TMF

Either way his buddies will think twice before trying this again, or they'll get smart and take their criminal enterprise to Chicago where citizens don't have the tools to defend themselves.

I'm almost certain that a Deputy that was behind me in line at Kroger a few weeks ago saw the imprint of the butt of my pistol that I was CC'ing. Wouldn't have been hard for him to notice as I'm unloading the cart, especially the stuff underneath. Out of the corner of my eye it seemed as if he had been taking notice, or maybe he was admiring the view. Either way, he didn't say anything. I assume it was because I didn't look like a thug and had two kids with me.... all in context. However, had one of the employees had noticed and alerted the deputy I would figure he's obligated to investigate. Am I right LEOs or would it still be up to the discretion of the officer whether or not to engage me? This same scenario played out in OC I would figure would have the same results.

Can't we do both?

Probably for the same reason Chicagoans didn't care about gangsters during prohibition because they were only killing each other. It wasn't until the death of a few innocents in the crossfire that there was a public outcry and it became newsworthy. Even here in Clarksville there are some very active gangs and related violence. Nobody cares because it is all contained to an area that accepts this as normal and usually "victims" of crimes in that area were engaging in some kind of illegal activity at the time they were shot/stabbed/robbed/assaulted and so forth. If innocents started becoming victims then the police would start cracking heads and put the gangs back in their place, but for now the gangs understand that it's bad for business (drug trade) to do that. So therefore a relative peace exists.

But only kids younger than 18 are able to not look ridiculous using them.... ironic.

I think the implications here are the eyebrow raising part. Could this be misused? Sure. Will it? Not likely. Scanning plates in a public domain and only going after folks with warrants is no different than a police officer running random plate numbers as he goes about his business until he gets a hit. Unless this database of plates is being entered into some master database that tracks where everyone goes then I don't see a problem, but I'll admit that I get an uneasiness when technology like this is becoming commonplace at the same time Americans are caring less and less about the relevance of the Constitution and the principles of liberty. This same technology in a totalitarian government would be the scary stuff.

I'm still trying to figure out the "neo-nazi" thing since a story I read earlier claimed that the female victim was his girlfriend and her last name is Maderos... doesn't sound very Aryan to me. Maybe I just don't know enough about neo-nazis.

I'm sure it was a heat of the moment thing. His knowledge of the laws probably wouldn't have affected his actions. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that you can't kill someone who is running away from you.

This mayor temporarily forgot what state he lives in.

I store some in the garage and learned quick that ya gotta keep a good layer of CLP on them. With a good layer of oil you should be fine, but there is no way to reasonably dehumidify the space.

I'd say that it's possible, but the officer could have arrested him if he refused to produce a permit. I have a hard time believing that the officer had enough concern about him toting a pistol but was somehow okay with refusal to produce a permit. Interesting.

Well, I think it's a fair rule simply because it is the right of the business to make the policy, same as posting a gunbuster. If the business believes that by doing so it will be more successful then good for them. With that said, I don't believe that YOUR son is the target here, and I'm sure that if he was in the mall after curfew conducting himself properly he won't have a problem. This rule was made so they could target the undesirables who don't spend money and chase off business. Same for many posted businesses I'm sure. I don't think every business that posts is anti-gun, but they might not want someone OCing in their store and potentially chase off the sheep and their spending cash.

The first one I saw was after my first deployment when I went to Seattle. I was also surprised to find out that I was an oil hungry baby killer.

Yep, saw them at the memorial pillar when I was at the farmer's market in the fall. What a joke.

When I was a private I was required to have my sidearm on a lanyard so that us dumb privates didn't lose it while out in the field. We had those coiled lanyards that look like a phone cord. I hated that thing with such a passion that I still grind my teeth just thinking about it. It would get caught on everything I brushed up against, especially getting in and out of the vehicle. By the time the war started I was no longer in a position to have such silliness required of me, and I can't imagine having a lanyard on my pistol during the conduct of day to day operations.... climbing over walls, moving through structures, climbing through vehicles with snag points everywhere. The only folks I would see with lanyards on their pistols were fobbits. Police have to do similar stuff when chasing down bad guys so I can imagine that having a lanyard that is likely to snag on stuff is more of a liability than an advantage. Besides, if an officer is shot with his own weapon it is likely a result of a scuffle on the ground which would make a lanyard moot because it is such close proximity.

What if the robber has a dirty nuke strapped to him that is triggered by the stopping of his heart? That would negate having a weapon in the first place since you wouldn't be able to shoot him. What if the bad guy has welded together a homemade tank and goes on a spree of destruction? A handgun won't stop him... it's happened before... could happen again. What if, what if, what if. How 'bout just using common sense, law of averages and level of comfort to determine what your carry method will be?

Yes. I have my ADT sign posted in front of my house and a loud dog on the premises. This would deter someone casing my house for burglary/robbery. That person is just gonna look for a softer target, and that is in no way my problem. Deterring crime doesn't mean preventing a crime from taking place, it just means its being deterred from a potential target.

Walking barefoot past a sign that requires it shouldn't be a criminal act. Neither should carrying past a gunbuster. I've walked by at least one that I know of that I didn't see. That could have earned me a bad day if someone would have noticed, and yet I had no intent to break the law. Walking past a sign should only earn an invitation to leave, not fines and jail.

Unpopular doesn't translate to a lack of validity in my book, and I would probably have a different opinion if I were a teenager. However, things being what they are, we run on capitalism and I would always side with a business policy that focused on being successful. I also don't think that the teens who go to the mall for the purpose of shopping are going to be affected. I'm betting that this policy will be enforced selectively, targeting those that chase away business. The enacting of this policy accomplishes two things: sets precedent for the loiterers and sends a message to customers that have avoided the mall due to the presence of undesirables.

And this is why folks like me that have a family and large disposable income choose to order from Amazon then go to the mall and have our kids inundated with loud, vulgar and obnoxious teens. You can't see why businesses might adopt such policies?

Businesses exist to make money. Obviously the mall believes this will attract patrons that come to spend money that would otherwise be put off by crowds of loitering teens. Private property; their choice. If this policy backfires and there is a significant drop in sales expect policy to change, but somehow I don't think it will. I fully respect the right of a business owner to make money as much as I respect the rights of someone that takes their money elsewhere.

All much better options than the current system, which I believe restricts citizens of lesser means from getting their permit. I'm one of those people that didn't have to attend the course in order to get my permit. Somehow I was able to self educate with the information available from the state and didn't have to pay someone to tell me something I could easily find out on my own.

I agree that a mandated course as a vetting tool is pointless, but the education of the permit holder of the laws is the real thing folks should take away. Should folks have to pay a bunch of money for the education? Well no. The state could simply have a guide issued out with the permit or something like that. I would go so far to say that a test down at the DMV (same as for a DL) would cover it, but I don't believe that a test should be a requirement.

I don't think it's possible to prove that one way or another. I would just go with anticipating criminal behavior. Criminals are generally cowardly opportunists who prey on the weak and defenseless. It ain't much of a stretch to figure they don't want an encounter with someone equally or better armed. Not to say that couldn't happen, but it would not be evident of typical criminal activity.

I don't think that is true of the vast majority of OC'ers. The Kwiks of the world may do that sort of thing but I don't think someone who is OC'ing is doing so for attention. Some folks just don't let that attention bother them. Maybe I would OC if I wasn't so insecure about folks watching me; it would allow for me to use a much more comfortable holster for one thing.