JAB

I hope I didn't come across as if I were attacking your post. It certainly is relevant information. I simply intended to point out that the AG saying something - while the opinion should certainly be considered - doesn't necessarily mean that is how a real life scenario will play out. That makes perfect sense and is probably how I would handle the situation.

IANAL so please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the AG's opinion to be just that - a lawyer's opinion. As this law is so new, I can't imagine there is much case law to back up that opinion - and his opinion is not necessarily the opinion of a judge who would hear the case, etc. Mostly, I take that to mean that (if anyone sees your firearm) you might be charged and the local prosecutor might decide prosecute. That doesn't mean you will be found guilty. It doesn't mean you will be charged and prosecuted to begin with. It doesn't even mean that you are breaking the law - just that one lawyer - the AG - believes you might be. Seems to me that what this really means is that our AG leans toward being an anti and is allowing his personal opinions to color his legal interpretations. I can possibly see the logic of saying you couldn't attend a school-sponsored function (such as a school field day or soccer game, for instance) in the park with your firearm but the idea that you can't be in the park, at all, while such an event is taking place in a different section of the park? Thing is, if we take this ridiculous idea to its logical conclusion, if I am fishing in one part of a state park with a legally carried firearm and a group of students on a school field trip show up in another part of the park, technically I should run back to my car and lock my firearm up as the park is now being used 'for a school activity', right? Heck, some local parks are big enough that I might be on a walking trail or maybe fishing at one end of the park and not realize that Ms. Buttwell's third grade history class has stopped to have lunch in the park picnic pavilion on their way between one museum and another. I think I'd keep my firearm concealed and happily stay far away from the little monsters...er...darlings, thanks. Of course, as mentioned, IANAL, that is not legal advice and I'm only saying what I might do, in theory, if the situation ever arose.

I am no lawyer, either, but the way I am reading it the circle/slash with 'No Guns' under it would still be legal because it has the circle/slash. Whatever else is on the sign doesn't seem to matter as there is no language in the bill to say that nothing in addition to the circle/slash is allowed, only that a circle/slash or the required text must be on the sign. Putting 'No Guns' on the sign, then, would not seem to matter either way, IMO. Now, just putting up a sign that says, "No Guns" without the circle/slash or the required wording on the sign in addition to "No Guns" would not seem to constitute a legal posting.

Well, I think the problem there is that we have been 'invaded' by so many antis from anti (mostly Northern) states. Just look at Bredesen - born in New Jersey, raised in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts and gets elected as mayor of Nashville and then governor of TN. What we need is to cast our votes, etc. in a way that will put individuals who are both true Tennesseans (or at least Southerners) and more gun friendly back in charge. "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't mean nearly as much to me as the former qualifications.

I can't legally carry or even have a firearm in my vehicle at work (I work at a satellite campus of a private college), can't carry in state buildings, can't carry in restaurants where booze is served, etc. While I can't say that if this law is overturned I won't care any longer whether or not it is legal and while I will make every effort to remain legal in carrying a firearm, I do understand your frustration. With all the 'must have a permit to carry but you can't carry here and you can't carry there' nonsense - with the 'here' and 'there' that we can't carry sometimes being the places we might have the most need of a defensive firearm, I do sometimes wonder what the heck that $50 plus $115 plus a day out of my life plus getting fingerprinted, having a background check, etc. was for in the first place.

These are just my thoughts and are not intended to dispute or deny anyone else's thoughts or experiences. I do not have any experience with 'real world' shootings and do not pretend to be qualified to advise others. These are merely the thoughts/ideas/opinions that influence my own choices: My belief is that the vast majority of assailants I am likely to face have a few things in common with the vast majority of humanity, in general - they don't want to leak, don't want holes in their hide and they will not enjoy having any size or weight of a foreign material (lead/copper) injected into their body. Sure, there may be angry, roving male silverback gorillas on crack out there but if a couple of COM shots from a 9mm or even a .380 won't change their minds, how likely is it that anything short of a 12 gauge will do so? I am a pretty big guy - 5' 11" and right at 300 pounds. Pretty big, heck, let's face it - I'm fat. At the thickest part of my torso, however, 12 inches of penetration front to back would still be all the way through (yes, I've measured.) Even from the side, 12 inches would be nearly all the way through at the widest point. If shooting through my right arm, it might take 12 inches to reach my heart but even five or six inches would be a lung shot. Of course, I realize that bone, etc. is going to interfere but how the heck big would someone have to be that their vitals would be 12 inches deep in their body, even shooting from the side through the upper arm? That said, I rarely carry my P3AT as my primary - it is usually backing up a 9mm or a revolver loaded with .357 or .38 ammo, depending on where I am going. Also, part of the reason I like Federal Hydrashoks for my P3AT is that various tests I have seen indicate that they do consistently give 11.5 to 12 inches of penetration in gel while also giving consistent (although perhaps not massive) expansion. I just wish I could find some more HS right now - I'm almost beginning to wonder if Federal is even making the darned things in .380, any more. To me, if a smaller caliber is going to be a carry weapon then ammo selection becomes ever more important and variance in performance of different brands/types of ammo increases as the caliber size decreases.

