JAB

I fervently hope that I am never in a situation where I have to defend myself and/or my loved ones with a firearm. If I am, however, my next fervent hope is that I can do as well as the young man in this story.

I have seen the one at the Knoxville gun shows but haven't picked it up/handled it. I thought these looked interesting when I first read about them a couple of years ago (when they were still an 'upcoming' release) but have since decided that I don't think I want one, even if the price weren't so outrageous. I'd not pass up the chance to shoot one, though. Am I dreaming or do I remember reading somewhere that the Rhino is striker fired and that the exposed 'hammer' isn't really a hammer, at all? The 'hammer' is actually just a cocking lever, I think.

Actually, I just re-read both bill summaries and neither of them address the legality of having a firearm on the campus of a private college. Since current legislation prohibits firearms on any and all school grounds, including private colleges, and this bill addresses only public colleges then, even if passed - and even if the schools administration had no rules against it - it looks like it would still be against state law to carry or even have a firearm in a vehicle on a private campus. That really makes no sense, whatsoever.

So, since there is no House history for this legislation on the General Assembly website, I'm guessing no house sponsor was found and it is dead for the time being?

I see it as doing the opposite of separating religion from state. To say that Sharia will not and cannot be used as a 'substitute', a 'modifier' or even a consideration in matters of legal decision would be one thing. Banning the practice of Sharia law, outright, could be another. I say this because it is my understanding (and someone correct me if I am wrong) that some of the religious tenants/practices, which would otherwise be legal and harm no one, are also part of Sharia law. One example of this would be the prohibition against eating pork. Another would be the practice of preparing/selling/consuming Halal foods. So, technically, it would be legal for Jews to have Kosher foods but not for Muslims to have Halal foods as the whole idea of Halal would be, to my understanding, part of Sharia law and any practice of Sharia law would be criminal under the proposed legislation. That is why I do not believe the law would be Constitutional nor would it stand up in court. A law, however, specifically stating that Sharia can never be used or even considered when deciding criminal or civil matters in a court of law would block any future attempts to try and do so. As others have mentioned, there is actually debate in some other countries where the Muslim population has grown pretty large about the possibility of using Sharia law and not the law of the land in deciding cases against Muslims/Sharia followers. Therefore, a law making it clear that this is not even a possibility would prevent any such future debate or attempts to bring Sharia law into legal matters.

I can go with that - with the added statement that I think the chances would be a whole lot better of no-permit carry coming to TN a whole lot sooner if no one had ever heard of Voldemort. Of course, when/if it does happen - assuming his irresponsible actions and intentional, armed run-ins with police haven't landed him on the other side of the topsoil by then - I'm sure he'll strut around and try to claim credit for it.

I am thinking along the same lines as you. I wonder, though, if rather than passing a law that will not stand in the courts by outlawing sharia outright, it might not be better to pass a law to the effect that no elements of sharia or any other religious law will ever be recognized as a defense to or substitution for the laws of the state. That way, you aren't violating anyone's religious freedom. Instead, you are simply saying that, in matters of criminal or civil judgement, religious laws will hold no weight.

There is a big difference in believing that the 'sky might be falling' and not living in some fantasy world where our courts and legislatures hold strictly to the letter of the Constitution. The fact is that the federal Constitution was broken when ol' Abe Lincoln decided to grant himself UNConstitutional powers leading up to an UNConstitutional war and the nation built him a damned monument and declared him to have been one of our greatest presidents for having done so. In other words, the government (and any of its branches) can get away with anything - even be praised for it - as long as they can convince the public that they are doing the 'right' thing and doing what is 'best' for them or for the country, regardless of what the Constitution says. Being that the federal Constitution can be so easily out-maneuvered, why would you think that a state Constitution would be any different? Geez, man, I feel as strongly that we SHOULD be following the Constitution as anyone. However, at the same time I live in the real world and have the sense that God gave a goose to recognize that judges and legislators do what they damn well please then justify it by some 'interpretation' of the Constitution - and have been doing so for nearly a century and a half. Can this be fixed? Maybe, but it isn't going to be fixed by some irresponsible jackass who comes across as a half-crazy, self-important jerk even to those who might agree with the basic idea of his argument. Instead, such an individual can only hurt the cause.

