Oh Shoot

  That town has really grown,  158 as of 2010 census!   - OS

  I don't think either alloy or either threading is gonna stand up to bashing your enemy with it like conventional stocked weapons of the past. Maybe not even once if swung like a bat.   - OS

Yeah, and can assure you that if you buy a "milspec" buffer tube, regardless of what it's made of, it will fit on a "milspec" stock. A "commercial spec" tube will not. Which is why companies like Magpul make both. So at least in this instance, "milspec" is only used by the industry to specify OD of the tube. And you can see the difference between the cut vs extruded threads, too. And yeah yeah, likely hardly any AR is precisely "milspec" anymore in the sense of the military procurement usage -- indeed, many are arguably better than milspec. - OS

  As far as the threads, it's my understanding the cut vs extruded has nothing to do with the type of aluminum, but only the diff between milspec and commercial spec.   Commercial starts with larger diameter tube and cuts the threads, while milspec starts with smaller diameter and extrudes the threads.   There are lots of "milspec" tubes that don't use 7075, as that term is really de facto used to designate the diameter of the tube rather than the composition of it.   - OS

  Seems gun appears on ground just about simultaneously with her last three shots, but not really clearly before, so I rule it all good. :)   - OS

Y'all realize it's     8 years.   It's a total boondoggle right now regarding the HCP. They are currently staggering HCP renewals to jibe with 5 year cycle to match DL. But starting 1/15, the DL starts being staggered to hit an 8 year cycle.   Of course, they didn't change the law for the HCP to match the 8 year.   So either they won't ever match for long,  or if the legislature manages to go Duh and change the HCP yet again, all this effort for about a year has been wasted.   What idiots.   - OS

  This article says it will be an option. Maybe that mark next to the slide lock is the "blank" for it.   https://www.all4shooters.com/en/home/pistols/2015-news/Beretta-APX-semi-automatic-pistol-9x19mm-9x21mmIMI-40-Smith-Wesson-IDEX-Abu-Dhabi/   - OS

Beretta's M9A3 was already booted from consideration, but I liked its looks better:

  It's true that a non-permit holder faces a Class A 'meanor for carrying on park property in addition to the Class A 'meanor for carrying anywhere under 39-17-1307.   However, I don't see much logic in a sign warning someone who is already committing a criminal act that he is about to commit an additional one!   - OS

  Sigh,  you didn't indicate that the sign was in any way incorrect. But it is, as that wording clearly communicates the contention that carry is prohibited anywhere in the park while a school related function is being conducted anywhere in the park.   Plus they are prejudiced against golfers. ;)   - OS

  Well, maybe they don't give change.org much credence for effectiveness, any more than the We The People one. Maybe whoever started the thing on change.org doesn't actually have anything to do with Walden, who knows?   - OS

  Which as I already mentioned does not mention the change.org petition that is the theme of the thread.   - OS

  Dunno. Maybe.  What's the "cross country running course"?  How far away from your activity would it be? I would think "immediate vicinity" would have to be "pert close".   One can postulate dozens of hypothetical encounter situations, and any number of those could be quite brief, too, like a cross country race that whizzes by you and is gone as opposed to sitting in the bleachers for a high school contest, etc.   All in all, I don't think it's going to much of an issue. It is structured so that you have the option of simply vacating the area after you know something is happening if you want to play it totally safe. And I don't foresee squads of LEOs running around with measuring tapes checking for guns or whatever every time there's a school related event in a park.   The point of the thread is being lost, which is that an entire park is no longer off limits just because a school function takes place on certain pertinent parts of it as per the sign in post one.   - OS

  TWRA does physical test and/or BAC for suspected operation of sail or powered vessel under the influence.   Don't know their powers or procedures for various non TWRA offenses, so no idea what would happen in the situation you postulate, but I imagine it would probably vary depending on one's actual behavior and the bent of the particular agent.   Ya know what though, I wouldn't recommend anyone doing that, and I wouldn't do it myself, 'cause even I am not a total dumbass. :)   - OS

  Just the harvesting and selling of personal info by change.org.   https://www.google.com/search?q=change.org+harvesting+email&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#newwindow=1&q=change.org+selling+data   - OS

  And only if the carrying and consumption occurs in confines of a public establishment that sells booze for consumption.   Beyond that, it's all a crapshoot though, and completely up to prerogative of LEO at the scene as to what happens next after he smells alcohol on your breath.   - OS

  That is all correct.   Though TNDOS can still pull a permit for anyone it deems who "poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public".   Which as far as we know has only happened when local LEAs petition them to do so (ala Kwik) or a public stink gets raised (ala James Yeager).   - OS

  No.    Only one type area within a park has relevance for no carry in immediate vicinity when used by a school, and a parking lot ain't it. I'll let you find out what that is, since you don't seem to know now.   The sign is no longer correct.   There are of course "gray" areas in the revisions to both statutes, but no more so than is the norm for TN weapons laws. They involve "know or should have known" and of course as always "immediate vicinity". Hell, "immediate vicinity" as far as separation of firearm and ammo has never been precisely defined either.   - OS

  You said in another thread "Since I teach the carry course I try and stay on top of such topics...." Not so much on this one, I'm afraid.   Both 39-17-1311 and 39-17-1309 have been significantly amended regarding carry in parks. In short, the "anywhere on the property" on the sign is no longer correct, and "immediate vicinity" only applies to a specific type of park area where school events may occur.   Research the the "carry in parks" threads here on TGO or the actual final passed version of the bill:   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/CCRReports/CC0001.pdf   However, as far as the sign having to come down at any given time, the answer is no, which is also prescribed in the bill.   - OS

I ran a '62 Dodge Dart at least 50K miles that way. Burned just about exactly a quart every other fill up. At some point I quit changing the filter too. Maybe if I hadn't would have gotten over the 225K or so that it did.   - OS

Oh, I see, it's a "thing".   http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/05/rip-andy-griffith/   - SO

3 years ago, eh?   - OS

  Already is, and you don't have to prove damage as an end result:  -------------- 39-13-103.  Reckless endangerment.   (a) A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. ( b )  (1) Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor;    (2) Reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony;    (3) Reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into a habitation, as defined under § 39-14-401, is a Class C felony, unless the habitation was unoccupied at the time of the offense, in which event it is a Class D felony;    (4) In addition to the penalty authorized by this subsection ( b ), the court shall assess a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) to be collected as provided in § 55-10-412( b ) and distributed as provided in § 55-10-412( c ). ------------   If folks are actually hurt, assault statute covers it. (doesn't have to be intentional, only "reckless")   If someone killed, we have reckless homicide statute.   - OS

  I got impression from article that they wanted warrants for reckless endangerment. Which actually sounds like they mean the state charge to me? And since done with a gun, a felony to boot.  They don't seem to be talking about the simple local ordinance of discharging a firearm in city/metro/whatever limits?   "He cites a Tennessee law that states reckless endangerment must put "a person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury". Nelson says shooting in the air, doesn't meet that threshold. Michaud disagrees, "I think if you shoot in a large crowd like that, you really are putting somebody in imminent danger.""   Then again, if it's like Patton's experience wherever that was - maybe they can't issue a warrant for that period? I dunno.   - OS

  My point though, if they can prove who fired them, it's still illegal to discharge the weapons even in a completely safe manner.   Of course, so is shooting fireworks there I guess, and both are likely the same level of local misdemeanor.   - OS