Okay, I know little and nothing about black powder revolvers. I have a couple of cap and ball long guns but haven't fired them, much. I do know a little about cooking, etc. though. Extra Virgin olive oil usually means it is from at least one of the first pressings of the olives if not the first pressing. Such oil has more 'solids' from the olives (may not be the official term but it suits the purposes of this discussion.) These solids give the oil more flavor but also lower their smoke point - which is why they (especially the really high quality ones) are best for using in dressings or as a drizzling/dipping oil and only used in cooking applications where they won't be exposed to high heat, if at all. The better ones often have a 'green' tone to them from the solids they contain. Subsequent pressings of olive oil have fewer solids (i.e. less of that distinct flavor) and are generally lighter/clearer in color but are more suitable for cooking as their smoke points are a little higher. There are also modern processing and refining methods by which these lower grades of olive oil may be obtained. I have noticed that even olive oils marked 'Extra Virgin' vary in 'solids' content, etc. with the better ones (for eating) costing more - and some being very expensive. I suspect that Mike .357's 'head chef and bottle washer' probably had a good, quality (i.e. high 'solids' content) Extra Virgin olive oil onhand and that the higher 'solids' content contributed to making it become sticky. I further suspect that Jamie's 'Walmart house brand' of Extra Virgin olive oil is not as high quality, as far as flavor and 'solids' content goes, possibly lowering it's 'gummy' potential. Just a thought, though.

I guess we can wait another week or so to see the veto overridden - as long as they actually get it done this session. It is a bit annoying, though. This should have been law a month or two ago if not for all the delays in committee, etc. It should have been law a couple of weeks ago if Bredesen had signed it. Heck, if Bredesen had at least shown some class in the veto this could have been settled by now. Instead, we get stall tactics from the goober-natorial office and something that should have been a done deal has to go right down to the wire. Heck, for that matter this shouldn't even be an issue as legal carry in restaurants that serve alchohol should still be on the books from last year. It does make me feel a little better that there is apparently a bill moving through the legislature, now, that would drop the "Oh, no restaurant in TN makes more than 50% of their profits from alcohol sales," nonsense and start charging places that don't meet that requirement more for their licenses. So, if these two bills (the carry bill and the new licensing bill) become law, there will be two direct results of Rayburn's little stunt. I hope he chokes on them. Of course, a new way of licensing probably opens the way for the carry law to be revised back to allow carry in restaurants but not bars. Personally, I hate clubs and always have (even when I was young enough to fit into that scene) and rarely if ever go to true bars, so that doesn't bother me.

But aren't attached, enclosed patios just that - attached to the main structure and built as part of a building? Therefore, aren't attached patios part of a building? My thought would be that an attached patio - as it is a defined, confined area that is part of (attached to) the main structure - would be included in the 'confines' of a building. I don't see how being a little more open, architecturally, makes that much difference. Of course, there are also different kinds of patios at different restaurants. Some (especially some I have seen at some Mexican restaurants) have actual, 'brick and mortar' walls which more or less extend the walls of the main structure but are open to the sky. Sometimes these are half walls, sometimes they are head high and sometimes they are lower in the front than at the rear, where they attach to the main structure. To me, such structures are very much within the confines of the building. While I would consider those structures to be very much 'within the confines' of the building when deciding whether or not to carry there, I do agree with you that simply carrying through the restaurant in order to get to the patio would seem like enough to be in violation of the law so it is probably a moot point in such instances. The really confusing areas, then, might be at restaurants where there are 'Tiki Huts' or some other type of freestanding structure in addition to or instead of an attached patio. These would be 'on the premises' but certainly not part of the confines of the main structure and one does not have to pass through the main structure [restaurant] in order to gain access to them. Of course, such freestanding 'gazebo' type structures seem to tend to have their own bar so I don't know how or if that changes things. Hopefully by this time next week it won't really matter. Hopefully, by then, posted will be posted and everywhere else will be fair game.

