btq96r

  An officer has to defend that judgement from legal consequences and even public opinion, which can bring about legislative changes.   As for protecting themselves, if it's reactive to a specific event I'm likely to be fine with it, but preventative protection taken against the public should have a higher bar.

I had a similar issue finding holsters for my Walther when they weren't quite a commodity yet.  While I don't think you will be able to find a custom fit without a custom job, the dimensions and barrel length should help you find something that serves the purpose.

  EssOne had a good post about the term reasonable belief and how he viewed it.  I think allowing officers to define a term, and not using some common or standardized legal definition is a slippery slope.

  Having dealt with iodine tablets during field training exercises in the Army, I would rather go through the process of boiling water than deal with them.  Maybe the overall suck factor came into play, but the taste was just not pleasant. 

  It seems we don't see eye to eye yet.  :rofl:       I'm just discussing the event.  Nitpicking is something I do, I'm a big fan of critical analysis.       Being engaged by a citizen who has a carry permit, is open carrying, and is showing no signs of belligerence is a statistical improbability, even with a very skewed p-value.  That's why I find it unreasonable.    I'm certain you're right that a jury would side with the officer...but I find that a issue of ignorance about firearms ownership, the permit process and general firearms responsibility as much as anything.

  No, it's within the officer's authority to "disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue.

  That beauty full of top notch parts is worth a marital fight.  It should be able to fire for the rest of the century if you treat it right.

  I'm not disagreeing with it, but the evidence isn't there to support it, and in my estimate the evidence present negates it.  The officer never articulated any threat, and his body language never hinted at it either.  The entire stop was by the book in that he was courteous, gave a reason for stopping the guy, then all of a sudden, felt a need to disarm him when the bikers hands were nowhere near the weapon.  The officer did have his hand on his own weapon, but that should be common during the approach at any stop, right?  If so I wouldn't consider that abnormal, and even if it's not standard procedure, it comes across as prudence on the part of the officer.  The officer even explained taking the gun at the 2:49 mark as "the gun's just being taken for my safety at this time."  So, no indication of a threat.    He's was forthright with the biker on everything, offering explanation when asked, so not saying anything about a threat from the weapon, just citing safety after he had taken it makes me infer infer that the officer didn't see a threat that justifies disarming the biker, he just didn't want the biker having a weapon during the encounter.

  That was through the opinion that the biker didn't present a threat.  Your defense of the officer is he could have seen something we didn't to perceive a threat in accordance with TN law.  We've been disagreeing on that since page 3.

  I apologize if you felt you were quoted out of context.   Demographic information is just to help put the comment in respective on who it comes from.  The "obviously" part was about changing minds on the issue that it's okay to disarm an armed citizen without that citizen being a threat.  As with any internet site, the echo chamber effect can kick in, and I wanted to demonstrate that consensus elsewhere is different from that of the board.    As to the tactics of the gun grab, it's near universal that the methods the officer used from the snatch to placing it in his back pocket without clearing it were not smart or safe, even from those who support the disarming as justifiable.  I think even the officer's supervisory chain would look at how he went about it and apply corrective action or retraining on some level.  So I felt it best to leave well enough alone on that and focus on the debate of whether or not the officer was justified in disarming the biker in the first place.  

I want the government to see citizens, especially armed citizens, willing to take a stand.  We need more of that I think.  I'm fine with a group coming together to take that stand, protest, or otherwise exercise their rights, but I would like there to be some purpose and sense of thought behind it to put their actions in perspective.  I'm not seeing that from the Oath Keepers in this case.

