Oh Shoot

Anyone not prohibited from gun ownership by federal or state law may have any type loaded firearms in his personal vehicle in TN for over a year now.   The "long gun without one in chamber" (for permit holders only) clause was zapped at same time.   - OS

  I have the Zastava M92 pistol. All I run is Russian steel in it, no probs of course, couldn't give you an actual grouping rating -- steadied down with brace umm, near the shoulder, hits tin cans pretty well at 50 yards and COM on torso at 100 with just the crummy rear sight.   - OS

Joe Armstrong, my long time commie anti-gun state rep gets indicted on federal charges, good for him:   http://www.knoxnews.com/news/state/state-rep-joe-armstrong-indicted   - OS

  Even if he had been illegally packing while walking down the street in public rather than having it in his vehicle, he'd be immune from prosecution for it under 39-17-1322.   - OS

  Unfortunately, seems that to be "immune", the shoot must be ruled justifiable by a court. The fact that one wasn't charged in the first place does not confer the immunity.   From later in that statute:   "...if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force"   - OS

  Your average OD (Doctor of Optometry)  is quite capable of ruling out any serious eye condition that would necessitate more advanced treatment from a specialist.   - OS

  Besides on me or in car, all my handguns are loaded and stashed around the abode -- I've actually misplaced one for a week or more a couple times, and not due to senility, only the size of the inventory. :)   - OS

  The classic joke regarding the little old lady who responds to cop inquiry:   "yes, I've got a .45 right beside me, a shotgun behind the seat, and an AR-15 and AR-10 in the trunk, with plenty of ammo for all of them".   Cop: "Good Lord lady, what are you so afraid of?"   Lady: "Not much of anything".   - OS

Wonder what the SOP of various LEAs regarding "do you have any weapons in the vehicle" is these days?   - OS

  Wasn't here in time. ;)

  I still feel personally chagrined over that one.   - OS

  Just nix the murse.   - OS

  Yeah, can be kinda pricey if you have to pay street price. My geezer price under Medicare Advantage Plan is $112.00. Thing is, that's technically a "90 day supply", but it actually lasts almost a year!   - OS

  Yes, all eye drops tweak PH to be same as eyes, that is, to "normal" eyes anyway -- these will safely flush your eyes but not leave any extra lubricating film.   Dry eye syndrome, if that's really a factor, can be simple deficit in tear volume, or no deficit in volume at all, but that the tears are no longer chemically balanced with correct protein blend for optimum surface retention (ie, evaporates too quickly), so you need a lubricant in there also, like Polyethylene Glycol, or Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, or whatever.   You'll find that unlike this saline only solution, most of the "natural tears" type drops also contain a lubricant, just generally not as much as in the ones described as "lubricant" drops.   Perhaps erroneous on my part to suggest that saline alone will make them any "drier",  but won't make them any "wetter" either except very briefly.   Whatever works for ya is right,  of course. But if the saline doesn't do anything for ya except 5 minutes at a time, try a few with different actual lubricating compounds in them.   - OS

  Oh, gotcha, you're the one that's nuts. ;)   Seriously, if your eyes do indeed need lubrication, a primarily saline solution is pretty much the opposite of what you need. Salts absorb moisture.   - OS

  Your pharmacist is insane, then.   See my previous post. You may get some comfort with lubricating eye drops (or not), but if you do, that ain't them.   - OS

That's just for your contacts. If you need lubricant eye drops for your actual eyes, don't see where that would help much of anything. I've been though every kind there is. Including various gels and even the ointment type underneath an eyelid for sleep. Have found that best lubricant for me are the ones with Carboxymethyl cellulose (sometimes written as one word) type active ingredient, and both Walgreen and CVS (and probably others) have that as a generic. Only makes things blurry for about a minute after use and gives longer acting relief, even before sleep, than any of the other compounds. Best to avoid any of the "get the red" out types period, though I confess I carry a tiny vial of Clear Eyes around just for the few times I feel it's important not to look like I been smoking pot or whatever. :) I'm also doing the Restasis thang twice a day, but that's only if you are truly diagnosed with Dry Eye Syndrome. It has helped reduced the overall misery by about half. - OS

  Can give most all the same symptoms.   Mine started with frequent "scratched eyeballs" happening especially during the night, which would make one eye or other go wonky. Had increased photophobia, itching like something was in corners of eyes, but not really there, increased tears (ironically, and why folks often don't consider that's what it might be -- it's not volume of tears, but their chemical makeup).   Then later started getting actual visible and tactile crud in eyes, etc. Fairly miserable condition for its rather benign name. Call it Keratoconjunctivitis Sicca and it sounds more serious. ;)   I have rather severe ragweed reaction in the fall, mostly affects my eyes, so thought for a good while it was just some new allergy or other.   It's probably not actually that at your age, but at least something else to rule out. Hope not, as it's just another incurable but non-fatal condition you can pick up once you get old like me. :)   - OS

Did he do a TBUT test (tear breakup time ) or just rule out Dry Eye Syndrome right off the bat? (it would somewhat rare at your age, but not unheard of).   - OS

  That will take legislation,  to change the definition in the USC. Things like the change to CFR in this thread, or the "one handed use" would not, as they are the "interpretative rules" for the actual words used in the USC, and adding stuff like "single shot, rotating cylinder, slide action" is quite the stretch since none of those terms of course appear there.   Then again, though, get enough commies in the right high places in agreement, I guess anything's possible. Once it's in the CFR, unless the actual congress or the courts overturn it, those rules do stand.  After all, as far as this conversation goes, "fixed" ain't in the USC definition, let alone "permanently affixed".   - OS

Yeah, lots of folks have proclaimed that AR is the newest consitiutional carry state. I myself have opined this will be an ongoing struggle there until the legislature comes more clean about it.   - OS

  Because the "short stock" (grip) is an integral part of the frame of the weapon, same as any other conventional handgun, 1911 or Glock or whatever.  Can't get more "permanently affixed" than that.   - OS

  No, they would be fine under this particular possible change in CFR, even assuming the "permanently affixed" interpretation stood. It will take more than this to change the whole classification of all of them (see below).   Yes, but we're only talking about a change to CFR, not to USC. The CFR is the explanation in real world terms for the USC, and the gun related parts are already fraught with more "interpretation" than most -- no legislation is required to "re-interpret" them, just the appropriate proceedure from the department of enforcement, as is the case here.   I really think this one may not fly. After all, this isn't even BHO's incentive, just some already existing low hanging fruit he could grab as he swings for the fence on anti-gun stuff over the next 500 days.   What I think could really get traction in this area is a "re-interpretation" of the "designed, made, and intended to fire ...when held in one hand" part in the USC handgun/pistol definition. Don't think there's time in the rule change procedure for BHO to get this done (I could be wrong), but it's certainly something Hillary would have plenty of time to run through the channels and get implemented.   - OS

  The purpose of the law is so that LEO can confirm you are not illegally carrying under 39-17-1307, simple as that.  LEO is allowed to ask by law because it's a crime to pack a heater in the general public and the permit is a defense, seeing the heater would be grounds to check, and you must comply as per 39-17-1351.   And yes, refusal to show permit is cause for having HCP suspended or terminated, as 39-17-1352 states. Whether anyone has had that happen I have no idea -- perhaps not likely any have been stupid enough to refuse?   - OS

  News to me. No joy with search -- can you point to the case?   TIA,   - OS