JAB

  I have a theory - no hard evidence to back it up, only my own observations.  I believe that the anti-gunner blowhards and all their hype after Sandy Hook, much like when Obama was first elected (when the last, big ammo 'shortage' hit - except then it was mostly .380 that was hard to find over the long term), started people thinking that draconian gun laws were on the way.  People who never owned guns, before, decided they might ought to go ahead and buy one or two.  When asking for recommendations for a first gun, a good .22 - either alone or as a practice platform along with a heavier caliber - was likely a common answer.  So, now there was the kind of run on ammo that normally occurs in such uncertain times with the further complication that there were a lot of new gun owners competing for the same, old supply of ammo.  Thing is, these new owners came into things at a time when ammo scarcity was the 'norm'.  Even worse, the only .22 ammo they could find was $8.00 for a box of 50 standard, run of the mill stuff or $60 or more for the bulk pack stuff.  These folks may not even realize that the 'normal' price was about a third of that in both cases or that under 'normal' conditions one could go to Walmart and buy .22 all day long with no problem.  Then there is the BS that the profiteers like to sling to keep people's fears stirred up (like a couple of years ago - even before the current .22 shortage fiasco, before Sandy Hook - I heard an ammo dealer at a gun show telling a potential mark about how starting later that year all .22 ammo manufactured would be set to expire and become unshootable within a certain, small window of time - so, of course, the mark would be well advised to buy the dealer's non-expiring ammo.)  I've actually heard 'rumors' at gunshows that went along the lines of, "They are going to quit making .22 ammo."  Throw all of this together and it is difficult to blame people who are new to the gun/ammo world for paying scalper prices and buying it whenever they see it - such as from scalpers at gun shows.   Even when things settle down, I suspect that $4 or $5 per box of 50 and $25 to $30 for a bulk pack (depending on the ammo brand, type, seller, etc.) is probably a lot closer to the new 'normal' than what we remember as normal pricing for .22LR ammo.  As someone who remembers when you could pick up a box of 50 for less than 3 bucks or a bulk pack for about $15, I have resisted this notion for the last, couple of years.  Now, however, I have come to accept that if I want .22 ammo then I will pay those prices.  Of course, keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago - maybe ten years or so - that 9mm range ammo was around $7 to $9 a box (Federal 9mm was right at $10 a box at Wally World as recently as three or four years ago.)  It also wasn't that long ago that 7.62X39 ammo was $3.99 a box in most places.  Both examples are almost double that price, now.  I think .22 prices stayed more or less stable while everything else went up but now we will see similar increases in the price of .22, as well.  I will not, however, pay upwards of $7 or $8 for a box of 50 regular, old .22LR ammo nor will I buy it from scalpers and profiteers at gunshows.

Good point. I am lucky in that most will fit me okay. I also think that too short, while possibly not entirely comfortable, is better than too long.

Great news.  I, personally, rarely visit local parks.  Heck, I live in the danged woods and there are fishing spots just maybe five miles (or less) down the road from me.  I am much more likely to visit a state or national park.  Still, it is good to know that I don't have to worry about whether i am legal or not if I do enter a local, public park for some reason.  Further, I think that every advance we can make in restoring firearms rights is a step in the right direction whether it impacts us all that much personally or not.  Who knows, maybe this is the first step toward removing the weight of law from signs on posted businesses (which, I believe, would be one of the greatest advances we could make at this time.)

Emailed Haslam, not that I really believe that the opinion of a lowly voter will have any impact on His Highness' decision.  At least I let my wishes be known, though.   I know we generally want to keep emails to politicians short and sweet and I generally attempt to do so but in this case I just couldn't help but voice my opinion a little more thoroughly in what I hope and believe was a generally respectful manner.  This is what I wrote:  

The MoveOn.org message that JohnC posted makes me want to vomit.  Especially this line:     FIrst of all, 'terrifying'?  Really?  Only if you are an idiot hoplophobe who thinks that entering a park will suddenly turn people who otherwise safely and legally carry firearms in many, other locations on a daily basis into bloodthirsty mass murderers.  Secondly, it is already legal to carry in parks unless the local government opts out so this bill does not 'allow' people to carry in parks.  Instead, it disallows local ordinances that create a patchwork of laws.  Finally, it disgusts me when people claim to not oppose the Second Amendment and then follow up with crap like 'common sense legislation' that does just that - opposes the Second Amendment. 

