JAB

I carry whenever and wherever possible/legal. I carry when I am at home and when my wife asked me about that, I replied that I would look pretty dumb carrying a gun to Walmart and everywhere else only to be killed when someone broke into the house because my gun was put away in another room. Unfortunately, I cannot legally carry at work nor can I legally have a firearm in my vehicle at work, meaning that I do not have a firearm available for the trip from home to work and back. One of the very first things I do when I arrive home from work is arm myself whether we are going back out or not. It isn't really that I feel any 'obligation' to carry, though, so much as I figure, "I can so why shouldn't I?" If I have it and don't need it, no big deal but if I need it and don't have it then I'll be SOL. Anyhow, although my situation means that I don't always have my firearm handy I also do not expect strangers to jump in and endanger their own lives to protect mine if something were to happen when I do not have a firearm. I got my HCP so that I can protect myself, my family and any close friends that might be with me. I got it to increase the chances that I will go home alive at the end of the day and that I will continue to be there to protect my wife, etc. I did not get it to protect strangers. Heck, being that my reasoning for having an HCP is that having a carry weapon may extend my life then, as opening fire would make me an immediate target, it would actually be counterproductive to my reasons for getting my HCP to become involved in a situation where lead is/might be flying if I can get myself and my family out without needing to use my own weapon. Using the 'if you were in McDonald's and someone opened fire' scenario, it would honestly depend. If the shooter were across the building, for instance, and it was likely that I could get myself and my family out a different entrance without becoming involved in a firefight then we are out of there. I can live with leaving strangers to be shot a whole heck of a lot better than I can live with being dead - or getting my family shot by drawing the shooter's attention to the area where I and my family are. See, think of it this way, the 'crazy shooter' probably has multiple handguns and/or a long gun. He might even be wearing some kind of body armor (homemade or commercial.) The likelihood that I am going to 'drop' him with one shot isn't very high. Therefore, by shooting - even if I get a clear shot and actually hit him what with all the people running around and all the confusion - chances are he will still be able to continue firing and I have now made myself/my family target number 1. No, thanks. I got my HCP to increase the chances that I and my loved ones will survive a bad situation - I refuse to decrease those chances by becoming involved if I don't have to. Think of it this way; to use your own analogy, shepherds and sheepdogs protect their own flocks. They don't go around feeling obligated to protect everyone else's. If in stopping a 'pretador' from harming the people I consider part of my 'flock' I end up protecting someone else's 'flock', as well, all the better. However, I have no obligation to play shepherd to anyone else's flock and I will not bring about greater risk to me and mine to save someone else's flock. Yes, getting a handgun carry permit does cost money, time and a bit of hassle. However, I have expended the time, money and hassle to obtain one and anyone else can do so just as well as I did. If a stranger chooses not to do so, well, it's their funeral - I won't make it mine. In my opinion (just my opinion) people who believe that their HCP makes them some kind of guardian of society, protector of the innocent and bringer of justice (aka 'sheepdog') might want to consider wearing a Batman costume instead of carrying a firearm.

Depending upon how you feel about the .32acp as an SD round, you might also consider a KelTec P32. It is pretty much the same size as the P3AT (and the LCP, which is basically Ruger's rip-off of the P3AT.) I haven't fired one but often wish I had opted for a P32 instead of the P3AT that I bought. The P32 holds one more round in the mag, probably has slightly less recoil and is the design that the P3AT was based on, meaning that the P32 has been around slightly longer. Many feel that the P32 is more reliable than the P3AT as even the .380 cartridge is still kind of 'pushing the envelope' for such a small, lightweight pistol in a locked-breech design. The big issue with the P32, apparently, is the possibility of rimlock when using some hollow point ammunition. KelTec sells a 'rimlock kit' that modifies magazines to prevent this or you could simply do a modification, yourself (the Flyer Wire mod is one such modification.) Of course, some people feel that you should use FMJ for defense in such a small caliber, anyway (arguing that the increase in size of such a small round from expansion will be almost negligible, overpenetration is unlikely and adequate penetration is more important.) Another advantage is that, with the current state of things, .32acp ammo seems to be much more readily available than .380. Heck, for a while some of the local Walmart locations had WWB .32acp in stock even when the 9mm shelves had nothing but dust on them.

