Oh Shoot

  Yeah, I've shot a lot of that too.  Seems to be Brown Bear actually, same lacquered case that you don't see except from Barnaul anymore.   Also, it was highest velocity of several Russian rounds I tested some time ago (which were all faster than Federal bulk).   - OS

  Yep, that's under a quarter a pop in hand, 'bout as good as it gets right now for .223. Hell, Tula at Wally's is .30/round.   i shoot mostly Russian steel also, somewhat surprised supply hasn't been whacked.   - OS

  What are you, a socialist?  You get all the justice you can buy, what's more fair and traditionally American than that?   - OS

Nothing in the statutes to suggest it's a problem.   - OS

  You're paying too much!   - OS

  Perhaps that, but basically establishing destructive/invasive/detrimental populations in places where they wouldn't have flourished on their own.   Russian pig always comes to mind first, but can be anything. Ultimately effort to not keep repeating kudzu, Guam tree snake, zebra mussels, silver carp, whatever...   - OS

As a life long uber cinephile, there is simply no answer to that question.   - OS

    Well, hell, Knoxville still has the old pre-1900 ordinance on the books:   "Sec. 19-104. - Carrying dangerous weapon. Any person who shall carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, bowie knife or other knife of like form, shape or size, sword cane, icepick, slingshot, blackjack, brass knuckles, Spanish stiletto, or fountain pen pistol or gun, or like instrument containing a firing pin and capable of shooting tear gas or pistol cartridges, or any pistol or revolver of any kind whatever, except an Army or Navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor"   - OS

  According to at least one prominent lawmaker on the hill, it was the intent of the parking lot with HCP law that you couldn't be fired for abiding by it, too.   The intent of the conditions under which an adult non-student may keep a firearm in vehicle on school grounds is gray to this day.   The definition of "unloaded" firearm has never been clear, and is likely incomplete syntax according to intent,  but fortunately seems never to be enforced as to exact wording.   etc etc   - OS

  Not that simple until decided who is legally in possession of the vehicle.   - If as you opinied, anyone in there is, then nobody legal to own them could be charged with having loaded firearms per se. - Or the other bent,  if only a driver or owner is in legal possession of vehicle, does their exemption extend to firearms owned by others?   - OS

  Well, I guess we could postulate minutiae about virtually any of the weapons statutes .. just seems this one might be riper to settle out in case law than many others since I can see  so many various possibilities and debates happening on it.   - OS

Oh, and Dave     Well, yeah, that part certainly valid...   Oh, and you were absolutely right about the part that carry on person making no diff. Statute says "carrying or possessing", duh. Only question is still, "who" is possessing the firearms among 5 guys with a bunch of different guns in the car.   If four of them are drunk but owner/operator is sober, a bunch of loaded guns in the car, are each of the other four guilty of "possession while under the influence"? Does it have to be the gun they actually own in such state?  Or does the exception exonerate all of them if only the driver is indeed in "possession" of he vehicle. Etc ...   - OS

  Well, I expect that's the way it'll be handled for the most part on the side of the road, just mainly wondering when folks get arrested for something else and they look for the add on charges.   That is, hey passenger 1 wasn't in possession of the vehicle, but had loaded guns of his own in the vehicle, or a gun on him with no permit, etc.     - OS

  Says "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle", so would seem to be owner and/or driver to me. Five unrelated folks in a car, they're not all in legal possession of the vehicle are they?   Also,  do you not see a difference between firearms in the vehicle and firearms on the person in the vehicle?   I don't know, just wondering.   - OS

  Knoxville similar:   "Discharge of air guns, spring guns, etc. It shall further be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any air gun or air pistol, spring gun or spring pistol, or other device or firearm which is calculated or intended to propel or project a bullet, pellet, air or similar projectile, within the city."   - OS

