Oh Shoot

  None of that is really relevant to the discussion methinks.   The disagreement is over the type of property covered by the statute, and whether that property changes status depending on who has control of it for a given time span. The recent change to allow carry didn't change any of the existing basic "definitional" parts of 1311 or 1359, which do not completely jibe.   - OS

  Here, and some other forums, there is a "paste as plain text" dialog, tried that?   Most word processing programs, unless they are purely text based, can bring some code along with default copy/paste that boogers stuff up.   - OS

They have him already.   How about the main thread, too, eh?   http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89729-memphis-leo-murdered/page-3#entry1292836   - OS

Haslam says,  "since AG's opinion has raised questions that may justify lawmakers reviewing the guns-in-parks measure for possible clarity."   The "questions" of course always involve how can we possibly allow the people we reluctantly license to carry to actually carry.   http://www.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/03/haslam-says-guns-in-parks-bill-worth-reviewing-for-clarity/31071349/   - OS

  Yeah, well, getting some of the big vendors to actually do that might be quite the trick.   That remains a good thing about Harvey's, he stays on file with most of the biggies, last 4 guns or so I've bought from various places, I didn't have to do a thing except select him during the checkout.   Just never heard of transfer shop that wanted an actual live signature on a copy of a sending FFL, certainly not required by law or anything.   - OS

SheepDog looks great, only 10 bucks transfer, BUT looks complicated. Requires an "ink signed copy of their FFL".   That means no emailed or faxed copy is acceptable, which of course is the way it's generally done. I can imagine trying to get this done with say PSA, where you generally can't get anybody on the phone to begin with, to send a snail mailed copy.   http://fightingsheepdog.com/contact-us/transfers/   - OS

Can't recommend Harvey's on Clinton Hwy anymore. Now that he's gotten more successful I guess, he jumped from 15 clams to 35! (+ TICS)   - OS

  Impressed me, points awarded! ;)   - OS

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89716-navy-officer-in-chattanooga-needs-our-help/

  Yep, unless Bill or the AG personally threatens some of these officials with contempt or something, will likely take test case to clear up. And depending on applicability of the venue in the test case, may take one for each type of area or facility.   The danger with the test case is that you get a chance of a judge suspending the statute as "vague" as happened in the first go around with the "guns in bars" thang, requiring legislature to tweak it.   Main possible problem as I see it is that 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1359 perhaps don't exactly jibe clearly enough for a higher court to totally agree with AG's opinion.   - OS

Tim's stuff is a shame to hide IWB, but that's a beauty and should serve ya well:

I have a feeling if that drone were under control of the NSA or whatever three letter agency, or local LEA, etc, most everybody would be against it?   But some of the same folks would say it's okay for another private citizen to do the same?   - OS

  Pretty difficult to wax and buff the interior of an already constructed holster, especially a closed end one.   - OS

  Never really thought about it, as I've carried two different heaters in leather holsters that got plenty wet with sweat over and over, never a prob (admittedly, though neither gun was "blued" - Ruger SP101 and XD).   This was a Hunter brand holster, which admittedly is among the cheapest of that type you can get for traditional single actions, but had never read anything about them eating a gun's finish.   - OS

  Amen to that. I've got a blued Single Six, got a leather holster for it, a bit too tight, did the saran wrap on it to stick in wet holster,  but didn't cover the barrel well enough. Really trashed the finish on about 3 inches of one part of the barrel. In less than 24 hours, couldn't believe it.   - OS

  Excellent. I doubt seriously that Cooper would have been that clear cut about it. Slatery has clearly delineated the intent and wording of the statutes involved without bending over backward to find gray areas as Cooper would likely have done.   Who says elections don't matter, even when your goobernator is a RINO?   - OS

  Seems obvious he wasn't even in the ballpark of transporting the firearms in the secure way that FOPA calls for. Firearms and/or ammo was readily accessible, and one seems to have even been loaded.   Also, case law seems to be quite iffy about stopping off on the way, seems to support only necessary stops for the completion of the journey.   - OS

  Excellent research. I'd posit that may prove to be a quite good legal leg to stand on.   - OS

  Well, until a year ago, sounds like he might could have been arrested in TN too. Also, federal property gun rules are an exception to all the others in TN regarding possession in vehicle.   So let's not get too carried away about how we've always floated off the ground with firearm freedom here.   - OS

  In TN too in some cases, as porch is part of your dwelling. But that has to do with deadly force to protect life and limb, not to protect property.   Are you suggesting that the drone meets the same test as using deadly force against a person?   - OS

  What law is that? Something specific to Kentucky? Or the city he's in?   - OS

  Or Nielsen one either. ;)   - OS

  He hit it with a shotgun well enough to bring it down, so that suggests probably 50 yards or less. You can get about any amount of detail you want from that distance with choice of focal lengths.   What if a person were somehow hovering 50 yards over your backyard -- would you not feel an invasion of privacy?   And of course the thing might have been a lot closer than that too.   - OS

  Sounds like wasn't transporting firearms according to FOPA, so that can't help him.   - OS

  Again, "permanently" attached has never been a criterion of any ATF ruling regarding a stock so I don't understand why all the stressing of that. Indeed, the only significance of anything being "permanent" in the area of SBR is a muzzle device counting in both barrel and overall lengths.   "Attachable" was also not defined at all in SCOTUS Thompson decision either, btw.   - OS