This plus some version of the 'parking lot bill' would make me pretty happy. I don't like the idea of leaving a firearm in my vehicle while I am at work all day but it would be better than having to be unarmed from home to work, from work to home and anywhere I need to stop in between.

According to the article, as part of campaigning for Brown's opponent, Obama actually said, "Everybody can run slick games..." I can't believe that he, of all people, actually said that. I wonder if he managed to say it with a straight face.

My employers also have a policy against. In fact, the policy forbids even having them in our vehicles. The policy doesn't really matter, though, because I work at a satellite campus of a private college. That means that the state of Tennessee has decided that I and my co-workers do not have the same rights to self defense as other citizens of this state simply because of where we are employed. Since I don't want to risk even having a firearm locked in my vehicle on campus, not wanting to break state law means I get to make the trip from home to work and back unarmed, as well - despite having submitted to the background checks and paid the fees required to get that permit that says I can legally excercise my 'rights'.

Where in the world, much less in Tennessee, do folks find deals like that? Most of the model 10s I have seen are in the 'above $300' range and that is for older, beat-up looking ones at the shops where I consider them to have generally good prices! Most other used Smiths I have seen, in good shape, run closer to $400 or more. I generally prefer revolvers but would absolutely trust my life to my Hi-Point 995 (9mm carbine) or to the Hi-Point 9mm pistol that is currently on loan to my mom so she can practice for her HCP (no, that isn't what she will carry - too heavy and bulky - but if I didn't trust it, she wouldn't have it.) That HP 9mm and my Ruger P95 are the only semiauto handguns I have that have never jammed, ever, period. Based on the results of everyone I have seen shoot it, the Hi-Point is also easy to shoot accurately. The 995 zipped right through some 'hard primered' ammo that the Ruger wouldn't even reliably fire without second strikes on every other round (meaning that the HP 9mm is the only semiauto pistol I have that has never even failed to fire on the first pull - of course, I don't have that many semiautos.) My brother in law bought a used HP .380 that looked as if it had never even seen a cleaning rod. The chamber was black from fired rounds and it looked to have little or no lube on it but we decided to see what it would do before cleaning, etc. Two boxes of ammo with zero malfunctions later, I was a believer. Thing is, snake shot isn't very likely going to have the power to cycle the slide on an HP. You could carry a mag full of regular rounds with a snake load in the chamber and then manually operate the slide after firing the snake load, I suppose, but I don't know that it would be optimal. The weight and bulk wouldn't be that big a deal if it were only going to be carried while hunting, etc. As far as inexpensive revolvers, I have a Rossi R35102. It is a +P rated .38 Special five-shot snubbie revolver. My understanding is that these firearms are made for Rossi by Taurus under contract (the newer Rossi revolvers that are made by Braztech, that is.) They are said to be based on the old Smith and Wesson design with the firing pin mounted in the hammer. It shoots great, is quite accurate (as far as a snubbie goes) and the grips are very comfortable. The drawback is that the grips make it danged near impossible to use a speedloader but speed strips are an option and work fine, just not as fast. I got mine new in the box for $299 plus tax and background check (cheaper than even the least expensive, used S&W or Colt .38 in the same case.) That price was at my favorite LGS, though, and the other places I have seen them in this area have asked closer to $350 for them (at which price I'd spend the few bucks extra and get a used Smith.) I trust the Rossi 100% and it has been my primary carry, when I can carry, more often than not since I got it. I have practiced a little with it shooting at night with my mini-mag in my support hand as a light source and was surprised at how well I did with it. The advantage to a revolver, in your situation, is that it will fire snake loads as easily as anything else.

