Punisher84

Why is life like wheel of fortune? LOL Spin the wheel and take your chance! It'd be nice if one day a legislator would go "Hey let's allow people who don't break the law to defend themselves!"

Finally after waiting and hoping... Ladies and Gentlemen I give to you my new RIA 1911A1 Tactical 2-tone with Pachmayr wrap around grips!!!!!

That sums up what I said earlier about it only being a defense and that is what my Instructor pointed out to me. So kinda in the middle ultimately. I guess it depends on who the Officer is when you get popped carrying one around.

"That a dead body?" "No sir." "He ain't movin'." "He's taken a powernap." "Carry on boy."

ROFLMAO!

It hurts to laugh that hard...

LOL "Oh. Well point taken."

OMG! You ran with scissors?! You rogue.

I'm not 100 percent, but I think brandishing in an open carry state would require either the gun to be removed in an open carry state or their to be some type of intent to show the holstered gun from concealment. If it's a CC state, like Texas, I've been told merely the sight of a holstered gun or excessive printing could be considered brandishing. Doubt it'd stick, but you know what I'm getting at.

AR. Astra put it perfectly.

Hey! Go fetch me something off the top shelf! I bought an Iron Gym...I'm working on it lol

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *pounds desk* hahahaha "Local man shot in face at point blank range after attempting to use Diet Coke and Mentos as a redneck pepper spray."

You guys only carry 3? Slackers. Honestly I carry my main and I just about always have my Kel-Tec on me. I also consider my wife and her gun a BUG when she is with me. Reason is, I'm going to throw her to the floor out of the way and take her gun lol No sense in her getting shot. If I catch a round, well if I die she gets good insurance, and if I live I'm already ugly and worthless lol

HAHAHAHAHA! So many places to run with that, but I'll take the high road and I won't go there lol Perv.

Yea sounds like he just wanted to touch your weapon.

That's right son. You better get that hat on. It's twinkie beating time!

I'm gonna put Mentos in diet coke and use the ensuing explosion as a distraction to beat db and canyn with their twinkies.

Good deal Truthsayer! Glad it went well for ya. W...T...F?

A right doesn't have limitations. Unfortunately your "right" is now more of a privilege. I don't think it's right, but it's a thing to take up with your legislators if you'd like it changed.

. Thank you Gutterboy. I like that I get to say I was right with backup for once in these past few days...I believe an... is in order here.

Memphis and Jackson are pretty big "local" communities. You still haven't answered the man's question ya know.

Private property. You don't have to give consent to search, but then you'll most likely be fired. I worked for FedEx and they had the same rule. You didn't have to let them search, but then they'd just fire you. There was a law passed in Florida that challenged this type of rule, Disney fired a guy for it. I think he's appealing or suing now.

That is correct. Believe me even if the court got stuck with the bill, you'd bet they'd go after the plaintiff tooth and nail. I never said the law protected you from being sued, but it was designed to do 2 things. 1. Discourage the lawsuit in the first place and 2. Make it so people couldn't collect on a frivolous lawsuit. I believe the law will ultimately hold some validity, maybe not all, but some.

That's true and the misconception is that it releases you from being sued. It doesn't. What it does is allow a protection from damages and it kind of builds a wall. The law states that if you are cleared of charges, then sued, you'll still have to go to court and be represented, but the plaintiff will lose since there is no criminal case to prove negligence and they have to then pay your lawyer fees, lost wages, etc. The theory behind it is to mainly prevent frivolous lawsuits by auntie Jo'Leen who just thought that piece of scum you capped was "such a good boy" and get her 10 mil payout. I agree it's not bulletproof, but I like the theory behind it and I think it'll hold some water at least if it causes lawyers to re-think their taking on of lawsuits like these.

Legally you would be fine if you shot the BG in the situation you described. A gun does not have to be loaded or even real to give you the "reasonable fear" part of self-defense. I don't know what I would do, but I think if I was on the other end I would want someone to save me. I would only take the shot if I KNEW I would not hit the clerk or a bystander. I would aslo be on the lookout for any of the BG's buddies. The civil suit part would not be an issue unless you hit an innocent bystander. The new laws give you protection against a civil suit if the shooting is justified. Basically if you aren't criminally liable, you aren't liable in a civil suit.