Oh Shoot

Yep, that's it. Just bugs me that after all the discussion here, so many folks still think it gives packers the right to sue places that DO post. To be fair though, that fallacy is spread far and wide around the web among gun sites, who all pounced on it without any verification at all. - OS

Sigh, the disinformation continues. That did NOT happen, the bill was totally changed for passage. This is the total extent of the new statute. "(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359. (b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2016, the public welfare requiring it." - OS

You should get the Bill Gates Serenity award or something. - OS

From Inbox view: From individual message view: Not really a problem as just a glitch I guess. - OS

Positive vibes healing crystals is where it's at, man.

I see that it behaves this way most of the time, but not always. Sometimes it does go to first unread post from that view. Surprised this isn't bugging more folks, just me huh? - OS

Yeah, using FireFox here. Just checked, same prob with IE. I don't have Chrome on this laptop to check it. edit: got Chrome. Same prob. - OS

Message inbox doesn't show any messages, can only x number of them by using the icon from a page view. Error message is: "[[Template core/front/messaging/messageListRows is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]" TIA for looking into it. edit: prob not present in default theme, only in darker one. - OS

Yeah, it's admittedly somewhat of a kludge if you really want to optimize the system. But does seem to be fairly permanent one. - OS

Assuming the extractor itself is in spec (it probably is) this has worked for a lot of folks with short-barreled ARs: http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Extractor-Spring-Uprade-Kit-p/bcm-exspring-1.htm But it's mainly just the stiffer spring, o-ring seldom needed. You can get an o-ring at hardware store, it's a # 60, and you can get a stiffer spring elsewhere too. But a convenient way to get it all in one kit. - OS

Seems clear to me, just says that transfer must be according to the CFR as to markings. Just ATF keeping things as ambiguous as possible as per their culture, and veiled threat that you better not be makin 'n sellin dem heaters for profit dontcha know. - OS

Yes, CFR is titled, "How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms...." I have never seen this letter that says differently and a search didn't help. Got a pointer? - OS

Been webbing from two different hospitals for over two weeks myself (mom). They've both had quite good WiFi I must say. - OS

No federal law and no TN law against it, and no serial number required either, as long as you aren't "in the business" of making them for sale -- in which case you better have a federal manufacturing FFL in the first place. No difference from the legal transfer of any other firearm you own, can't be "in the business" of doing that without a license either. - OS

Just a note: if you mean legally, that's not true. - OS

Dollars to donuts, I'll bet we're talking about purse carry here. Don't know many ladies willing to tote an extra 2 lbs in one, unless they already carry like a laptop size bag or something. - OS

oops

I certainly wouldn't judge by that particular standard. I have long thought about getting an EMP, and everytime I do, I read about all the problems with them, not even a Springfield nut can deny they are picky and run on the very edge of reliability. Same prob with Kimber. One thing about Ruger is that whatever they do release seems to flat run overall more reliably. And if there is a systemic prob they fix it PDQ overall. - OS

No. Unless possibly while being towed on the highway. " "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as defined in § 55-1-103 " - OS

Well, can still open carry -- that's the visible part that's the issue, permit or not. At least as far as the news wants to gin up. They'd do it if either convention were in Nashville or any other place where you can open carry in any guise, with the present tone that's going on. - OS

But you still have to have a permit to be able to have in vehicle in any posted lot, including employee parking. Same for school property. The blanket allowance under 39-17-1307 does not cover you regarding the prohibitions in other statutes. It only exempts you from illegal possession under that one statute. - OS

Have noticed that when in the expanded view, like: Used to be, if you clicked on latest topic on the right, like "Double Standard for Police..", it would go to first unread post, same as if clicking icon to the left of a topic thread inside the individual forum view. But only goes to first post in the thread now. Not a biggie, but I generally peruse whole forum in the above view and often like to click on the latest response from there. - OS

PA has open carry also, but whatcha bet that one way or the other at the Dem Convention there won't be a gun allowed within a mile of the event? - OS

The "vehicle" part was already in there all along. That was the irony, that the "castle doctrine" covered your car, yet unlike your home, you couldn't legally carry in it without a permit. AFAIK, this was the main argument for opening up carry for everyone in vehicle, to bring it in line with what the statute already claimed to give you. Have also always thought that 39-17-1322 was a partial and wimpy concession of that, such that at least you wouldn't be charged with illegal carry if you had to defend yourself in the vehicle. - OS