Revolvers typically 'fit' me better. Even if the factory grips don't work, there is a wide range of aftermarket grips that can fix the problem. With semiautos, about the best that can be done, to my knowledge, would be grip panels for those so equipped. With most of the polymer semiautos, even that limited option isn't available and the shooter is pretty much limited to slip-on grip sleeves. I am generally more accurate with revolvers, even in DA mode. I am much more accurate with smaller (snubbie) revolvers than with small semiautos - again, even in DA mode. No slide to worry about - revolver will fire and not jam even if pressed up close and personal to an assailant. Semiauto may not. No limpwristing to worry about. If I have to fire my revolver in a stressful situation with a less than optimal, one-handed grip it isn't going to become a single-shot just because my wrist isn't properly 'locked'. No accidentally hitting the mag release when firing under stress. No ejecting, spent shell casing to jam up the works. If I need to fire my revolver from the ground, it doesn't matter if it is oriented right side up, sideways or upside down - the spent casing isn't going to end up in the action, jamming things up. Sure, a revolver can jam. As someone else mentioned, however, the difference is frequency. Sure, the jams in a semiauto might be easier to clear while you are standing at the range, shooting paper. I can clear such jams as easily as anyone. Under stress, however, I am not all that sure that even a simple jam would be easy enough to clear that I could be 'back in the fight' before, for example, the BG shoved that eight inch blade somewhere I don't want it. In other words, a revolver can jam while a semiauto will jam and the stress of an actual confrontation would probably increase the likelihood of a jam (due to shooter error or less than optimal grip or angle) as well as making it more difficult to use fingers suddenly transformed into thumbs by stress to clear said jam quickly enough not to be dead. All this leads to what I have come to realize is the reason I prefer revolvers slightly more than semiautos - my level of confidence in each platform and my level of confidence in my ability to adequately use each platform under stress. I believe that confidence level - more than any other factor seperating the two platforms - would possibly impact the outcome of an unpleasant situation. In other words, it would be one less thing for my mind to worry about if I wound up where none of us wants to be - with my firearm as the only thing between me and mine and an assailant looking to do serious harm. You will notice that some of the aforementioned points have as much to do with the shooter as with the firearm. For example, my mom prefers semiautos - especially with smaller frame handguns - because the grips fit her hands better. I do see some possible advantages that semiautos have. Reloading is faster. I sometimes carry a speed strip for my five-shot .38 snubbie but realize that changing magazines in a semiauto would be faster. However, how likely is it that I, as a private citizen, will need a reload anyway? Besides, neither platform reloads as fast as presenting another weapon. That is why my 'reloads' are generally carried wrapped in a BUG. Some semiautos have a possible ammo capacity advantage (although the smaller autos may not have that great an advantage in that regard, at all.) Again, though, am I really going to be dumping fifteen rounds at an assailant as a private citizen or would the situation be resolved - one way or another - even before my five shot revolver runs empty? Of course, there are times when that increased capacity might bring comfort. I don hate semiautos and I do carry semiautos, sometimes. Generally speaking, though, given a choice I will also have a revolver of some type on me, too.

Actually, unless I am mistaken, this is a significant difference. I am no lawyer and am not offering legal advice but my understanding is that the law that was passed last year made it legal for HCP holders to literally have a loaded long gun in their vehicle. However, as the law did not change for non-HCP holders, it is currently still against the law for anyone without a handgun carry permit to even have ammunition in proximity to a long gun (or a handgun, for that matter), period. This would seem to mean loose ammo, a box of ammo from Walmart, an ammo pouch containing ammo, etc. In other words, while the proposed legislation would prohibit having loaded magazines or clips in close proximity, the current law (if I understand it correctly) prohibits any ammo in 'the immediate vicinity' of a long gun. Basically, unless I am way off track, the current law considers a long gun to be the same as if it were 'loaded' even if the chamber is empty, there is no ammo in the gun and none of the magazines contain ammo if there is a box of ammo anywhere near the gun. This law would mean that there is no violation as long as the ammo isn't already in the long gun or in a magazine close to the firearm that would make loading the firearm a very quick and easy process. There is a big difference, IMO, between not being able to have an AR-15 with a loaded mag in it in the vehicle and not being able to have a box of 12 gauge shells in the seat of your pickup with your empty double-barrel behind the seat. Personally, I don't see why private citizens who can legally own an AR-15 shouldn't be legally allowed to do the former but prohibiting the latter certainly makes no sense. To me, it is a good idea to clear up the grey area between what is really 'loaded' and what is just a shotgun and a box of ammo. Currently, if all ammo is supposed to be in a different compartment of the vehicle than the long gun and inaccesible to the driver, what is someone who drives an SUV or minivan supposed to do? Aren't those vehicles technically comprised of one, big compartment? Wouldn't ammo in the glove compartment still be accessible to the driver? My only problem with this law is the whole idea of 'close proximity'. Is there a legal definition of what 'close proximity' means in this situation? If not, it would seem to me that this law is unconstitutionally vague. Of course, as I have seen no legal defintion of 'immediate vicinity' within the current statute, either, I'd have to opine that the current law is unconstitutionally vague, as well.

