btq96r

  Differences between Connecticut and Tennessee.  The topic and videos in question happened in Connecticut, but bear analysis, I'd say.   If officers couldn't just pull you over to check your license, then DUI checkpoints would be a no-go, but courts up to SCOTUS have ruled them legal.  Though I'm not exactly happy about that.   In Tennessee, yes, an officer can stop you anytime to check your permit if you're carrying.  The part of the TCA for it specifically says "The permit holder shall have the permit in the holder's immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer."  Like I said earlier, in Tennessee carrying a handgun is always a crime, and a permit is simply a defense to prosecution.  I'd imagine it was left that way specifically to make sure LEO's can always check without any other reason.  Connecticut has no such language as best we can tell, and open carry being perfectly legal up there, my view is that absent any other factors, the citizen was pestered to the point of harassment by the officer.   I'd say after Heller and McDonald, gun ownership is recognized as an individual right.  Carrying off your property, still a work in progress, and for now the government treats it as a privilege only they can bestow in our state.  Car ownership would be classified as reserved to the people (provided the proper taxes are paid, of course), but operating a car on the roads is an entirely different story.  The salient details let the government come in and set up regulatory shop on things like this.

Still no excuse for not getting a finished manuscript of the 6th book to the publishers by now.

  I meant from the point of the officer making the request.  Asking for ID and asking specifically for a carry permit are separate things with separate intents.   Yeah, the carry permit is a legal form of state issued ID, but when asked specifically to produce your carry permit, not your ID, it's more than just an ID, it's your legal authorization to carry a weapon in public.

  SCORE on Business.  It's on Newschannel 5+.  It's where he gets the idea that any harm to his face would cause dismay to the females in the area... :rolleyes:   It's good stuff though.  The show is designed to help entrepreneurs who need tips as they get started, and it spotlights local business.   

  So, it was designed for Costa?

I have seven guns.  Three were bought from an online store and shipped to my FFL; two were private in person trades; and one was bought on a gun forum and shipped to my FFL.  Only one them was bought in a store, and that was back in 2004.   I'd imagine that a LGS would hate to read that, but I doubt they would be surprised by it.  They would need to have something at equal cost or less than what I want when I want it to make me not order online from Buds, PSA, Primary Arms, or somewhere else.   Pete123 actually had an FFL holder on his TV show that talked about this last year.  Maybe he can chime in and talk about what that gentleman shared.  As I recall, he didn't like it, but he knew which way the wind was blowing and shifted his business to adapt to the change in trends.       One issues is that it's not just gun shops that do transfers, it's anyone with an FFL that can run the background check, so the competition for transfer revenue is fierce.  Too much and they risk pricing themselves out of the game, and lose a chance to get people in the store who would naturally look around while waiting for the background check to come in.   I use a pawn shop with an FFL for my online purchases and private sales that ship FFL to FFL.  While they have a decent gun section, they're not a dedicated gun shop, so doing the transfers isn't taking away much business.  They only charge $20, plus the $10 TICS fee, and $30 is very tempting compared to a sales tax close to 10% on a purchase as pricey as a gun.

  When you say the URL box, are you clicking on the link icon, or the photo one two spots over?   Also, which URL are you posting from Photobucket?  Should be the one for "Direct," 2nd from the top.

  The comparison to a drivers license is apples to oranges.  Two completely separate sets of laws for the two, because they are two very different things.   In TN it's an absolute requirement to produce an HCP upon request to an officer, no reason needed.  It's that way here in TN, because carrying a pistol is a crime, the permit is just a "defense to prosecution."  I think it's BS that our state puts the presumption of criminal acts on citizens carrying, but that's what it is for the moment.   With CT, it seems that a request to see a carry permit has to be in conjunction with someone being suspected of a crime to meet reasonable articulate suspicion (to use the language in the link NextExit provided in post 39).  We haven't seen anything to indicate that this person was doing something "suspicious" besides from open carrying.  In CT, best we can tell, it isn't a presumptive crime to carry a weapon like it is in TN.  So it's in that light that we are wondering why the LEO kept badgering him to produce a permit absent any other reason than what amounts to "because an LEO asked."   These little nuances make a huge difference when it comes to the rights of a citizen, and the behavior of law enforcement.  Sad to say, it seems CT has us beat on this small topic.

Well, then I'm an idiot :D .  Thanks for the quick reply.

I'm either losing my mind, or you guys are doing things behind the scenes.    I could have sworn I made a post in this thread and it isn't there today.  The only thing I can think of is that it detailed how many guns I have, and how I got them, so I wondered if that was something being edited for an unknown purpose.   Like I said, maybe I'm losing my mind and never hit "submit post."  Just wanted to check.

  No.  There are differences.   An ID is simply a confirmation of who you are, and isn't mandatory to carry.  Not unless CT has an ID requirement for people over a certain age.   A carry permit is your legal authorization to carry that weapon, and has to be carried at all time when you are carrying a gun.  Same basis as a drivers license when you are behind the wheel.   An officer either has or doesn't have legal authority to compel you to produce the carry permit, and always has the authority to ask to see your license if you're driving.  They can ask for an ID, but it isn't a requirement for a citizen to produce one since they aren't required. 

  One packrat habit of mine is that I save the boxes and protective wrapping from all my shipping purchases (mostly Amazon bought stuff) in my spare room.  I've never not had a right size box and enough of those air filled things to protect something, or keep it from shifting around in the box when I've had to ship something.