In a heavier revolver, even with a short barrel (such as an SP101) I truly don't notice much difference in recoil between shooting 110 to 130 grain .38 Special and 110 to 130 grain .357 Magnum ammo, at least at the time I am shooting. Sometimes, my wrist may tell me later that there is a difference, but not always. Many people (my wife included), however, notice a pretty big difference. This is not because I am 'macho' or 'tough' (I'm not, particularly) - it simply has to do with perceived/felt recoil, which is often an individual thing. The differences I notice the most are the bigger fireball (both out the end of the barrel and out of the cylinder gap) and somewhat louder report of .357 magnum ammo - especially out of a snubnose or short barrel. .357 ammo does generally seem to cost more but right now it also seems to be more readily available in my area - nearly every Walmart seems to have some .357 but none have .38 - so I have been shooting a little more .357 ammo lately. I recently got ahold of some 180 grain hard cast .357 (Buffalo Bore) ammo. To me, that is a big difference in recoil - like shooting a whole different caliber (and that was out of a 4 inch barrel - I wouldn't want to try it out of a snubbie.) BTW, your .357 will also handle .38 Special +P loads. These are more powerful than standard .38 Special loads but often don't have quite the 'buck and roar' of full-house .357 loads. Some folks like to use a good .38 +P load for carry ammo instead of full-on .357 as a 'compromise' of more power than a standard .38 (some feel that the slightly higher velocity increases the chances of a hollowpoint bullet expanding - especially with some older bullet designs) but a little more controllability and quicker shot recovery than full .357. Besides, wouldn't it just be easier to trade the DAO SP101 for a hammered version?

I suspect a lot of .40 S&W gets produced because so many LEAs have switched over to that caliber. I have also noticed that WM seems to always have at least something in that caliber and it was the one handgun caliber that never seemed to disappear completely from the shelves for more than a day or so at a time - and even that was rare - during the recent shortage. As far as the # of boxes per customer limit, come to think of it I haven't noticed those signs in a while, either. Doesn't matter, though - they had just about as well set a 0 box per customer limit for me until I find some .380 or .38 Special ammo there, although I probably should start replenishing my 9mm range fodder supplies, soon. I prefer the cheaper Federal FMJ for that and supplies of it still seem to be hit or miss at the local WMs.

And if this legislation gets overturned due to a lawsuit from our side, it would not surprise me if the state legislators said, "Okay. We have expended a lot of effort on this issue for the past two sessions. We have tried but apparently could not satisfy everyone no matter how much effort we put into it. There are other, important issues that need to be addressed right now - we'll try to revisit this issue in a year or two (i.e. next time an election is looming.)" And to give them the benefit of the doubt, I can imagine that there probably are a lot of TN residents who don't care about this issue either way but who will begin to wonder why so much attention/effort is being spent on it. For the reasons above, I think it would be a mistake for any of us who are pro-carry to get involved with trying to have this law overturned (what is the likelihood of being able to overturn just the signage language without overturning the whole thing?) I believe - and this is, of course, just my opinion - that the better course of action would be to let the law stand, play by the new rules and encourage our legislators (hopefully with more/stronger carry rights supporters among them) to address the signage issue in a future session.

Could be. My thought last year when Bredesen vetoed that bill was that he wanted an appointment in the Obama administration. Could be that he is angling the same way, this year. Of course, there is always the possibility that both of us are right and the veto will benefit Bredesen (and his chances of dancing at Obama's party) while the chance to override could benefit some Dems at the state level. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are some Dems who truly do support our carry rights. I am neither Democrat nor Republican and have no problem voting for a Democrat (or Republican or Independent, etc.) who I think will do the best job for us. I also think there can be big differences between Dems in the South and their counterparts in the rest of the country. It just almost seems like this is the perfect opportunity for some TN Democrats to exemplify those differences (whether for real or for show.)

