JAB

Not a bad idea. Or simply eat in restaurants that don't tell us they don't want our business by posting a stupid sign saying we aren't welcome. Yeah, I know that may not always be possible but, given the number of restaurants that didn't post last year, it should be possible most of the time.

Hell, I ain't too proud to admit that $500 is an assload of cash to me - especially just to give the state for no good reason. I predict that there will be enough places that don't post that it won't be worth it for me to routinely carry into places that do. If businesses post, whether they "mean" it or not, screw 'em. I can't think of a single business that is worth $500 to me just to go there.

The thing is that I am not sure that most restaurant owners/managers were aware that the circle/slash was not already a legal posting - and yet we didn't see a lot of those going on front doors, either. These managers/owners may or may not have been aware of the change in the law, though.

Just out of curiosity for what other states are doing, I posted a question about legal signage on another, non state specific forum (KTOG, one of the Kel Tec forums.) Of course, the respondents are not lawyers any more than am I so these are simply their understandings of the law. These are private opinions and not intended to provide any type of legal comparison. However, I thought it would make a decent benchmark, if only a loose one. I will start with the responses my question has received so far and add more as they are posted. What I have gotten from the responses so far indicate that: Oregon - circle/slash is a legal sign but CHL holders are exempt from signage in public places except government buildings, military bases and post offices. If you are caught carrying past a sign in a private establishment (I am assuming this means a private club, etc., but that assumption is mine) that is posted, you can be asked to leave and may not return for one year. If you do return, you can be arrested and charged for trespassing. So, no automatic fine and no ramifications for the first time you are caught other than being banned from the premises for one year. Ohio - bill to carry where alchohol is served is still in hearings. Otherwise, sign must be at the entrance and 'easily seen'. The poster giving that information did not specifically say if the circle/slash is legal there or not. He did say that if you carry past the sign you will be asked to leave. You could be charged with trespass if you are still there when the police arrive. Louisiana - No specific requirements for a sign to be a legal posting. If you carry where prohibited by a posting, you will be asked to leave and charged with trespass if you do not. This poster said that he has never seen any business in Louisiana posted even though the law allows them to do so with no specific requirements for a sign to be legal. Interestingly, the poster further said that to legally carry in a private residence, the law requires you to inform the person and receive their consent. He even posted part of the Louisiana statute: Arkansas - sign must be clearly readable from a minimum of ten feet, posted at all entrances and the wording must be, simply, "Carrying a handgun is prohibited." They are also required to notify when carrying in someone else's private residence. This poster did not say what the penalty for carrying in violation of the sign would be. Kansas - the only official sign is the circle/slash. However, it must be a minimum of 8X8 square with a circle of at least six inches. It also cannot have any text within one inch of the graphic. Carrying past the sign holds a fine (the poster did not say how much the fine is.) However, the poster was under the impression that the general practice is that the LEOs will simply ask the person to leave if there are no other reasons for their having been called. Of course, that is up to the judgement of the individual LEO.

I have a question I hope someone can answer... I know it requires a 'simple majority' to override the veto but does that mean a simple majority of all Senate/House members or a simple majority of whoever shows up? In other words, if a special session were called to deal with a veto and only, say, 25 Senators showed up (with, say, 16 voting for the override and 9 voting against) and 15 Reps came back (with, say, 10 voting for the override and 5 against) then would that be enough to override the veto?

That approach would seem, to me, to be much more equitable and have much less opportunity for exploitation than allowing 'some' felons to regain full rights but not others. Further, limiting the number of true felony crimes would allow the justice system to much more effeciently 'lower the boom' on those who commit such crimes (meaning serving more of their prison time, etc.)

I am picky as all get out about barbecue and actually like Sonny's - much better barbecue than a chain has a right to be (better, in fact, that a lot of family owned places.) I like eating there and it bugs the crap out of me that the law says I have to disarm when there isn't even a 'bar', Sonny's only serves beer, doesn't really make a big deal about having beer and I don't drink beer when I am there (beer would fill me up too much and cut down on the amount of ribs I can eat.) Sonny's is exactly the type of place I think of when I think of how ridiculous the current law is. I'm glad to hear that you support carry permit holders' rights. I do have to wonder, though... Is it not still illegal for a HCP holder to carry there, even with management's permission? With the exception of certain 'agents' of the business, does management even have the legal right to give such permission? That is one of the big things that bugs me about Rayburn, et al. They claim to be fighting for the rights of restaurant owners, managers, etc. but what they are really doing is fighting to preserve laws which take away the right of an establishment (where alchohol is served) to decide that carrying there is okay.