Maybe he was on his in car laptop looking to see if Barbie Cummings has a blog so he could try and find out where she was going to be today. Photo: Knoxville porn actress Barbie Cummings, whose real name is Justis Ellen Richert, was stopped for speeding May 7 on state Route 840 near Lebanon by Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper James Randy Moss. Cummings said Moss threw away narcotics found

The moment the Federal government sticks its nose into carry rights is the moment the machine goes into motion to make sure that all states that allow carry or issue permits comply with the requirements in place in, say, California or New York. After all, if you are going to require California and New York to recognize TN's permit then shouldn't TN's permit system be 'on par' with California's and New York's? Of course, the best way to accomplish this smoothly will be to put the permitting system under federal control and create a new branch of the ATF to oversee it. Then, sure, if you can actually get a permit (give up that notion if you are a regular guy or gal and not either rich, extremely politically connected or both) you can carry it in any state where permits are issued. Yeah, big gain there. C'mon. Look at the Federal Government's track record on actually recognizing gun rights. Do you really think our Federal government, headed by an Obama-led administration, is going to do something that will make it easier to carry a firearm (I seem to recall, during the early part of the last Presidential campaign, Obama saying he would like to do away with carry by private citizens nationwide - funny that some carry supporters want to jump at the chance to give him, or some future anti-gunners, the opportunity to do so.) No, thanks. I'd sooner be able, as a regular citizen, to get a state permit and be able to carry in most states than to have the fedgov open up carry in all states but only in theory or only for those with enough political clout/favors to call in to be able to obtain a permit.

What some folks don't seem to be able to understand, however, is that Kwik is arguing against the need for a permit while simultaneously providing the court system and legislators with a prime example of why they should bend over backward to keep the permit system (and find some reason - however questionable - to explain why the permit system is 'constitutional'.) After all, if someone as irresponsble as Kwik can get a permit then just imagine the kind of nutjobs who would be legally carrying if there were no permit system*. In fact, he provides a pretty good example for those who would argue that it is too easy to qualify to legally carry a firearm in TN and that the requirements need to be more stringent. *I am not arguing that position, necessarily, simply saying that Kwik provides a pretty damn good example for those who would argue that position to back up their argument. I am simply not naive enough to believe that our modern courts decide such issues based solely on what the Constitution (be it state or federal) says in black and white. The courts and judges who are supposed to be guardians of those documents have used their position to grant themselves a lot of latitude and 'wiggle room' when 'interpreting' the Constitution (as opposed to simply reading the damned thing and upholding it.) Further, the court of public opinion holds weight with our legislators (for many of whom simply getting re-elected is the #1 consideration.) What Kwik represents is NOT a chance that a Constitutional right to carry in TN will be recognized. Instead, he represents an opportunity to set a precedent by the court ruling that the permit system in TN is Constitutional, thereby hurting the chances of anyone more responsible and more sympathetic than Kwik who might want to challenge the system in the future. In fact, I would not be surprised if that was the reason a judge decided to let Kwik's case proceed, after all - so that the courts could have the chance to rule that the permit system is Constitutional. With Kwik putting himself up as an example, it would be likely that the majority of the general public (even many gun owners and some HCP holders) would wholeheartedly support such a ruling. The unfortunate truth is that if the court makes a ruling and the public supports it, what the Constitution actually says/intends is moot. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a snowball's chance in hell that anything Kwik does or has done will result in any benefit for other gun owners in TN. In fact, I see only the potential for harm. Again, therefore, I do not support Kwik nor do I support his lawsuit. I simply wish he would go away.

