. but the items we are discussing are not designed or intended for SBI or death; they are designed for temporary incapacitation of an attacker when used by law abiding civilians. Hence the name: non-lethal. And, self-defense is clearly a common lawful purpose. Finally, if pepper spray is "technically" illegal, why would you offer it for sale in your establishment ?

So, pepper spray is not legal in Tennessee, but you'll be happy to sell it to folks ?

Baton certification, yes, and not prohibited from purchasing a firearm, doesn't necessarily have to be HCP....thus giving another option to someone who may be opposed to using a firearm for self defense.

T.C.A. reference please................

I would NOT spend $ 299 on a SCCY handgun. $ 299 is at least a good start to a quality used (maybe new) handgun from a much more established manufacturer.

Passed along from a mailing list bulletin of a well-known local Firearms instructor. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. Online Extra September 10, 2009, 5:00PM EST Glock Pistol Used by Police Raised Safety Issues In the late 1990s, U.S. employees expressed concerns to the Austrian gun maker regarding the Glock 22 By Paul Barrett and Brian Grow Glock markets its weapons as "safe action pistols." But internal company documents reviewed by BusinessWeek—and reported here for the first time—reveal that in the late 1990s, company employees in the U.S. expressed concern about the safe performance of the Glock 22, a model commonly used by American police officers. If these documents had surfaced in injury lawsuits filed over the years against Glock, they could have created potentially serious liability trouble for the company, according to plaintiffs' lawyers. "Documents of this sort were requested in pretrial discovery by us and by lawyers in other cases," says Daniel G. Abel, an attorney who helped represent the city of New Orleans in an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the gun industry in the late 1990s. "These documents should have been disclosed in discovery. There is no excuse—no legitimate excuse—for their not being disclosed." Glock's general counsel, Carlos Guevara, said in a written response: "Glock pistols are remarkably safe and reliable, historically and currently, and are of exceedingly high quality.…When involved in products liability cases, we respond to discovery requests following the rules of the jurisdiction, evidentiary rules and practices, and pursuant to the laws of the United States and orders of the courts." Safety has long been a point of contention for Glock of Austria. Unlike most handguns, which have external on-off safeties, Glock pistols are equipped with internal mechanisms that prevent firing. These internal safeties are disengaged merely by depressing the trigger. The ability to fire immediately, without worrying about an external safety, is one feature Glock has stressed as an advantage when selling its guns, especially to police departments. Skeptics see this feature in a different light. The Consumer Federation of America has cited the Glock's design as one reason the gun has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits filed after unintentional shootings, including a number by police officers. The company has won or confidentially settled most of these cases without acknowledging any liability. Paul F. Jannuzzo, Glock's former top executive in the U.S., says in an interview that, overall, the company's pistols are as safe as comparable handguns—and more durable. "The one problem," he says, "was [the Glock] would go off sometimes when it wasn't supposed to." Occasional Jamming Another problem that surfaced in the 1990s and persisted for years thereafter was occasional jamming, Jannuzzo says. In 1998 he and other Glock officials in the U.S. discovered guns that failed to fire properly. "These malfunctions were very difficult to clear and could not be cleared with the normal 'tap, rack' drill," stated a Feb. 12, 1998, memo from American employees to Glock founder and owner Gaston Glock entitled "Performance of G 22s." "Law enforcement officers see this type of stoppage as a serious failure and one which has life-threatening implications," the memo added. "If these were received by the FBI or DEA [both Glock customers], they would immediately suspend the contract and demand a retest or other action." The memo described tests on eight sample guns that were fired more than 2,000 times in all. "In particular, we are concerned with the difference in the poor test results in the U.S., compared with the better results achieved in Austria," the memo told Gaston Glock. The company manufactures parts in Austria and assembles guns for the American market at a plant outside Atlanta. Four days later, on Feb. 16, Jannuzzo followed up with a letter to Gaston Glock. Jannuzzo disputed the contention by company executives in Austria that the malfunctioning pistols needed a "breaking-in period," after which they would work properly. This notion "flies in the face of the Glock pistol's reputation as being the best shooting semi-automatic 'out of the box,'" Jannuzzo wrote. In an interview, Jannuzzo adds: "It was a problem, and it was much more of a problem than they [executives in Austria] wanted to admit.…They never knew which guns were going to break." Guevara, the Glock general counsel, disagreed: "Each pistol undergoes numerous quality control checks throughout the manufacturing and assembly process.…Additionally, the firearms industry is highly regulated in the United States (and internationally), and Glock fully complies with all rules and regulations with respect to every aspect of Glock's business, including sales."

Almost too pretty to shoot. Congratulations !