So, will folks buying beef jerky from the jerky booth need a background check? Seriously, though, I wish I could find some of these gunshow 'deals' on firearms that folks talk about. I got some pretty good deals on used reloading equipment from a private seller but the private sale firearms I have seen all seem to be just about as overpriced as the dealers who show up there. In fact, the only decent firearms deals I have gotten at any of the gunshows I have attended in this area were on 'as is' firearms from a dealer at the show at the Maryville National Guard armory. Even with the background check fee and taxes, my favorite LGS generally has better prices on used firearms than I see at gun shows - and if I buy there I can get things on layaway. That said, I still oppose attempts to interfere in private sales of firearms. If an individual wants to buy a firearm from another individual at an inflated price, that is their business. The government needs to stay out of it.

I'd go further and say that the media has tried to put forth the idea that, under this law, 'beer joints' would be full of people getting stinking drunk while legally carrying a firearm. The thing that gets me is that some folks seem to think that people who would break the law by drinking while carrying are somehow magically forced to obey a law prohibiting them from carrying there in the first place - or that people who are perfectly trustworthy to carry a firearm in Walmart or Cracker Barrel will be possessed and turn into mass murderers simply because they are in the same room with booze. Honestly, I think a lot of it goes back to the backward attitudes about booze that still seem to hang on in this region even so long after Prohibition was appealed. The whole idea of 'demon alchohol' seems to be at play, here, with the notion that folks who are upstanding citizens, otherwise, can be influenced negatively by simply sitting in one of those 'dens of iniquity' that dare serve 'the devil's brew.'

I will simply quote here what I said in the comments section for the Knoxville News-Sentinel article on this subject:

I chose to take the class with my 5.5 inch S&W 22A. I wasn't there to learn how to shoot. I wasn't there to learn how to safely handle a handgun. I would hope that anyone who has arrived at the point that they are actually thinking about carrying a firearm would already have put in enough practice/range time and would have done enough research/study on their own to have a basic understanding of those fundamental tenants - certainly more of an understanding than could possibly be taught in an eight hour class (in fact, I believe the Hunter's Safety Course does a whole lot more to address safe firearm handling than the HCP course which focuses more on laws, etc.) Sadly, I do realize that this isn't the case as there were some folks in my class who actually had to have help from the instructor in clearing a jam. Anyhow, as I said, I wasn't in the class to learn how to shoot. I wasn't in the class to learn how to handle the firearm that I would be carrying. I was there to receive instruction in at least the basics of applicable law and jump through the necessary BS beuracratic hoops required by state law in order to obtain a permit to excercise what should be my right to self defense. As such, although I could have qualified with one of my carry firearms, I was (after all) paying good money to purchase that right and chose to make qualifying as much of a foregone conclusion - and as inexpensive, ammo-wise - as possible. In the room where the classroom portion of the test was held, on the wall, were two silhouette targets, both with the centers shot out. These were targets that were shot by our instructor with the Kimber .45 he uses for competitions. That said, in qualifying we did not have to shoot in the rings - anything in the black counted. Now, I am not a competition shooter and wasn't in much danger of completely blowing the center out of the target. I did, however, do well enough (mine were all in the 9 ring or better except one that was on the line between the 9 ring and the 8 ring) that the instructor simply looked at my target and said, "No need to count - all of your shots were obviously on target." Finally, what are folks talking about with regards to having it on record that you qualified with X firearm? To my knowledge, there is no such thing for a civilian HCP in Tennessee. In fact, although for a short time the type of weapon you used, etc. was recorded at the time of qualification, even that has now been dropped. In other words, there should be no record of what you qualified with and there is absolutely no reason to qualify with multiple handguns, right? Anyhow, to the OP's original question, even if she did decide to go with a .22 to qualify why not take her to the range and see which firearm (.40 or 9mm) she does the best with, is most comfortable with, etc. Maybe, as others have suggested, even rent others to let her try out.