  And asking for a concealed carry permit is a long way from asking for ID.

  I'd say it's too late for that.  Congress already passed the FY16 budget, and it's a long shot that the FY17 budget gets done before the election without any tack on legislation, so we'll see a  CR there, which isn't big enough to carry this bill as an amendment.  There would have to be a big trade off for something that would entice liberals to swallow this passing alongside it, and for sure in an election year, that kind of compromise ain't happening...not that compromising would have a good chance anyway lately.   Maybe with the next President it can be done depending on their priorities, but the bill would have to be reintroduced since it dies at the end of the current Congress.

  Shut off registration 90 days before an election?  I think there should be same day registration at places that can handle it (small voting sites like a set up in the local fire house on election day excluded).  What reasons do you have for denying someone who wants to vote from registering close to an election?   Also, what kind of government provided transportation for voting is there?  Assistance to the polls are done by organizations (political non-profits, churches, ect) and campaigns.    And we saw what happens when you put some kind of test in front of a person and the ballot.  It will be used to deny those you simply don't want to vote from doing so.  No thanks.   Your ideas would subvert our voting system, not make it better.  At least not for Democrats, and I think that would be your goal.

  He did drop out on that date, but since the Tennessee Presidential Primary was on February 5th that year, he still would have been on the ballot most likely.  I'm sure the news that he dropped out was so low key in the grand scheme that you could have blinked and missed it.

  It's not supposed to serve both parties equally.  It's supposed to serve the electoral process by making sure people have every opportunity to vote.  If the Republicans think it's unfair...oh well.  They can get better candidates, or change their positions.  More people voting is not a problem at all.

  I think there's a difference between a situation a business creates from negligence or incompetence as in the water on the floor example, and a third party coming in and causing the harm.

  A few years back when there was a cut to welfare as part of a budget deal, Walmart admitted to investors that it's been the cuts to food stamps were hurting their bottom line.  As OS mentioned, the minimum wage hasn't increased at the federal level since 2009, and that was only the last part of a phased increase.    So, really, way to go Republicans.  Though I'm not shedding tears for Walmart getting less welfare dollars.       They're doing all they can to increase the amount of food stamps that are spent in their stores.  Kroger is the only other large chain that can go head to head with Walmart for dollars from low income or welfare dependent homes, and Walmart wants to change that to balance out the losses in retail sales.

I'm usually out and about by myself which would simplify things, but for when I'm not, my concern would be to get those with me out of immediate danger.  Not as in in the car and back home safe and sound, but out of the line of fire where I can leave them in place, or tell them to keep moving away.  Once they were no longer able to be targeted, I'd move out and take my chances against the shooter, thinking as Omega does, that the training and experience I've had can make the difference.   To use a simple but accurate quote, "bad guy shooting = bad guy needs shot."  If I'm the first one in position to make that happen, my mind tells me that's what I'd do.

  The officer's opinion is the only valid one when he is performing his duties within the law.  I'm not convinced he did that here, because if he had the authority to arrest the open carrier for failing to produce a carry permit, he should of.  If that's the case, then his supervisors will deal with it if they felt he erred.   But if CT law doesn't require citizens to produce a permit upon request like TN law does, then that officer was using his authority to harass a citizen, and that is a problem.       I think the only facts that are missing are what exactly Connecticut law has to say on this one.  That's what I'm withholding final judgement for.    We know in Tennessee if asked, someone carrying has to show their permit to an officer.  Even if the officer is an ass about it, or has no reason other than seeing me with a handgun, I have to show him my permit.  I don't like it, because it assumes that carrying a weapon is a crime, but it's explicitly spelled out in the law for our state so I comply.   But is it the same in Connecticut?  If the officer had the authority to inspect a carry permit, he should have said so and given a final warning that further non-compliance is a violation of that law and makes the person carrying subject to arrest.  So we either have an LEO trying to badger a citizen into compliance, which is completely unsat, or an officer unwilling to enforce the law, which while lesser of an evil, I'd imagine would be addressed by his superiors.

  If the officer didn't have a legal basis to compel the person to produce a carry permit, I wouldn't call said person a jackass for how he handled it.

The using the internet to avoid state sales taxes isn't unique to guns, but with gun purchases being pricier items, it's more prevalent than it is with random stuff like a pair of shoes or something else.   Tennessee's sales tax puts a decent add on to any gun purchase.  Taking the transfer fee at $20-30 is more attractive than paying sales tax at $50 and climbing based on any sale over $513.  It's one of the biggest things that makes running a LGS a challenge, I'd imagine.

  We're going to include government buildings right?  Doubt it.  But, yeah...the Chamber will go to the mattresses to prevent this one.   It's a nice thought, but its hard to make a law on the presumption that a handgun carry permit holder would always carry, and if they did, could always protect themselves.  Sometimes even someone carrying is going to get shot first, or jacked up before they can draw.   Then you have the issues of defining the scope of liability.  "Harmed" is a vague term.  Getting punched would "harm" me but is it enough to qualify as a threat on my life that would justify drawing and firing...no.  Things like that make it a bad bill, IMO.    If a place is posted, it's on the person carrying to decide if they want to assume the risk of being unarmed.  The only places I can't get around that with our free market are government buildings.

  Throw in Cristina Scabbia from Lacuna Coil.