  Interesting, hadn't given it much thought before your post, thanks.   I would think push come to shove that's probably correct as far as having a loaded gun on the person. The condition "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle" suggests that the exception only applies to owner or lawful driver -- who could both be in the vehicle at same time, or not.   But a far as loaded firearms not actually on the person, seems it's another gray area -- there is nothing in the statute that suggests ownership of the firearms is a factor, so I'd posit that anyone in lawful possession of the vehicle can be deemed to be as much "in possession" of the firearms as the actual owner. After all, in purely practical sense of enforcement, there's no way to determine actual ownership of firearms on the side of the road anyway.   Perhaps depends on legal meaning of possession of the firearm in this case as much as possession of the vehicle? And here I thought we had a statute that was pretty clear, but of course what could I have been thinking? :)   - OS

   I think they'd taste better if they'd bake them like all the other chains instead of serving them raw.   - OS

?? I sell on eBay some, dealers there have had no say about it. :) But seriously, anyone reselling new merchandise is a "dealer". What do you have against the ones who succeed there?   Any number of businesses make a living selling used stuff on there too.     - OS

Okay, Chief Splitting Hairs ;) - OS

  Handgun definition in 39-11-106. Dave missed his own cite. :)   I have mentioned the peculiarities of possessing a "firearm", like an AR pistol 26" or more with a vertical forward grip on it. Under previous code, there was no way you could have such loaded in vehicle even with HCP, as it is not a "handgun", "rifle", or "shotgun".   But now any "firearm" is allowed for anyone.   But you still can't carry it on person in TN with HCP, as it's not a "handgun". And actually, if you conceal it on person, you break federal law, as it becomes an AOW when concealed.   But most all AR pistol configs use <12" barrels, so this particular legal quirk isn't really applicable to their "firearm" status in same way as Dave's point.     - OS

  I don't support everything the NRA does, or more precisely perhaps, the decisions they make regarding what issues they choose to ignore, and even the methods they employ for the ones they don't.   Similarly, though,  I'm not gonna nitpick John and TFA, as certainly their overall thrust is a big plus, and likely the actual difference in passage of some of the loosening of restrictions. Matter of fact I just sent in my membership update fee, which I had let lapse by 3 months, oops.   Just did same with KnifeRights.org too, which for sure was directly responsible for the 5.5" Voyager legally in my pocket now, and the switchblades in many others.   - OS

  For 6 months.   - OS

  Yeah, I think the only thing you could do for sure legally is pass through NJ with firearms stored as per FOPA. And that means not stopping at all to be safest, and yet still no guarantee you wouldn't have to defend yourself in court even then in worst case scenario if pulled over.   - OS

  Seems about right to me as to conviction for some kind of criminal charge, just from common sense point of view -- though would have to know a bit more exactly about the logistics and timing of he encounter to opine whether the level of charging and sentence were appropriate though.   Initial thought being, while the defendant would undoubtedly be in reasonable fear of death or serious injury simply because he was being shot at, the threat would have been diminishing by the second as the perps car departed. Since the defendant had time to retrieve a firearm from his own car, seems he would have also had time to use his car as a barrier?   At any rate, it has been shown over and over that shooting at a fleeing vehicle isn't wise. Now, it would be a quite different thing if he was confronting the perp head on in one way or another. He might still be culpable for damages to a third party, but likely not criminally.   - OS

  Totally agree, it is not a panacea, nor is it actually a right as long as the TN Constitution reads as it does. And yes, there are other laws that can come into play. Nonetheless, it's still the most significant step for the TN citizen to bear arms in public since 1870 (I don't see being allowed to pay for a privilege in the same realm).   Perhaps that's a sad commentary rather than a jubilant one, but it is nonetheless that significant.   And btw, John is wrong about a thing or three in his dismissal, the most obvious mistake being  "the law does not create an exception for those picking up or dropping off passengers at schools - a permit remains required."   That's absolutely false, that exception does not mention carry permits at all. One has always been able to possess firearms while picking up/dropping off, obviously subject to other laws that determine the manner in which the firearms may be kept in the vehicle period -- so that now includes loaded firearms by anyone not prohibited from owning them.   - OS