btq96r

  It wasn't an order, it was a request, and a request the open carrier has no reason to acquiescent to.  Watch the second video down in the link (an LEO followed him to another business) and the LEO's flat out said that he told the business owners, "we can't order you to present your...ahh...permit." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=667_1452648888   So, why the issue?  The open carrier was harassed by the LEO's because he dared to open carry a firearm, as he was qualified by his state to do. Respect goes both ways, once they disrespected the carrier, they lost his respect, as they would mine.  I also would have been just as uncooperative as the open carrier were I in his place.

Thrown in walking on a large FOB at night, work railhead detail, and anything else the CSM's decided required one. One JRTC rotation, we had to wear them so often doing prep at North Fort before going into the box, we just kept them in our cargo pockets. Even the driver and ground guide of the Gators had to wear them in the middle of the day. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

The Army has you so brainwashed you put a reflective belt on a snowman. :lol:

There is no wrong answer to this conundrum of yours.

Didn't know about the button, not sure I'd trust it 100%. As to a smartphone, yeah they're at risk, but with Android I can put on a crowd vetted OS and still have all the functions since the code is open source. I doubt that's something Amazon is going to allow for this. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

  What Omega said.    I can't think you're going to find some kind of massive quality upgrade over DD, Noveske, BCM, or any other brand you listed as having previously used.

A microphone that's always on and connected to the network...if that's not a privacy invasion waiting to happen, I don't know what is.

  We can agree to disagree on my other posts...but whoever that is you mentioned doesn't hold a candle to Robin Meade- the true hottest journalist in all the land.

  He made a stupid statement.  It's serves no purpose, gives opponents a punchline, and what's worse, since the article said he actually filed the bill, staffers from his office and the clerks of their legislature who all work for the state of South Carolina actually had to spend work time on this statement instead of useful things like I assume people want them to be doing while being funded by their dime.

SC State Rep. Mike Pitts wins the "Stupid of the Day" award for 20 January 2016.  Hard to take anyone who would resort to a sophomoric stunt like that seriously.

  Only thing that's held me back so far has been the price.  Hopefully I can save enough in my piggy bank to afford such an indulgence before long.

Have you looked at the CZ Scorpion?  One of those has been on the 'btq wants' list for a while now.

  I think this is the right approach.  With improvements in technology, the background check process is so easy, it's hard to classify it as an infringement (to me anyway, I know others disagree...that's fine).  Plus it's an easier counter argument when you can say that those carrying in the potentially soon to be opened areas have gone through a background check that anti-gun activists have made the crux of their argument.    What is an infringement is the limitations that our state puts on people that are, by their own admission, safe to carry a firearm.  So, why any restrictions on where we can carry?  Personal and commercial property, I think should be determined by the person owning/running the property (again, I know others disagree).  But why shouldn't a person who passes a background check be allowed to carry inside a government building?  Are we safe by their standards, or not?       The recent issues in Virginia made this something that would have to be thought out.  Of course the Virginia Governor and Attorney General just wanted to limit what states have reciprocity for permit carry, but they actually had a legal reasoning behind it., The reasoning being states they no longer recognized as valid for reciprocity were dropped because they didn't have the same standards as Virginia did for their permit holders.   So, if Tennessee did adopt Constitutional Carry, the permit would still have to have some kind of education/training/testing/background check requirements or else we would be at risk of having more states revoke reciprocity, either automatically or once an opportunistic administration or legislature comes to power.

  Ah yes, the old adage "Allah's eyes don't see over the water."  At least that's how it was explained to me by a Kuwaiti while I was living there a few years back.  Bahrain is a blind spot as well if memory serves. I threw a few back at a Holiday Inn Express myself during an overnight there.

  Arab Muslims drink too, they just keep it a bit more low key.  During OIF 1, I was living at the Mosul water purification plant for a few months with my three man GSR team, and a two man sniper team.  The night before his wedding, a worker at the plant who lived in the village next to the plant came home drunk as a single Soldier in the barracks on Saturday night.  He and I played war with a deck of cards for what felt like an hour as blotto set in on him, then he stumbled home.  Later we learned that he had gone into Mosul and hit up a brothel while getting drunk before the big day.   I like to think of Arabs as the west was in the 1400s/1500s...the overall culture was very conservative and religious, but plenty of the people can be some lecherous drunks when the opportunity presents itself.

  According to this public listing, they consider checking drivers licenses (DL), among other things to be a-okay.  I doubt they would be so blatant about it if they didn't think current and possible case law backs them up.    As to LEO's being able to lie in the course of their duties...that shouldn't be permitted unless an arrest has been made, IMO. 

  Not in my experiences.  I can't recall ever not being asked for my license.

  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.