This. It isn't about the spread, so much, and certainly not about the 'you can just point it in the general direction' bs. The 'cone of death' is pretty much fiction at those ranges - which isn't a bad thing as I want to hit my intended target, not everything else around the target. Instead, it is about the decisive outcome of hitting a deadly threat with, as OS said, nine pellets of roughly .30 in one pull of the trigger.

I stopped by to pick up some .45 ammo and was pleasantly surprised to see a decent sized stack of .22LR ammo at the front counter. The ammo is Federal Game Shok 38 grain HP and was $3.99 per box of 50. Limit 2 boxes per person. It is 3:49 pm right now. I just walked out the door and as of right now there looks to be quite a few boxes left. They also have a stack of primer only Colibri ammo if anyone is interested (I am not.)

  This simple logic is dead on - and I don't believe for one minute that the legislators (and probably most anti-gunners) believe that such signs, etc. will stop criminals.  No, it is more about casting legal gun owners and HCP holders as potential dangers to public safety as well as demonizing inanimate objects (guns).  Then, when we want to change ineffective and even dangerous laws that leave honest citizens unequipped to best defend themselves against the criminals who will and do ignore the law and postings we can be portrayed as radical gun nuts who are one step away from shooting up a little league game and have no concern for the safety of children, old ladies or bed wetting hoplophobes.   Specifically, have you ever seen a public park that had armed guards and a metal detector at all entrances (or any, for that matter) on a daily basis?  I can't say that I have.  Laws only have authority as far as people choose to obey them.  Sure, if caught breaking the law you could be charged with doing so but that isn't what I am talking about.  What I am talking about are laws and regulations such as the ones in question here which prohibit the carry of firearms in a public park.  If the individual in question keeps his or her firearm concealed then the fact is that (barring some very unusual circumstance) no one is likely to know that person is carrying a firearm.  As most parks do not employ armed guards to man metal detectors at their entrances, anyone could walk into the park with a well concealed firearm on their person and no one there would be the wiser - meaning that such laws and regulations are, essentially, unenforceable.  Therefore, the only people who will obey such postings are those who choose to do so.  My guess is that the criminal element would not choose to do so.

Yep, link in OP failed to work for me, as well.   Now, some folks will look at this story and see two unhinged individuals reenacting the OK Corral on the side of the road.  I see a case where an intended victim defended himself from a would-be assailant.  Now, what (if any) reason did the would-be assailant have for doing what he did in the first place?  Well, that part of the story remains untold at the moment, it seems. 

  Especially since the DL number and the permit number is the same, not to mention all the info on both.  It could be just like any, other 'endorsement' - F endorsement, etc. - on a license.  Of course, some people wouldn't like the idea because they might not want to 'inform' a police officer if not asked (in line with TN law) or might not want the clerk at Walmart who askes to see their DL in order to accept a check to know they have their HCP (as if the clerk is likely to notice, anyhow.)  One, valid objection I could see is that doctors' offices often want to make a photocopy of your DL with your insurance cards.  That kind of goes along with not wanting to answer questions of doctor questionnaires about whether or not you own guns (I have never been asked but wouldn't answer if I were.)  Also, I guess having a separate permit works better for reciprocity with other states where police, etc. might not recognize an endorsement on a DL as easily as a stand-alone permit.

I probably wouldn't trade unless your other Blackhawk is also a convertible model.  In my experience, those are even harder to come across than .357 lever guns.  I am not sure that Ruger is even still making them.  The ability to shoot the less expensive 9mm ammo and the fact you already have a lever in .357 would be the reasons I, personally , wouldn't trade.   In fact, even though I kind of want a .357 lever and don't have one (I do have one in .44 Mag to match with my .44 Mag Super Blackhawk), I probably wouldn't trade the convertible Blackhawk for one (again, unless the other .357 Blackhawk is also convertible.)

