quickbiscuit

You've lost me. A 10 round mag has a longer tube and a big baseplate, which is the exposed black part sticking out of the magwell. It wraps around the portion of the magazine that holds the spring. Are you wondering if there is something like a conversion kit for a standard 1911 mag? I'm not aware of anything like that either. I found a good video that shows the CMC mag.

For a snub nose .38? Doubtful. We're not talking about anything earth-shattering here.

Welcome to the site. The link below should get you started. https://www.tn.gov/safety/article/handgunmain

The Chip McCormick mags have the black covering on the exposed part. http://www.brownells.com/magazines/handgun-magazines/magazines/1911-10rd-45acp-power-magazine-power-plus-magazine-10-round-sku207-000-025-26510-52290.aspx If you're asking if there is a flush fit 10 round 45 Auto mag, the answer is no.

That's a 10 round mag. Look into Chip McCormick mags for a good 10-rounder.

Can't say it better!

Agreed. I never liked that they started throwing all mass murderers into the "mentally ill" category. For the reasons you state and because I never understood why the NRA felt the need to give these people an excuse. Some people are just evil and full of hate. I know several people with mental illnesses, but they are not cold blooded killers. More on point, this move will affect social security recipients who have a "representative payee." In my experience, those who need a representative payee have a mental disability and do not have the capacity to manage their own affairs. I act as a representative payee for a mentally handicapped relative, and she doesn't even understand what a gun really is. I think this is generally the case for these individuals. Not that I agree with anything pushed by Obama, but I don't see this as becoming an issue for someone who needs to have access to a gun.

Snub nose .38, steel frame "Cobra" MSRP $699

My advice is the same as the fishing scenario. If you aren't using the handgun to HUNT during an open season, you should leave it at the house. This is very clear. If you're not hunting with it, then it falls back under the intent to go armed and you'd be in violation. I can't understand why you want to press this issue so badly. Cool your engines, and get your HCP when you're 21. LEOs will have no sympathy for you when you get caught with a loaded pistol.

Good grief man. There is only one way to interpret the intent to go armed. If you've got a loaded gun on you in public, YOU ARE INTENDING TO GO ARMED. DUHHHH!!! This whole excuse of fishing and being able to carry without a permit is just stupid. Now I remember why I usually avoid these threads. Dang, you even bolded the best part of your post above and still don't seem to get it: "Thus, the carrying of a firearm is prohibited only when it is carried in a manner so as to be "readily accessible and available for use in the carrying out of purposes either offensive or defensive." Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156, 101 S.W. 189 (1906)"

I'm going to say one more thing and leave this alone. Law enforcement officers are not in the business of making a determination on the spot as to whether someone is carrying a handgun illegally. I dare say that none of them think that it's ok for a 19 year old to carry a loaded pistol just because he's bass fishing on Kentucky Lake. When it comes to guns, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, you're guilty until proven innocent. It's going to be up to the state to prove that you were carrying with the intent to go armed, but they've got a heckuva lot better argument than you do. You're going to have your gun confiscated, spend thousands in legal fees, end up in a courtroom, and may come out of it with a criminal conviction. I don't hear anyone else telling this young man that it's a good idea to strap on a pistol and go catch some crappie.

And since now you're changing your argument, the person who started this thread is not asking if he can carry a .22 with ratshot while fishing - which is still a bad idea if you don't have a HCP. He is looking for an excuse to carry a loaded weapon before he's of legal age to do so. You'd be doing him a service if you wouldn't derail the thread anymore.

Winmag, I don't think I could convince you that the sky is blue. You'll be a much better internet lawyer when you learn to read every word of each applicable statute and then apply just a teensy bit of logic when trying to understand what you've read. You need to read up on what "intent to go armed" means and then realize that 1307 includes weapons other than handguns. Do you think that when the statutes were enacted, that the legislature intended that someone could carry a 12-inch Bowie knife just because they were participating in a sport shooting activity? That's the same foolish argument that you're making for carrying a handgun while fishing. They have no relation to one another. P.S. I'm aware that there is no restriction on knives anymore but am using some legislative history to prove a point.

Actually it's the other way around and that's the problem. The majority of lawmakers are not lawyers and have no idea how statutes should be written so as to avoid ambiguities and multiple interpretations. And this is why you don't ask for legal advice on the internet. Ignorant.