Seriously? TN laws certainly are not perfect but you could answer your own question just by looking back a couple of years. Let's see... Undo the law allowing carry in state parks and local parks that don't rule against. Make national parks off limits while they are at it (national parks now have no rule against carry, themselves, but defer to the state in which they are located.) Use the fact that at least one moron has irresponsibly used the park carry law to cause a public nuisance and potentially endanger the public and law enforcement by carrying a rifle-based pistol in a public setting. Laws that are looser tend to have an underlying assumption, for lack of a better term, that the public to whom that law applies will use a bit of responsible judgment when acting within the parameters of said law. In absence of said responsible judgment, right or wrong, justification for stricter and less permissive laws are found. Use the momentum from 'rolling back' that law to roll back other laws, such as carry where alcohol is served. Use the fallout from Kwik's idiocy to halt the forward momentum of increasing legal carry that there has been in TN for the past couple of years and block current or upcoming legislation. It would be sad if, after pushing to get the anti leaders and majority out of power in our state legislature, the antis were able to gain power and manipulate the whole process based on the actions of this one guy.

I remember that scenario. I also remember the other scenario presented which was the same situation except the intruder ran the other direction, toward a sliding glass door or something with some of the homeowner's electronic equipment in his hand. The commentators on the video advised that shooting the burglar in that situation was questionable because he was running away, not threatening the homeowner, and the homeowner had no legal right in TN to shoot to protect his property (the electronic equipment.) Personally, I think that could be a situation where the prosecutor might try to argue against the general assumption that you should be considered to have been in fear for your life because the guy had broken into your home.

And that could get you a harassment lawsuit. In all seriousness, you are definitely right about the proper spelling and I really did start to spell it that way.

I still say that Kwik is a closeted (or not so closeted - or should that be 'kloseted') anti-gunner. His actions at Radnor Lake seemed designed to say, "Now that this dangerous law allowing carry in parks has been passed, even carrying this scary 'handgun' that many will see as an assault weapon (which I believe he intended, albeit one with the muzzle painted orange) is now legal. Legislators have put you and your kids in danger from nutjobs carrying 'dangerous' firearms when all you wanted was to have a pleasant day in the park." His actions at Belle Meade seemed designed to say, "HCP holders are so confrontational that they will walk down your street with an unholstered weapon just to protest an archaic law that isn't even enforced." Further, the whole lawsuit thing seems designed to keep drawing attention to those irresponsible stunts. Kwik is not on our side. At best, he is solely on his own side. At worst, he is actively working against us and the more I hear about what he has said/done, the more I believe that such is the case. I do not support Kwik nor do I support his lawsuit. His actions will not result in more freedom for anyone. The best outcome is that nothing will come of them. The worst outcome would be that he wins the lawsuit and, as a result, those stricken laws are replaced by harsher, more draconian (but carefully worded as to be Constitutional) laws. Basically, I expect the chances of there being any long term, positive outcomes for gun owners or HCP holders from the whole Kwik fiasco to be nil.

You know, I started to spell it that way but that sounded like a whole, different thing. If I saw some guys doing that on the street, I'd certainly call 911 and definitely would not get involved! I wouldn't be making any effort to be a good witness, either.

What Carter posted was that he saw a scuffle already in progress where a couple of guys (we'll call them ass-whoopers) appeared to be beating up another guy (we'll call him the ass-whoopie.) The ass-whoopie got away, pulled a gun and started shooting at the ass-whoopers. From that (without going quite so far as to think that maybe they are filming a movie), I simply don't see how an observer could reasonably assume that the ass-whoopers were 'criminals' and not bother calling 911. That is what I was saying.

Yeah, because in all your omniscience you know that those two 'criminals' aren't really good samaritans who were beating on the guy because they just stepped in to keep the guy who is now shooting at them from, say, beating up some woman they didn't even know and he went for his gun. I guess it is good that you are all-seeing and can know, 100%, that those two guys aren't now being shot at because they were dumb enough to get directly involved in someone else's problem. Even though there might be more going on than you saw, you've made up your mind and won't even get involved to the point of calling 911. Assumptions are great, aren't they.