Drool!  (You'll be glad to know I am referring to the axe, not the blacksmith.)

I have a Maverick Security 88 model shotgun with a 20 inch barrel (they also offer an 18 inch version but the 20 inch version holds more ammo in the tube.)  I have a pistol-only grip on it and do not find it difficult to hit targets at 'home defense' distances with it using cheapo Remington 00 Buckshot.  However, I have a single point sling on it and find that, by pushing out against the sling (rather than pulling in as I would do with a shotgun with a full buttstock) with the sling set at the proper length I can sort of 'lock' it in position and steady it pretty well.  By doing so, I can hold it at chest level and use the front bead well enough in my peripheral vision to point right at a target without having to hold it up to face level and risk a broken nose from recoil.  In low-light conditions centering the beam of the attached light should give pretty good hits at close range.  Heck, my 64 year old mother has shoulder issues that make it difficult for her to shoot any shotgun above a .410 from the shoulder with a full stock.  She can actually shoot the pistol grip 12 gauge 'from the hip' (actually more from her side at between hip and chest level) better than I can, better than she can shoulder fire a twelve gauge and without the pain the shoulder fired setup would cause.  In fact, she says that doing so causes her no pain, whatsoever.   All that said, my loaded, bedside shotgun is a Savage 320 that has a pistol grip and full (non-adjustable) buttstock.  The pistol grip on the Maverick is more for 'niche' use and, honestly, for fun than anything else.   The thing about the Maverick is that, although Mavericks are made by Mossberg (their budget line - the Maverick 88 is almost exactly the same shotgun as the Mossberg 500 with a few exceptions) the safety is on the tang rather than a cross-bolt safety like on the Mossberg version.  As with the Remington 870, this makes it much easier to reach and operate the safety with a pistol-only grip installed.   As far as possibly getting another shotgun with a shorter barrel, there is another option.  You can get different length barrels for the Mossberg.  My understanding is that any of their ribbed barrels will work with their ribbed model shotguns of the corresponding gauge and any of their non-ribbed barrels will work with the non-ribbed shotguns of the corresponding gauge.  In other words, you could simply order a shorter barrel for your Mossberg and swap them out as needed/desired.  Of course, that kind of thinking is silly because it might negate your 'need' for another shotgun and who in their right mind would want to do that?

I just caved in and decided to get my first 1911.  It is a used ATI Titan with the nitride(?) finish.  I know that the compact versions are said to often not function as well but I greatly prefer the look and feel of them to the full-size - plus if I decide to carry it at some point the compact will be easier to conceal.  As it was a used gun, the owner of the LGS let me try it out before buying it.  At first, I was not going to buy it as it failed to feed frequently with Winchester FMJ flat points and absolutely would not feed with any of the mixed variety of hollow points he gave me to try - as in I had trouble even getting some of them to load by manually operating the slide.  Another thing was that the brass invariably was hitting me in the forehead.  When I told him how badly it was jamming, the LGS owner handed me a box of Golden Sabers and a spare Kimber magazine he had behind the counter and told me to try those out.  The GS would not feed reliably through the factory mag - behaving about like all of the other hollow point rounds (with the 'lip' of the hollow point catching on the ramp.)  When I loaded the Kimber mag, however, I noticed that the ammo was sitting at a much steeper, upward angle than in the factory mag which gave me hope that it would work better.  Happily, I think that was all it needed as the GS ran through the Titan with the Kimber mag like crap through a goose and every bit of the brass went over my shoulder, not into my forehead.  When I put it in lay-away (to hold it until my tax return came available), the LGS owner said to leave the Kimber mag in it and that he would get me a second Kimber mag to go with it.   On another note, when it functioned properly I was amazed at how accurately I was able to shoot it considering this was only the third time I have fired a 1911, the second time I have fired a 1911 in .45 (the first one I fired was in 9mm) and the first compact version of the 1911 I have ever fired.  I will probably polish the feed ramp just to give it that extra bit of help and as long as Kimber mags work in the Titan as well as that one did I think I will be happy with it.  I am still not real comfortable with the idea of cocked and locked carry so it may not go into the carry rotation for a while.  Of course, I'll want to confirm reliability before I carry it, anyhow.