Instead of playing internet lawyer why don't you do the responsible thing and give this young man some advice that will UNDOUBTEDLY keep him out of trouble? You're giving him BS defenses that he can use after he's been charged with a crime. You don't get to negotiate with the police officers or game wardens. That happens when it's already too late and you're in front of a judge and DA. 39-17-1308 is not just about defenses to carrying a handgun, and nowhere does it explicitly state that fishing is a defense to carrying a handgun with the intent to go armed. 1307 is the controlling statute here, and they have to be read together.

Yes since that would be "incident to lawful hunting...activity." The 18 year old is using the pistol to hunt. Even a minor can hunt with a pistol under 39-17-1319(d)(1)(D). But we don't fish with pistols, so that's a no-go in my reading of the law.

I think this is pretty reckless advice, especially given to a 19 year old who is obviously very eager to carry a loaded handgun. Good luck to anyone trying to convince an officer or game warden that the loaded Glock 19 on your hip is for "snake protection." As OS alluded to earlier, that section you reference encompasses weapons other than firearms, and the exception to fishing/camping is most likely directed at knives, not handguns. I think we should err on the side of caution when giving advice to a youngster who is trying to understand the law. You are giving very far-fetched defenses to an act that could get him into a lot of trouble.

Also to clarify something you may be confused about: a handgun carry permit is required in Tennessee whether carrying openly or concealed. Carrying openly is just as illegal as carrying concealed if you are under 21 or without a HCP.

If you are carrying with the "intent to go armed" without a HCP you are in violation of TCA 39-17-1307. Since there's no other reason that you would be in possession of a pistol while fishing (other than to go armed), I wouldn't go there. Be patient and don't take any chances. You'll be 21 soon enough.

As I understand it they are just reviving an old caucus that existed from 04-08 and 09-13.

Until 1989 (really 1994 with shall issue) even open carry was illegal in Tennessee unless it was an "army or navy pistol carried openly in the hand." Historically, Tennessee courts have not interpreted the 2A as creating any sort of right to carry.

I largely agree with this, except that I understand the definition of arms to include handguns and ownership therefore protected. The "in common use at the time" phrase is used in cases dating prior to 1850, and I agree that a proper interpretation of the 2A protects all military arms, including automatics. I have never bought into the "constitutional carry" argument, because I think that's asking something of the 2A that just isn't there. Seems that the majority of gun enthusiasts don't accept that, however.

We could use a couple more conservatives to offset all the liberals who are taking over Nashville. Come on out and bring your guns!

Something I have wanted to research for a while is the legality and attitude toward carrying a handgun prior to when our current permit system began in 1994. I've had to piece together information from multiple sources but I think I have a pretty good handle on the progression of the right to carry in Tennessee. The historical restrictions on the right to carry surprised me and revealed how much this has progressed over the last 25 years. Please post comments, additions, and corrections as needed. It would also be great to hear any stories about what you remember the gun culture to have been like concerning carrying handguns in the 70s/80s - even before. A third version of Tennessee's constitution was ratified in January 1870 and added to Article 1, Section 26, "...the legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." From what I can tell the first instance addressing the carrying of handguns by statute was in June 1870, when the state legislature passed a bill making it unlawful for "any person to publicly or privately carry a...belt or pocket pistol or revolver." In Andrews v. State (Tenn Supreme Court 1871) the law was upheld. I assume that prior to 1870, pistols and revolvers were not in wide enough circulation as to need laws addressing the carrying or wearing of such and that it was a practice not commonly carried out. It's noteworthy that the state supreme court saw no need to satisfy any part of the 2nd Amendment in this decision and others because the 2A was understood to only apply to the federal government. Sometime in 1928 or just prior, the city of Chattanooga enacted a municipal ordinance making it unlawful "to carry on or about the person any pistol." This was challenged in Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, and the ordinance was struck down but only because the state had previously recognized an exception for an "Army or Navy pistol...carried openly in the hand." This exception presumably stemming from language included in the Aymette v. State decision from 1840 and later cases like Porter v. State (1874). This exception was the only thing that kept the statewide ban on carrying "belt or pocket pistols" in compliance with the state constitution because it was previously established that the definition of "arms" included weapons which soldiers use in warfare such as army and navy pistols. So as I understand it, from the time handguns came into more common circulation in the mid-1800s, it was unlawful to wear or carry one for the purpose of going armed until 1989 when Tennessee became a may-issue state. From what I have read, however, very few people received carry permits between 1989 and 1994 when the current shall-issue permit system was put in place. I knew that the right to carry movement was a more recent advancement, but I did not realize that it came from what amounted to a total ban on carrying handguns. Please post corrections or anything important that I might have left out.

Also interested but need more info.