Depends on what you consider open carry. It was in a FOBUS holster, OWB on my hip. I was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt which is long enough that it comes down over the holster. There was a slight buldge but I am a pretty big guy so it wasn't all that obvious. Sometimes, the tail of the shirt might have ridden high enough to expose the very bottom of the holster but I would doubt that anyone even noticed - or probably thought it was a cellphone case, etc. if they did notice. That or a tucked-in shirt with an unbuttoned shirt/open jacket, etc. over it, covering the holster, is about as 'open carry' as I usually get when in public except in very rare instances (at home is a different story) - certainly not right out there for everyone to see but not exactly deep concealment, either. When we arrived, there were only a couple of other tables in use - and none of them had booze. The people who were consuming alchohol arrived after we did. I certainly felt no obligation - legal or otherwise - to take my firearm out to the vehicle simply because some folks had decided to bring some beer with them. Their beer was in a small cooler which they sat beside their table and from which they were 'serving themselves.' Although 'common sense' and 'gun laws' are two things that don't seem to go together - especially in TN - I really don't think I was in any danger of being hauled off to jail. I already have to make the choice of whether to carry and skip eating at a restaurant that sells alchohol or eat there and not carry. If I am to be expected to make that same choice simply because someone might choose to bring their own then I'd say that the cost of renewing my carry permit in a few years really isn't worth it.

Yesterday, we ate at one of the few Mexican restaurants in the area that doesn't serve alchohol. This restaurant does, however, allow people to bring their own and some people had. Therefore, just yesterday evening, I, with my snubnosed .38 Special on my hip, legally sat in a restaurant and ate where others were consuming alchohol. I wasn't consuming nor did the mere presence and close proximity of 'Demon Alchohol' cause me to be overcome with the overwhelming desire to start shooting up the place - so what's the danged difference whether they got the alchohol from the restaurant or from a cooler beside the table? Some laws are just stupid and, I believe - in this case, holdovers from the backward Prohibition mindset.

I remember reading an article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel a year or two ago, that Jimmy Naifeh had gotten an HCP. Wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the 'HCP holder plaintiffs' in this suit.

That's actually still pretty much what I am thinking. She worked it so that she only had to address one aspect of the bill in this ruling. My suspicion is that she did it this way so that, once that aspect is fixed, she can rule any new law void due to other issues. I suspect that partly because of the following passage from the ruling: I believe that the 'aiding and abetting' and 'liability' issues aren't really addressed by the ruling so that Rayburn, et al. can still argue (against a future, clarified law) that even if the law were clear and an HCP holder knowingly entered their establishments and drank, the owners of the establishments might still be guilty of aiding and abetting even if they didn't know the person was carrying. I have a nagging feeling that Bonnyman ruled on this one issue not in an attempt to remain impartial but in order to leave the plaintiffs (and herself) wiggle room to shut another such law down in the future. After all, if she spoke to all the potential issues and gave lawmakers a chance to correct them then they might pass an 'airtight' law. This way, she can potentially say, "Yes, that issue was addressed but now the law is null and void because of this issue." I remember reading on one forum that some other state has a similar provision with regard to sales percentages and that state requires businesses that serve alchohol to post a sign indicating whether or not 51% of their profits are from food. IIRC, the sign actually simply has 51% printed on it if at least that percentage of profits are from food so permit holders can know at a glance if entering the establishment while armed is legal or not.

I'll go a step further and say that the law should be written so that it treats restaurants that serve alchohol, bars, etc. in exactly the same manner as all other businesses in TN. Why should there be a 'special class' of businesses? For the most part, the owners/managers of every other business in this state (including restaurants that don't serve alchohol) must decide whether or not to post a sign prohibiting legal carry on their premises, so why treat these few businesses any differently? Also, it is already illegal to carry a firearm in public without a permit - whether you are in Walmart or Applebee's - so why do we need a seperate law for a few businesses when it is not any more 'illegal' to carry there without a permit than anywhere else? My solution - do away with the parts of the law which deal specifically with businesses that serve alchohol and simply have a blanket law that covers all businesses equally and allows business owners (whether they own a bar or a flourist shop) to post if they so choose.