  Ideally this might be the case.  Keep in mind, however, that things don't always work the way they are supposed to.  Remember a few years back when the TBI was asked to do an investigation/audit of the THP and found that more than one officer had something on his record that should have absolutely, positively made him ineligible for imployment with the THP - yet those individuals actually were and had been employed as THP officers while other THP employees had outstanding criminal and traffic violations that had, apparently, not been properly addressed?   http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20051210/NEWS0201/71109077/THP-Housecleaning-Sweeps-Out-2-More   Also, keep in mind that while there might be more 'dipsticks' in the general public than in a cross section of police officers (and I am not sure I completely buy that - a person can be a bully or a jerk without having issues that would cause them to fail a psychological screening) the dipsticks in the general population don't wear a uniform and badge that give them police powers and make a court more likely to take their word over that on a non-police officer.  Those general public dipsticks also don't have protections in place to help shield them from at least some of the fallout of making grievous errors in judgement or action while in the line of duty.  Finally, some dipstick working the drive-through at the local scarf and puke likely isn't going to stand out as much as the one in uniform so that, while the ratio of dipsticks might be fewer the damage those, few dipsticks can do - both to the general public and to the reputation of his/her department and to public perception of police officers as a whole - is greater   Now, I will say that my very limited interactions with THP officers have been mostly positive.  In fact, most of my very limited, direct interactions with police officers, in general, have been mostly positive or at least neutral.  There are actually a couple of officers who I have known since high school with whom I like to talk guns, ammo choice and so on.  However, there is one department in this region with which nearly all of my interactions have been negative - and we aren't talking about being stopped or questioned as part of an investigation but, instead, simply smiling and saying, "Hello," when walking past them in a store, etc. and getting a look in return like I was something that the deputy - yeah, I am talking about a certain Sheriff's office - just scraped off of his shoe.  Also, this wasn't just one deputy who might have been having a bad day but happened invariably every, single time I tried to speak in a friendly, respectful manner to one of them back during the decade or so that I lived in the County in question.  Of course I have gotten the impression that even other police officers in different departments in the region think those guys are mostly jerks.

      I've always wanted to see such a person have a partner who, on the first racking of the slide, asks, "Why in the he** didn't you already have a round chambered?"  and on subsequent rackings would ask, "Why are you wasting ammo by ejecting unfired rounds?  That's absolutely pointless.  This ain't Hollywood, you know!"

      Old episodes of the original Hawaii Five-O run on MeTV (channel 10.2) as part of their detective/cop show lineup on Sundays.  In the last, few weeks - in different episodes - at least two, completely unrelated and unassociated bad guys have used 'silenced' revolvers.  I watch with my mom at her house and the first time I couldn't help but go on a mini-rant about how stupid that was.  I even said, "As far as I know that Russian Nagant revolver like I have (she knew which one I meant) is the only revolver than can be suppressed because the cylinder cams forward and seals the gap."  These were definitely not Nagants.  In fact, I am pretty sure they were J-frames - which caused another mini-rant when the bad guy fired six rounds before his ammo was spent (although I had to allow that I could have been wrong because I never got a good, close up look and, although it looked like a J-frame to me, the gun in question might have been a Colt Detective Special which did hold six rounds.)  Either way they were snubnosed revolvers.

  Heh, I first got mine back in 2008 when there was such a big rush to get them and a lot of folks were getting theirs.  Mine took almost the entire 90 days and that was more or less par for the course at the time.  Seems like I applied in early/mid June and the issue date on my permit was August 30.  It didn't actually arrive until the first or second week of September.