Never heard or had "all inclusive W2" as I did 1099 work both in the US and OCONUS.  I can talk you and the wife through some of the deductions if she ends up on 1099.  Living in the states, it's quite a bit you can deduct if you document it right.   I can also put you in touch with a bomb ass accounting firm that charges very, very reasonable fees for things like this.  It's not H&R Block cheap, but for the professional services they provide, they're as low as I've ever seen.       When I left active duty and took a contract job I had no issue with my security clearance transferring over once my unit "released" me in JPAS so the FSO for the new company could "pick me up."  There was literally no gap as I started the contract job the day after my ETS date, and it was a DARPA contract I was brought onto, so maybe that had something to do with it, but what I've noticed as as long as it's a DoD contract, a DoD clearance can transfer if enough time hasn't lapsed.   Now, State Department contracts like WPS/WPPS, or a Department of Energy clearance are a whole different story and usually end up in frustration for the applicant.       We had a systems engineer in Iraq who asked to have his contract stipulate that instead of the standard 3 weeks every six months his leave schedule would be a 5-day break every month so he could fly to Thailand, have a 4-day weekend, then come back to work.  I'll leave it to the imagination why he wanted to go there with such frequency.   He didn't get it, but he was dead serious when asking for it it.

I think I'd need lasik or a pair of glasses I wouldn't mind for range use before trying to push out to 300yards with irons.  Unless you have a barn I could aim at...I could maybe probably hit that without vision correction.

  With Jade Helm 15 going on, there isn't much tin foil left to make more hats, so that makes as much sense as anything.

  Nope, just plain old short bus special. :P

I can't see the presence of the Oath Keepers as doing anything but exacerbating the situation.  Protecting the infowars staff doesn't pass the sniff test.

  TGO wasn't the only site I discussed this video on, because believe it or not, I do seek informed opinions other than my own, including from subject matter experts.  So I'll just leave these comments here to speak for themselves.  They are all from current or former LEO's just like those here on TGO.  Only difference is their jurisdictions were not in Tennessee, but I would think the dangers of the situation at hand transcend state lines easily enough.     -----   I can't speak for other officers, but I always let the person's attitude dictate the need to or not to disarm someone for my safety. My attitude toward the person I stopped played a pivotal role in their attitude.   99% of the traffic stops I did with a CCW holder were uneventful. If they were kind enough to let me know they were CCW, I was cool with that. I'd just tell them don't show me yours and I won't show you mine. Did what I had to do and moved on.   I knew of officers who would immediately want to take control of the persons weapon upon knowing they were CCW. They'd always run the SN to find out if it's stolen or not and unload it prior to returning it, telling the owner not to load until they were away. Every time I heard of an officer doing that, I always thought of them as being scared.   As for this video, that was a chicken #### thing to do by the officer. He was scared.   -----   Judging his body language, he was scared. He should take off the gun and swap his badge for a parking meter attendant patch.   -----   As I write this, I cannot remember ever disarming someone for my safety during a routine traffic stop. I never felt the need or felt so uncomfortable that I would take an individuals weapon for my personal comfort (lack of a better term).   After watching the video, the action was plain stupid and the officer is lucky his head didn't get shoved in.   Watching crap like this pisses me off to no end because it just escalates and provokes incidents for no reason, and furthers the rift between LE and citizens.   -----   I wouldn't say the officer would be scared of you, per se. They're more scared of the weapon and I feel it stems from how they're trained and lack of leadership.   -----   ^^^You take the weapon out of the equation, total different reaction from the officer. You ask any officer how the would handle a armed civilian vs an unarmed civilian, you'll probably get two different answers. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. Why? I really don't know. I feel it's how they are trained and a lack of leadership.   -----   Where I was a cop, there were a LOT of guns, as you know. In the academy they beat it into you from Day 1 that officer safety trumps everything. They show you the videos of the Texas constable getting jumped by three Mexicans and shot with his own weapon along with lots of other videos that show similar situations. You cant help but leave the academy being paranoid that anyone you encounter might jump you/stab you/ shoot you etc. ANYONE can be a bad guy.   For me, I was fortunate that I had some older seasoned guys who were able to tone that down for me after the academy and explain/remind me that most people are not criminals and should not be treated like it without cause "just to be on the safe side". I was told point blank that if I didnt want the risks involved with doing the job properly, that I should find a safer line of work. The light bulb came on and being a cop was a lot more enjoyable after that. The default became that I was out there to help people, not look for reasons to arrest everyone I came into contact with.   In my experience, most cops today never make that transition, and in most cases they dont get that "chat" from the older veteran cops. So, they stay in that mindset of 1* (one ass to risk) and that your rights and/or your life come second to their safety.   I also knew many who were just straight up drama queens who liked to play up the potential-hero or paranoid cop thing. The ones who even off duty act like they could be called upon at any second to jock up and go save the world. Sit at home and have the scanner or their radio on at all times. Pull people over when they are off duty.   Power and adrenaline are very addictive drugs to some personalities. Some guys settle out and become solid cops. Some guys dont. But by the time you figure out which ones dont you cant get rid of them.