You know, just as a thought, I have to wonder if this whole veto thing was intended to help the Democrats in the Senate and House. Just follow my line of thinking for a minute... Bredesen has nothing to lose. He can't run for governor, again, and he already lost all credibility with most of us, anyway. Further, the Dems are set to quite possibly take a beating in the elections this year. By vetoing this bill he gives many Senate and House Dems the opportunity to prove they aren't towing the party line set out for them by the more left-leaning factions of their party by voting against a Dem governor in support of expanded gun carry rights - for the second year in a row, in some cases. This could very well help win them some 'credibility' with people who might otherwise be out for Dem blood in the next election - as in, "Well, I'd be all set to vote all those Democrats out of office because of what Obama and his kind are doing but, gosh-darnit, good ol' [insert the name of a Dem senator who votes to override the veto here] showed ol' Bredesen what for and helped get that law passed so he's okay in my book. I think we need to keep folks like him around so he has my vote!" Of course, there will be those who vote against the override - but maybe that allows them to play to the audience in their part of the state. For instance, Naifeh keeps getting elected so either many of his constituents agree with his anti-gun stance or they just don't care. Maybe this is an issue that won't really impact those who vote against it one way or another but could help those Dems who vote for it.

I know that in downtown Knoxville (specifically on Market Square) there are a couple of restaurants that put up these 'barricade' fence-type things just outside their building, enclosing a few tables they had sitting outside. One such establishment was Tomato Head and another was the brewery on Gay Street. I am not 100% certain, but my understanding is that, without the barricade/fence thing they couldn't serve alcohol (as they would basically be serving beer, etc. in an open, public area - i.e. the sidewalk in the case of the brewery) but the barricade made that area function as a 'patio' and, somehow, legally viewed as attached to or part of the building, not a public area, making it legal to serve alcohol there. That makes it seem, to me, that turning an area into a 'patio' - even by something so simply as defining a square section of sidewalk with a barricade/fence - makes it 'part of' the building for the purposes of legally serving alcohol. In other words, it seems to me as if that extends the 'confines' of the building out to include whatever is inside the area marked off as a 'patio'. Of course, IANAL. For the purposes of self defense and the presumption that we have fear of death or serious bodily injury, TN state law extends the definition of our residence to include attached porches and even the curtilage immediately around the residence. It says that the same presumption applies both to the interior and exterior areas of a business (building.) With that definition in another law on the books, my non-lawyer gut feeling is that I wouldn't want to try to rely on the hairs of the law pertaining to restaurant carry being split in my favor.

Last year was the first time I ever attended a gun show. My first was one of the RK shows at Chilhowee Park. I didn't know that HCP holders weren't supposed to carry inside the show and I had my little P3AT in my pocket. When I saw officers just inside the door checking firearms and putting zip ties through them, etc. I thought, "Uh oh." Not wanting to risk trouble, I asked about it. The officer cleared the weapon and asked if I had an HCP. I told him I did and he said, "Next time, just keep it in your pocket and don't say anything. This time, since you mentioned it, I have to take your ammo. You can have it back when you get ready to leave." Well, he put the zip tie through my pistol and emptied my magazine. Sure enough, when I got ready to leave he gave my ammo back. I stopped just outside the front door, stepped over out of the path of foot traffic, cut the zip tie off, reloaded and went on my way. Now, if I go to gunshows, I'll just leave my firearm in the car. I have just about sworn off of the RK shows, anyhow - seems like a waste of ten bucks just to go in and look at a bunch of stuff I either don't want, wouldn't have or can't afford. I'd just as soon drive on up to Bass Pro, not have to pay admission and just maybe find something (ammo, etc.) I want - probably for a better price than the gun show gougers want. I do still like going to some of the smaller (non-RK)gun shows, though. It kind of sticks in my craw, though, when places that are looking to make money off of the fact I have firearms, partly to be able to practice my right to self defense, want to deny me that right while I am attending their event, shopping in their store, etc. I'd rather spend my money in places that respect my rights and the fact that I am carrying legally.

I think that losing reciprocity would not be a good thing. In fact, in some ways it would be moving backward. Maybe it is purely selfish, but now that I have already gone through the class, the $115 'startup fee', etc. I'd just as soon pay $50 every four years and continue to be legal to carry in several states. I'd hate to win a moral victory only to end up with a de facto loss of some of our existing carry rights. I wonder if, even if TN issued permits on request, we would lose some states if the classroom and range qualification process weren't part of getting a permit. Once again, perhaps a purely selfish concern but there it is. I think the best solution would be 'Vermont-style' carry legalized in TN with people having the option to get a permit by going the class/qualifying route. Just kind of thinking out loud - well, not exactly 'out loud' but you get the point.