I think that the 'some felons should be able to get their rights back and some shouldn't' approach is naive, no offense intended. After all, the intention may be good but the reality would be that the 'some' who could get their rights back would end up being those with connections and/or money to pay lawyers to keep appealing, etc. while the 'some' who wouldn't be able to get their rights back would be those who don't 'know somebody' or can't afford to pay that string of lawyers - regardless of the offense, rehabilitation and so on. To me, if 'some' felons are going to lose their rights for life then all felons should continue to lose their rights for life, period. No, they haven't paid their debt to society because, as someone said earlier, part of paying that debt is losing certain rights for life. To me, it would make much more sense to argue for downgrading certain offenses so that those offenses are no longer felonies, period, rather than saying, "Well, this felon is a nice guy and should get his rights back while that felon is a jerk." Trying to decide which ex-con is lying and which is telling the truth when he or she claims to be rehabilitated is a slippery slope, at best. As for the OP's friend, well, he stopped being 'just a user' when he chose to play chauffeur for a drug dealer. By driving the dealer around, he facilitated drug deals and, in that way, was as much a part of those deals as the dealer, himself. This wasn't a simple 'mistake' nor did he act in ignorance of the law. Instead, he knowingly and willingly aided a drug dealer in the act of dealing drugs. He might as well have been slinging the stuff, himself, as far as I am concerned. To say otherwise is like saying, "I didn't rob that bank, I just knowingly and willingly drove the getaway car."

I have a Maverick Security 88 as my HD shotgun. Mine is the 20 inch model with the factory extended mag tube (they also offer an 18.5 inch model.) It is a good, solid shotgun and I have confidence that it will work as intended if needed. With the cylinder bore and the relatively short barrel, Remington Express 2 3/4 inch 00 Buckshot (the stuff Walmart sells) gives me a pattern that is roughly 9 to 10 inches across at ~15 yards so it gives a pretty good spread but not overly spread, IMO. This is mine: Based on my recommendation, because I like mine so well and because he wasn't looking to spend a lot of $$$, my nephew recently got one of the field models (28 inch barrel, I think, with a ribbed barrel) as his first pump shotgun and he really likes it. His has a modified choke screwed into the barrel and 7 1/2 field loads print into an area about the size of a fist, maybe a little bigger, making one solid print (on the paint of an old refrigerator I shot with it) at roughly ten yards.

My point was more along the lines that, IMO, once you get to the level of at least a 9mm - but probably even a .380 or the 'lowly' .32acp in most cases - perforated is perforated. The way I see it, if someone is going to be physically stopped by a .45 then they are going to be physically stopped if shot in the same spot with a 9mm. .38 Special, .357, etc. if good ammo selection is practiced. If someone is going to be mentally convinced to stop (i.e. not physically incapacitated but choose to break off the attack) by a .45 then they are going to be mentally stopped by a 9mm or even a .380. If someone is going to keep coming and trying to kill me after they have been shot with a 9mm - or even a .380 - then they are most likely going to keep coming and trying to kill me after being shot with a .45. I mean, we are talking differences in standard handgun energy levels here and a difference in bullet size of, what, less than two millimeters - maybe even less depending upon the expansion of each, individual round? To my mind, once you get to the level of 9mm vs. .45, assuming the same shot placement, ammo selection is more important than caliber selection. I further believe that when you go further down the chain to something like a .380 then ammo selection becomes even more important - but with the right ammo the person who can shoot their .380 well is still not unarmed or, necessarily, even undergunned. I carry a 9mm as primary, sometimes. At other times, my primary might be a .357, maybe loaded with magnum rounds or maybe loaded with .38 Specials or .38 +P. I have carried a five-shot .38 revolver and felt plenty armed just as I do not feel 'unarmed' on those occasions when I carry my P3AT as primary. I practice with all of them and the lower down the power chain I go the more importance I place on ammo selection.

So why do folks who are much more likely than I am to end up facing really bad people carry tactical batons that are more comparable to a pool cue than a baseball bat?

Thanks. My mom actually has lifelong experience with firearms. In fact, she had just about as much to do with teaching me to shoot back when I was a kid as my dad did. She just never had carried, before. As for my wife, I recently explained to her that I didn't want to push too hard but that the reason I want her to learn is that I care so much and want her to be able to protect herself.