Also known as the winners isle. :) I did like some of the books I saw listed on the site. Can see myself walking out with a few. Also want to check out the things on display. I'm a huge history nerd, so this place seems very cool indeed.

  Only a 40 min drive, and me with no work or school for a few weeks...yeah I'm making a trip down there before long.   Very cool, thanks for sharing.

Was at the Walmart on South Rutherford in Murfreesboro today, saw lots of red tags all over the gun section, and a lot of empty slots in the isle with grips, lights, and such.  No Colt's in the display case, but did see the $750 Bushmaster.    Also I apparently missed out on getting the Blackhawk shotgun stock kit for a Mossberg on red tag clearance at about 45% off as they only had Remington compatible kits left.  I'm going to look at the other Walmart's tomorrow based on that savings deal.

  Great term from a great book. 

  The city isn't too close to the front lines, so it was either training, a precaution, or the pilots just screwing around. 

Bump for visibility.  Still have 2-3 slots open for the moment, hoping to keep no less than 12, and no more than 16 teams.

So much fail and WTF in that story.   As my Uncle Larry said, don't stick your dick in crazy.  Prevents a lot of problems down the line.

  One thing, maybe semantics, but important to me.  LEO's don't have any more rights than the any citizen, they have authority that comes with their position such as stopping people and disarming them within the context of the law.     I concur that the reason he probably let the guy ride off then turned on the lights was to avoid having a potentially dangerous (which all stops are) encounter in an area with people in close proximity.  I'm fine with that "on the ground" decision as much as I am the stop itself.    What I'm questioning the reason the officer had to disarm the biker in the first place.  If he truly did reasonably believed it was for the safety of the permit holder, the officer, or other individuals, why not do it as soon as you see it- or barring that to allow the person to move away from all the people in the store like he did- as soon as the stop was made?  The 25 second gap and snatching it during a moment of distraction for the biker leads me to believe his safety concerns didn't exist to a reasonable belief, especially when you look at it in the additional commentary EssOne provided in post #94.     No, he never asked the guy if he had a permit, he asked if the guy had his license, because the pretext given for the stop was about the plates on the bike.  The discussion about if the guy had a permit never came from the officer, the biker volunteered that information after the officer took the gun.   I think the officer went into the encounter with the mindset of disarming the guy while questioning him.  His tactics to do so were, at best, questionable, but I don't think something happened between first noticing the weapon and taking it.  Like I said above, I question his reasons for doing so, as I don't think he is able to articulate any safety concerns besides not wanting someone else in the encounter to have a gun, which isn't good enough for me to qualify as a reasonable belief for his protection.   I would argue that we have the right to carry, and that the HCP is simply the process by which we are vetted on a cyclic basis as being in compliance with the requirements to exercise that right, much as voting is a right that you have to register to exercise and show ID at the polls each time you do so.  To me, keep and bear are the rights with carrying under a permit system being the bear part of it.  The responsibility of the state should be to have an as expedited as possible process to make sure those HCP checks are done, and done on a shall issue basis, with only people who have a legal disqualification being denied.  The cost of it all is in line with regular taxes or fee based services, but should never be used as a revenue enhancement as I suspect the HCP's bring in for TN.  But that's a separate issue like most .gov cash cows.  I'd also be fine with the legislature enacting Constitutional Carry, but I know that isn't coming anytime soon.