I have read a lot on this forum but haven't posted much, so far. However, this topic has me really angry so this is a long one. First, we have to pay for a permit to excercise a right. I could see having training requirements for public safety reasons, maybe. I could see requiring a permit to carry concealed as the argument could be made that there is no express right to concealed arms. Open carry, however, should be 100% legal with no permit in any location that doesn't post otherwise. There should certainly be no requirement for a permit to have a loaded firearm in one's vehicle. The fact that a permit is required to carry in any manner, even in one's own, personal vehicle, tells me that TN is not nearly as 2A friendly as we would like to believe. Fact is, I suspect that we have been invaded by too many anti-gunner hippie wannabes from other states to retain what many native Southerners think is the attitude of this state toward self defense (such as our governor who is a product of New Jersey and New York - surely we can find a Tennesseean who can run the danged state without outsourcing from Liberalville, USA.) Secondly, after we pay for the permit so as to be legal, law-abiding citizens, we get this list of places we still aren't allowed to carry. Being concerned enough about obeying the law to get a permit in the first place isn't good enough. Background and criminal record checks by law enforcement agencies (including the state's top LEA, the TBI) aren't good enough - we are still treated like criminals-in-waiting and loose cannons who can't be 'trusted' to carry in a whole, laundry list of places. One starts to wonder why one even bothered getting the permit instead of just carrying without one in the first place and carrying wherever in the heck one pleases (as long as there are not metal detectors, etc.) I am not advocating that opinion, simply saying that there is a certain amount of validity to it. Finally, we work within the system in the legal manner, vote for legislators we believe will support our rights, contact our legislators in support of specific laws and, eventually, see those laws passed. Then one, lone, pissant Chancellor comes along as says, "Nope. I'm not going to allow you to excercise your rights no matter how much you tried to do things the right way." I mean, the friggin' Governor didn't have the authority to single-handedly stop this law (he tried) but one Chancellor for one, small part of the state has that authority? It sounds like that is a law that needs to be re-written. As for boycotting all restaurants that serve alchohol, I am concerned that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. After all, there are many small, mom and pop restaurants (some Chinese, some Mexican, some serving other 'ethnic' foods and some good, ol' American food places) that offer beer as a beverage choice on their menus. These places have no 'bar' area, do not serve mixed drinks or wine and don't even make that big a deal about having beer. These places also have zero clout to 'put pressure' on the bigger establishments that are making the real profits off of booze in TN. They are also the places where I feel the law prohibiting carry is the most ridiculous and, to be truthful, the reason the prohibition even concerns me as there are so few places that don't at least serve beer. I could go from now on without ever setting foot in TGI O'Applechili's again. Their food sucks, anyhow, and reminds me of an over-priced TV dinner. However, I cannot limit my dining out to fast food, Shoney's and Cracker Barrel (let's be honest - most of their food isn't even as good as the 'casual dining' joints.) There are a few, family owned places around that have good food and don't serve alchohol. Problem is that my work schedule often means that they are closed by the time I am ready to eat dinner. I also cannot justify punishing the little guy for the sins of the larger, more powerful establishments over which the little guy can have no influence in the first place. These mom and pop places are the ones that would be more likely to be impacted - perhaps even forced out of business - by a boycott. I believe that getting rid of the restaurants that actually have good food would just be cutting off our own noses to spite our faces - and would have the unintended consequence of taking out some of the competition for the establishments that actually are to blame for this situation. Honestly, I would like to see a law that would allow HCP holders to carry everywhere, period. Every restriction on where we can carry simply makes the permit a bit more 'useless', anyhow. However, living in the world in which we live, I would be happy to see a law that would allow us to carry in restaurants that only serve beer. Then I could still legally carry while patronizing many restaurants that actually have good food while not eating at those that serve stronger spirits - which are the places more likely to blame for this fiasco, anyhow (yes, there are some mom and pops that serve mixed drinks but they aren't the majority).