  I can see those two Haslam lapdogs and fellow anti-gunners in pro-gun clothing delaying as long as possible so that Haslam could have the time to wait and veto after the legislators have gone home.  A lot could happen between now and January (as in a lot of back room dealing and shady negotiations) that might make it difficult to work up the steam to override a Haslam veto come January.  A few well-place, well-choreographed and very over-played (non) incidents in local parks involving firearms might do the trick.  Such 'incidents' would be more likely if some folks didn't realize that the bill hadn't passed and so got 'caught' carrying in a park where carry is forbidden.  Sure, shame on the carrier for not keeping up with the law but also shame on our state government (and their local media puppets) for making things so confusing.

  All we heard for years from the Republicans was that if we would just put them in charge they would help restore our gun rights.  Then they gained control and immediately started giving us the collective bird on firearms issues.  Honestly, there was more meaningful gun rights legislation passed with New Jersey Democrat Bredesen in the Gubernatorial office and Naifeh as Speaker than we have seen since the Republicans took control (legal carry of guns where alcohol is sold, 'castle doctrine' inspired laws, legal carry of guns in state parks, etc.)

Seems like an easy enough argument to refute.  I would assume that the defendant's attorney would end up questioning at least one of the arresting officers on the stand.  So, the question might be:   Defense:  Just to clear up a point, the prosecutor has indicated that having a round in the chamber of a firearm indicates premeditation.  Officer X, do you carry a firearm on duty?   Officer X:  Yes.   Defense:  And do you carry it with a round in the chamber?   Officer X:  Yes.   Defense:  Based on your experience, is that common practice among police officers?   Officer X:  Yes.   Defense:  Ah, I see.  So, then, in your experience and professional opinion as an officer of the law and as you, yourself, and many of your colleagues carry with a round in the chamber , would you say that carrying a handgun with a round in the chamber necessarily indicates premeditation in a shooting incident?   Officer X:  No, of course not.

      Further, if I understand it right, you would still have to jump through the same or similar hoops on the same periodic schedule because your continued eligibility to hold an HCP would still have to be confirmed every so often.  The only difference would be that you would be jumping through those hoops so the state could be sure that your permit continued to be valid rather than so your permit could be "renewed."  So, unless I have it all wrong, you'd still have to stand in line at the DMV or fill out the mail in application periodically just like those who still paid $50 every five years.  Really, then, you wouldn't be saving any time and, unless you lived and were able to maintain eligibility for the HCP for a period of about fifty years after getting the lifetime permit and never moved to another state you would be wasting money.   As a side note, I received the application for renewal in the mail when it came time to renew my HCP but I like the 'going to the DMV' route, myself, just as sort of a 'CYA' thing.  By doing that, I leave the office with a receipt in my wallet showing my permit has been renewed and I don't have to worry about the application getting lost or held up in the mail (our current mail person isn't the most reliable.)  Fortunately for me, the Rockwood DMV is still a location that does HPCs, is about as close to where I live as any of them and they usually aren't very busy.

  Better and more to the point, IMO, someone should realize that there is a reason for posse comitatus and see that the militarization of our civilian police forces is, at least in part, an attempt to do an 'end run' around the limitations and protections it provides to the general public.  To me, a militarized police force violates the spirit of posse comitatus if not the letter.  In other words, I believe that a militarized police force should be forbidden by law as an extention of  posse comitatus.  When you have a force that is A ) largely militarized in structure, training, mindset and policies - making them a de facto military organization - which is B ) (at least in part) controlled by the Federal Government through funding, grants, equipment 'donations' and the like. as well as the Federal requirements a department must meet in order to qualify for these Federal programs, if nothing else then posse comitatus should prohibit such a force from being deployed to enforce law and order in a civilian setting.   As far as 'no knock warrants', legalization of blanket surveillance without a specific warrant, 'probable cause' searches of homes and the like, remember that one of the major grievances that led our forefathers to rebel against their then legal government were so-called 'writs of assistance' and other, 'general' warrants. These writs and warrants allowed the then equivalent of customs agents to search any homes, etc. that they pleased without needing to specify what properties were to be searched or what evidence was being gathered.   So, forgetting all the other Constitutional violations in which our government indulges, these 'police powers' violations, alone - violation of the spirit of posse comitatus as well as specific and above-board search warrant requirements - would have our forefathers spinning in their graves.  Yet in this day and age we are so conditioned to 'respect those in positions of authority' that if they spoke out against such violations we would probably accuse ol' George and Thomas of 'cop bashing.'