Those both look pretty cool. I don't have any experience with those particular models but here are my thoughts on a 'security' type shotgun vs. a .22 rifle, in general: Shotguns are fun and have a certain 'wow' factor. That said, I don't shoot them all that much just for plinking. When I do it is just informal shooting with my BIL in his and my sister's back yard. Shotguns never go to the formal range with me, although it would be interesting to try them out with slugs on the 50 and 100 yard range. Shotguns are generally pretty loud. The specific one you are looking at seems to be more of a HD setup. I have a Maverick Security 88 with a 20 inch barrel for an HD long gun but if I didn't have it in the HD lineup it would be pretty useless to me as I wouldn't hunt with it (I have other shotguns if I want to hunt with one.) I've never shot trap, clays, etc. but I wouldn't think that a short barreled, cylinder bore shotgun would be the best choice for that, either. I like the short barrel/cylinder bore for dedicated HD use just because it is more maneuverable. There is a side benefit that it is cool to shoot paper with it but if I weren't planning to use it for dedicated home defense then I would think that a longer barrel - maybe one that allows the use of screw in chokes - would be more versatile. A shotgun with a longer barrel would kill paper just as well, could be used for hunting if you wanted and could still be used in home defense (it just might not be quite as maneuverable.) A .22, on the other hand, is almost the opposite end of the spectrum. They aren't loud, the ammo is supercheap (especially if you get one that will digest bulk ammo.) They are good for generally maintaining shooting skills as well as just a heck of a lot of fun for plinking, punching paper and so on. Plenty of folks like them for small game hunting and pest/varmint elimination, too. You can't hunt larger game with a .22 like you can with a [longer barreled] shotgun and it wouldn't be the preferred choice of most folks for home defense (although most folks would also prefer not to be shot with one.) For range fun, though, a .22 handgun or rifle is hard to beat, IMO, and those 'tactical' .22s look like they would be a hoot. In fact, I will go on record as saying that I have never really had a desire to own an AR15 and probably never will (nothing against them, I just don't think that they are my 'thing') but I'd still like to have one of the .22 EBR models that are on the market, now.

I recently traded a Rossi 461 for a S&W 642. I liked the Rossi, although I had it for less than a year. It was of better quality than some seem to think, IMO and it was a six shot snubbie in .357. My biggest reason for trading was that it was pretty bulky and heavy for a concealed handgun offering only six shots. I worried a bit about overpenetration in an urban setting with full-on .357 loads so really only carried .38+P in it, anyway. Since I have a Taurus 66 for when I need a larger .357, I decided that giving up one shot for a much lighter, more compact (and hammerless) revolver made sense. Well, that and I didn't own a S&W revolver and figured that everybody should have at least one. I have and often carry semiautos but at heart I am largely a revolver guy - and the little snubbies just work so well for carry.

Okay, I think it is time to bring some (on topic, believe or not) levity to this thread through the use of some probably inappropriate humor. This whole discussion has reminded me of a discussion I had with a former coworker, back in probably the late '90s. The discussion was sparked by an incident in Knoxville where a guy beat up a woman pretty much in the street in a Knoxville neighborhood. If I recall correctly, the woman was not seriously injured and the big part of the story was that it happened at a time of day when people were sitting out on their porches and they all apparently just sat on their porches and did nothing. The coworker in question was an older, black man named Willard and the discussion went a little something like this (not verbatim because it has been a few years but the discussion made such an impression on me that I remember most of it) : Willard: Did you hear about that man beating up that woman right out in the street. Me: Yeah, that's awful. Willard: Well, I don't know the specifics but I can guarantee you that it didn't happen in a black neighborhood. Me: Why do you say that? Willard: Because it said that people just sat on their porches while she was getting beat up. Ain't no black man just going to sit on the porch while something like that happens. I can tell you that there ain't a man in my neighborhood that would just sit there on the porch while that happened. Even as old as I am, I wouldn't have just sat there. Me: Really? Willard: Naw. Too damn hard to see sitting on the porch. You gotta get up and walk down to the sidewalk, at least to the bottom of the steps so you can get a better view. I swear to you I did not make this up. I still have to laugh when I think of the dead-pan way he said that last sentence.

Thing is, folks on other gun boards (folks who live in other parts of the country) sometimes post good deals that they have found in pawn shops. Of course, they also post what they paid for a particular gun at their LGS and it is often a good bit less than what the same gun would go for here, even in the best/least expensive shops. Either those folks are lying (why would they?) or guns are just more expensive in this area, in general (but, thankfully, not as expensive as some other areas.) Pawn shops around here seem to be ridiculously expensive, though - especially on guns. I know people say that pawn shops put a particular price on a gun expecting that the customer will want to haggle and some of those aforementioned guys from other parts of the country have mentioned haggling in their posts. Thing is, though, when the starting price is so high that you'd still be paying too much even if you haggled them down to 1/2 of what they have on the price tag, it really isn't worth trying.