Here is the way I visualize the .45 vs 9mm debate - hope this makes sense: My pickup (9mm) is not as large nor as powerful as an 18 wheeler (.45acp). If the pickup hits you at 90 mph or the semi hits you at 75 mph, however, the difference will mostly be academic. Heck, a Honda Civic (.380acp) hitting you at 65 mph isn't going to do you any good. Again, the difference isn't going to make much, well, difference. Oh, and I guess a 12 gauge would be a freight train in that continuum.

I hate that I have two or three tackle boxes full of lures, plastics, jigs, plugs, etc. and I still usually have to fish with nightcrawlers, wax worms or minnows if I actually want to catch anything (although Powerbait does work pretty well with the Rainbows up at Tellico.) I hate that silly things like having to spend so much time at work seem to interfere with my fishing so much. Back when we had a boat, I hated going through all the trouble to fool with the boat only to find that I catch more fish from the bank than I ever did from the boat.

I must have missed hearing of those incidents last year. I would have thought all the local papers would have put it in the headlines if such things really happened while carry in establishments was legal. I'd like to read more - got a link? Since the law makes it clear that such establishments do not [legally] exist how can there be any vagueness to last year's law from a legal standpoint? If such an establishment doesn't [legally] exist then how can there be any [legal] question as to whether or not an HCP holder can enter? It's like passing a law making it illegal to drink with a leprechaun then saying that the law is vague because the average person can't tell a leprechaun from a pixie. If the law is being followed then such establishments shouldn't exist. If the authorities are ignoring the law then that needs to be addressed. Saying that a carry law is legally vague because the authorities aren't doing their jobs and the state isn't adhering to the law is ridiculous.

My HCP came to me in the mail back at the end of August '08 (or maybe first of September - can't recall for sure.) Since then, I have been trying to get my mom and wife to get theirs. Finally got mom to take the plunge and hers arrived Saturday before last. I was off from work last Friday and took mom for her official Wally walk. She was carrying in a leather IWB holster that I made for her. My wife can't reliably operate the slide on a semiauto so I have been trying to convince her that a revolver is probably her best option. Problem is, she has had trouble operating the trigger on most revolvers in DA mode and they often hurt her hand after just a few shots. Last Saturday, she wanted to go to the range at Farnsworth's to try shooting the Rossi .357 snub that belonged to her dad, again. I had her fire it with .38 Special ammo (WWB FMJ, to be precise.) In the course of me refreshing her memory on how to properly hold a revolver, she realized that she had missed one point, before, and I hadn't noticed. She had been trying to pull the trigger on revolvers with the second joint of her trigger finger instead of the pad of the first joint. Adjusting so that she was using the pad of her finger, she can pull the trigger with no problem and the revolver no longer hurt her hand. She discovered that she could actually handle firing it one handed - and doing so, with a pretty rapid rate of fire, was getting hits on the silhouette target at ~7 yards. With a two-handed grip, she was consistently getting hits 'in the black' even at distances out to ~20 yards, again, with a snubnose revolver! She then promptly went back into the store part of Farnsworth's and signed up for a May 15 carry class. I'm very proud of her. Her late (and good riddance) abusive jerk of a father was a real a-hole and his habits with firearms were bad to say the least. He used to get drunk and wave a handgun around, threatening to shoot himself (or, sometimes, others.) He once pulled a gun on his own brother over a very minor disagreement. These instances formed the basis of the majority of her earlier exposure to firearms. She was never really 'opposed' to guns but was understandably a bit wary - even afraid - of them. I have tried to show her a different example of gun ownership, answer questions she has and explain to her how a responsible person with a firearm is a positive force, not a negative one. I've also tried to help take the mystery out of firearms by helping her learn how to operate them, getting her to target shoot with me, etc. I know she has tried to keep an open mind but was never sure she'd get quite this far.

"Drawing" a smiley face, bow tie and goattee on the silhouette target with bullet holes was no walk in the park, either. Our instructor had us shoot our 48 rounds in six-round groups with the target being moved between groups. Same distances you listed, just with the target at each distance two, different times.

That seems kind of hasty. Shouldn't you wait and see if the pie is any good, first? After all, you may want him to cut you a second piece.

From the article in the OP: Yet more smoke and mirrors. The problem isn't with the Hispanic community of any state. The problem is with illegal aliens - be they Hispanic, Greek, German or whatever. Yes, perhaps a large number of the illegals are Hispanic simply because of the shared border but that does not mean that illegals - or efforts to get illegal immigration under control - should be in any way equated with a community of Hispanic individuals who are legally in this country. Once, again, it is annoying that the people who are claiming to work toward racial equality are actually the ones who yell the loudest about race and are most likely to use the 'race card' as an attempt to deflect the argument from the real issue - which has everything to do with violating American immigration law and nothing to do with race. People on that side of the argument can't find a way to argue against attempts to curb illegal immigration so they set up the straw man of 'racial inequality' to be the target of their ire.