Except, unless I am mistaken, it was around 3 in the morning in China when the veto came through. Therefore, I'd almost bet that Bredesen wrote and signed everything before he even left with instructions for it not to be delivered until the last minute - meaning the veto has been sitting 'on his desk' since last week. Jerkwad.

Would the prosecutor simply have to prove you weren't in danger or would he/she have to prove that you knew you weren't in danger and that a 'reasonable' person would not have been in fear of death or serious bodily injury? Sure, shooting someone in the back as they run away might provide such proof (to my non-laywer mind, that would depend on if they are running toward the door or toward the knife block on the kitchen counter, or maybe toward the bedroom where your wife is, etc.) However, would finding an uninvited intruder, especially a stranger, in one's home not cause most reasonable people to have at least some fear of death or serious bodily injury? As for what might constitute forcible entry: So, according to the statute, it appears to my non-lawyer mind that the intruder doesn't even have to be in your home for 'illegal entry' and the 'presumption' to apply - they can be in the 'curtilage', on your front porch or even in a tent in which you are staying. No doors or any real security to overcome on a tent (I guess one could put a lock on the interior zipper pull and lock it to a tab sewn onto the inside of the tent) but still the 'presumption' seems to apply.

I was actually wondering if the guy might not have been talking about something completely different, myself. Heck, maybe he was there buying condoms. Either way, the OP did well in just ignoring the comment. Don't feed the trolls - whether on the 'Net or at Walmart.

Doubtless if we are outnumbered in this poll then the CA and it's Scripps-Howard 'sister' papers (such as the Knoxville News-Sentinel) will print an article talking about how results of 'a recent poll conducted by this paper' indicate that the majority of Tennesseeans support Bredesen's veto. If we have the greater numbers, however, it will simply be brushed off as an 'unscientific' poll that really doesn't mean anything.

When I bought my first generation P3AT (NIB) if anyone had suggested that, within six years or so, .380 ammo would become scarce due to popularity that person probably would have been laughed at. If they had then suggested that .38 Special ammo would be equally as scarce, they probably would have been laughed right out the door. I actually kind of like shooting my P3AT. With a grip extender mag base plate, I don't find it to be uncomfortable. I don't want a larger caliber pocket gun because, while it is sometimes my 'primary', it usually plays a supporting role as a weak-side BUG - meaning I may have to shoot it one-handed with my weak hand. Also, due to the small size, etc. I like to shoot it quite a bit just to be sure that I keep up my skills with it. I haven't been able to do that, lately - nor have I seen my preferred carry round (Federal Hydrashoks) available in .380, anywhere. Because of all that, I have considered trading the P3AT for a P32 since even Walmart has .32acp ammo on the shelf. I have honestly grown kind of fond of the little .380, though, and don't really want to do that. Besides, when I sent my P3AT in to Kel Tec a few months back for repairs, they built me a brand new 2nd gen pistol on my old 1st gen frame and I really haven't had a chance to enjoy it, yet. I have also considered just buying a P32 and keeping the P3AT but don't really need to have, basically, the same pocket auto in two different, minor calibers. So, for now, I'll just hang on to the P3AT, hope ammo supplies return to normal and practice with/carry my NAA mini .22WMR as a weak side 'get off me' gun.

Again with the 'guns and alcohol don't mix' bullcrap. I'd say that hitting someone with a Class A misdemeanor as well as the possibility of losing their HCP for three years pretty well sends the message that the legislature has no intention of legalizing the mixture of guns and booze. Oh, and he excercises his Second Amendment rights by hunting, etc. What a scheisskopf. I sure as hell hope the NRA are revising that 'A' rating in case the bastich does decide to run for anything else, ever.

I just sent the following email to both Rep. Matlock and Sen. McNally. I probably said a little more than needed re: Bredesen but I am pretty ticked, right now. I did try to keep the tone respectful, though.

Okay, it is official - I now despise Bredesen. Had he vetoed earlier, I would not have been pleased but it wouldn't have shown the same amount of disrespect toward the voters who want this bill as these actions show. Maybe he'll contract some kind of uncurable wasting disease while abroad.