Now on that we agree, although as I said my 'doing something' would most likely mean calling the police and yelling to let the guy know that they cops were coming while maintaining as much distance as possible. Greg has said that he would call the cops, too. I don't think that anyone here has advocated simply turning a blind eye. Being that most of us now have cellphones in our pockets, not at least calling 911 and trying to be a good witness is something that I wouldn't be able to understand - although I would be willing to bet that there are daily examples of incidents where bystanders could have\should have called 911 but don't.

And you guys are all thinking that everyone's situation, ability to get involved, etc. is the same as yours. No insult intended to you but I remember being an idealistic college student with clear answers to what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. I have since grown out of those notions. Back in late August, I was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. Simply put, although my veins and arteries are 100% clear and I have no evidence of arrhythmia, my heart muscle is weak. In fact, at the time of diagnosis, I was in congestive heart failure (I lost more than 35 pounds of retained water in the week that I spent in the hospital) and my heart was functioning at 15%. The reason for this happening is still not entirely clear. According to the cardiologist's reading of a subsequent echocardiogram, my function has since increased to a 'whopping' 30%. Hopefully, it has improved more since that last cardio and even more hopefully it will get to at least 45% by May so that I will no longer be a candidate for an implanted defibrulator. I say all of this to say that, although I won't even be 40 until June of this year, I ain't gonna be involved in extreme physical activity such as whoopin' ass any time soon. Further, it was stated that the assailant has a taser. Do you have any idea what a taser might do to someone whose heart is already only functioning at about 30%? I don't - and I don't intend to find out. For me, that means this is largely a handgun carry issue because, even though I carry pepper spray, etc. when I cannot legally carry a gun the chances of me willingly getting involved and risking severe injury or death on behalf of a stranger because of my already compromised health are just about nil. If I were armed and became involved and the assailant decided to include me in his attack, my only real option at this time would be to shoot the SOB because I am in no condition, currently, to try to fight him or run away. So, for me, 'doing the right thing' for myself and my loved ones - who have to remain #1 when I make such decisions with strangers being about a distant #50 or so - would be to stay the hell out of other people's problems as much as possible. If that makes me a jerk then so be it. I've been a jerk, before, and it can be quite liberating.

While Greg's examples might be a bit far-fetched, I see where he is coming from and must say that I largely agree. When I got my HCP, I did so in order to increase my options for protecting myself and my loved ones from the worst in extreme situations. Basically, the reason I want to be able to carry whenever legal is to increase the chances that I and mine will be going home safely at the end of the day. Anything that lessens the chances that I or mine will have the ability to go home safely at the end of the day, including (but not limited to) getting involved in violent situations on a stranger's behalf, runs counter to that mindset and will be avoided. I did not get the HCP so that I could go all Batman and protect the innocent, etc. Further, I never saw that Greg said he would just turn his head and walk away or that he would do nothing. Instead, in his very first post in this thread, he said: So, what he actually said was: 1. He would attempt to get help by calling 911 2. The majority of adults in TN have the same ability to get an HCP as him. If they choose not to take responsibility for their own protection, why does it suddenly become his responsibility to do so - regardless of gender? I will further add that, even if they decide not to carry a firearm, those same adults have the ability to carry defensive spray, a taser or other legal means of self defense. If there is even a miniscule risk that I will be harmed, arrested or otherwise suffer negative consequences then it simply is not worth it, to me, to get directly involved on behalf of a stranger. Calling 911 and being a good witness might make me unmanly, a coward or even a despicable human being but, at the end of the day, my unmanly, cowardly, despicable ass will be going home and not to the morgue or to jail. I have a feeling I'd sleep about as well as I usually do. In all honesty, I would probably even yell out at him from across the street that I had called 911 and the cops were on the way - which, to my mind, is a far cry from jumping right in the middle of the situation. Of course, if he then decides to approach or threaten me and the situation becomes such that I must act in self defense then that changes things.