I guess what I have been getting at is that when a leader - especially a President - singles out some groups based on race, etc. and leaves out others, I see it as devisive. Obama ran on claims of 'hope' and 'change' and talks about cooperation and non-bipartisanship then tries to use the same, old racial divisions for his own, politically expedient purposes. People who oppose him for reasons that have nothing to do with his race are called, "Rascist," simply because they disagree with him and it allows his sycophants to dismiss the real, rational arguments of those who don't support his theories - yet he turns right around and brings race into the mix, himself. To me, this goes beyond one speech and speaks directly to the character of the man - or, rather, his lack thereof. Speeches such as this do not 'empower' the so-called 'minorities', they simply keep the pot of racial tensions stirred in order to use such tensions for the gain of the person making the speech. That is why this bothers me, not because I feel 'left out' or so on. That is why I see it as much more serious than a simple, perceived slight to a particular group of Americans. That is also why I say that the POTUS - any POTUS - should appeal to all American voters to make their voices heard at the polls and not be devisive by calling out a few groups simply because he thinks his party will get more votes from those groups. Campaigning is all well and good when a candidate is running for office but once one ceases to be a candidate and actually becomes POTUS that crap needs to be checked at the door. I'd say the same if this incident involved a lily-white POTUS calling on caucasians to get out and vote.

Also doesn't make much sense to me that someone in TN who only wanted to hunt hogs - when the TWRA claims to want hunters to kill as many of them as possible - would have to buy the same licenses that are required to hunt managed game such as deer, etc. It's like they are saying, "We really want and need your help to control hog populations and we're going to let you pay for the priveledge of helping out."

I have never gotten a ticket from any of these cameras. That said, I despise the very idea of them. I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong - I am certainly no legal expert. That said: If an officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket then you show up for the court date and he (or she) doesn't then the ticket is generally dismissed, correct? The officer can't simply send footage from his (or her) dash mounted camera with a third party but has to actually show up in court, right? So how in the hell does an automated camera show up in court - and how do images captured by that camera stand instead of an officer showing up? The two are nowhere near the same. Further, how do you give policing powers to a machine? Are the cameras owned by the city, etc. or are they owned by the company contracted to monitor them - in other words, does this mean not only giving policing powers to a machine but to a privately owned one, at that? Sending a photograph does not equate to showing up in court any more than an officer sending dash cam footage via someone who was not at the scene so how does that work? In other words, how are redlight or speed cameras even legal?

Or even by some yo-yo who dies as he is stabbing me, for that matter.

I have Federal Hydra Shok in my P3AT and will continue using that as my carry ammo - assuming I can find any more. In the Brassfetcher tests, HS did not give the best expansion but expansion seems to have been consistent whether bare or lightly clothed gelatin was used. Further, the range of penetration depth was from 11.9 to 12.5 inches. As I am not in the FBI and probably won't be attempting to shoot through barriers with a pocket pistol, I consider the FBI's 12 inch rule to be more of a loose guideline than an absolute 'have to have'. Seriously - how many BGs are going to know the difference between having a 85-90 grain piece of metal inserted ten inches into their gut and having that same piece of metal twelve inches in? That said, it is nice that the Federal stuff pretty much meets the 12 inch 'requirement' while still giving some expansion. I am so low on Hydra Shoks, however, that I am currently carrying the 'value pack' Remington UMC JHPs in my backup mag. I figure that the likelihood of needing a reload (or, more to the point, having a chance to reload) with pocket pistol isn't very high, anyway. I'm not sure that the design of the UMC hollowpoint will give any expansion at .380 velocities. My thought, however, is that if those expand a little then great - and if they don't then they will perform just as well as an FMJ.

You really don't get what I am saying, do you? I'm saying that there was no need to specifically mention any group other than American voters. Race, age, gender, etc. did not need to be mentioned. By choosing to mention those things (stupid move #1) and by then mentioning some and omitting others (stupid move #2), he opened himself to criticism. I don't know that he 'hates' white folks. I only know that he specifically didn't include them in the cherry-picked groups he wants to have voting. I also don't know that he is a Muslim, a Nazi or whatever else. I do know that, in my opinion, he is is a slimy, scumbag of a politician for whom I have lost what little respect I may once have had.