  I think it is both dangerous and against the ideals of freedom and liberty to cast any and all criticism of police procedure or an individual officer's actions as 'cop bashing' and, therefore, dismiss such criticisms as simply ire against officers, in general.  Just being a cop doesn't automatically make an individual intelligent, rational, honorable or even a very good human being.  A jerk wearing a police uniform and carrying a badge is simply a jerk in uniform carrying a badge - a jerk that is granted full police powers to reinforce his or her tendency toward being a jerk.  Calling that jerk a jerk is simply speaking the truth, not 'cop bashing'.  As hard as it is for some folks to believe, there are bad cops out there as well as otherwise good cops who are subject to poor training or bad procedure.  Just criticizing police procedures, the militarization of our civilian police or the action of individual officers does not mean that a person dislikes, disrespects or disdains officers as a rule.  Further, not every officer needs to dress or be equipped as if he or she were part of an invading force.  In fact, there are some officers who work in such relatively safe and low-crime areas that the likelihood that they will be killed in the line of duty is probably about equal to - well, honestly, probably a good bit less than - my chances of getting killed in a car crash on my way to work.

On the local news last night it was reported that a bill to create a lifetime carry permit was on its way to the governor.  The permit would cost $500.  Big friggin' woop - is this really what legislators are spending 'gun rights' efforts on this year?    Think about this - at the current rate of $50 for a permit that is now supposed to last 5 years, it would take roughly 50 years to recoup that $500 fee.  Of course, that is provided that nothing ever happens over the course of that 50 years to cause the person to no longer be eligible for the permit (because you can bet the state isn't going to prorate and refund any of that money.)  It also assumes that Constitutional Carry will not pass at any time during that 50 year period, rendering the permit moot for anyone who isn't concerned about reciprocity with other states (because, again, you can bet the state ain't giving any of that money back.)  If you die before that 50 years is up then the balance of the money over what you would have spent at $50 every five years is simply a gift to the state.   50 years means that even a person who opts for the lifetime permit at 21 (and how many 21 year olds have a spare 500 bucks?) that person would have to live to be 71 and never do anything to cause them to become ineligible for a TN HCP (such as becoming mentally ill or moving out of the state) before the cost would balance out.  In my case, I am 43.  Given the health issues I have already had, there is no way I'm living to be 93.   All this and, at least going by what was said on the news last night, the permit holder would still have to be checked for eligibility every five years.  So the only difference would be that the state would get a guaranteed $500 all at one whack rather than having it doled out to them over the years.  I don't really see how this is a benefit for permit holders.  Instead, it just seems like a way for the state to convince people to give them a chunk of change with no guarantee that they will live long enough for the 'benefit' those individuals are purchasing with their $500 to balance out with the cost.  Personally, if I am going to allot $500 to firearms related expenditures I'd rather use that $500 to buy a fairly nice (maybe used) gun and/or some ammo, accessories or so on than give it to the state.  I hate giving the government (state, local, national or whatever) money as it is - especially to purchase the privilege to exercise a right.  I am not going to volunteer to give them 500 bucks when I may not (in my case, probably won't) ever see the full return on my investment.   Now, if that $500 meant a lifetime permit which enabled me to carry anywhere and everywhere - including government buildings, posted locations and so on - and also made me immune to the TICS background check (and the accompanying $10 fee) when purchasing a firearm and replaced any and all  non-commercial hunting or fishing licenses, permits or fees required to fish or hunt for any legal fish or game in any location in the entire state then that might be enough value added to make me at least consider it.  Otherwise, I see no benefit to permit holders whatsoever.