JAB

  Oh, I don't have the engineering or machining skill set to actually build the thing.  I am thinking 'invent' from more the idea/planning angle.  If I had the kind of money to create a whole, new gun I'd 'delegate' the actual, physical building of it to people who did know how and pay them to do it.  The idea part is what I would contribute.

So, are you really trying to ask if those belt clips make your butt look big without coming right out and asking it? :D  Sorry, being a natural born smart alec I couldn't resist.     I was going to suggest such a thing but you beat me to it.  Great minds and all, I guess.     I agree.  I cannot carry IWB.  I pocket carry a lot but if I belt carry it is OWB.  Even then, I am generally at least casually concealed with an unbuttoned shirt, etc. as a cover garment but the few times I have truly OC'ed while out and about no one has ever even mentioned it.  I am honestly pretty sure that no one or at least almost no one even noticed it was there.

  Yeah, they included two rip-offs of Kel Tec guns (the SCCY, of which the Gen 1 was said to be an almost direct copy of the P11, and the Ruger Little Copied Pistol) but neither of the Kel Tec originals?   Then, again, just the simple fact that they didn't include any Smith and Wesson j-frame revolvers pretty much makes me wonder if they really have any idea what they are talking about.

  Well, I was just plain wrong all the way around!

  So, does the day it was transmitted - the 23rd in this case - count as one of his ten days?  In other words, is this day six or day seven?  Does he have until Saturday or next Monday to sign, veto or let it pass?

Cool idea.  I have finally 'learned' my nothing special Brinkmann smoker well enough that I can fill it with regular wood, set the vents just right and go to bed and when I get up the next morning it will just be time to add more wood.  Being that I smoke some larger cuts for 16 or even 24 hours, I had to learn that or stop doing the bigger stuff.   I have never used the pellets but have been curious about them.

  Believe it or not, yours would not be the first double-barreled revolver ever designed.  The one I am aware of, though, actually had a double row of cylinders in the chamber, one for each barrel with 10 shots each, making it a 20 shot.  Unlike your idea, though, it could apparently only fire one barrel at a time.   http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=315   I am pretty sure this is a picture of the same gun but here you can see the overall design better, I think:   http://images.blog-24.com/440000/437000/437175.jpg   Hmmm...use that concept with something like a .32 H&R Magnum cartridge or even Federal .327 Magnum (although the cylinder might have to be prohibitively large to stand up to .327 pressures.).  Might have to go with, say, 7 cylinders on the outer ring and only 6 on the inner to get the spacing/timing right.  Put in a slide switch on the side of the frame back near the grips to allow the shooter to choose which row of cylinders to fire from.  Sliding that switch up or down would not only choose the cylinder but would also raise or lower the rear sights to adjust POA to better equate with POI being that the lower barrel is going to shoot a little lower, otherwise.   Heck, it might even be better to chamber the outer ring in something like .32 mag and chamber the inner ring in .22 Mag or even .22LR.  Say, 7 shots of .32 Mag backed up with 8 or 9 shots of some flavor of .22  With the bottom row being rimfire, the timing wouldn't have to be set up so that the cylinders in both rows are centered on the firing pins.  Might be something of a Rube Goldberg design but sounds like a lot of fun as a range toy and actually useful as a woods/trail gun - able to fire either a .32 or a .22 just by sliding a switch.  It would be like carrying two guns in one..   I keep thinking 7 shots for the outer ring because the old Nagant revolvers are 7 shot and are chambered for a cartridge that is more or less a .32 (so close that you can fire .32 S&W Long cartridges in them) and their cylinders aren't overly large.  Of course, the cylinder would have to be a little bigger to accommodate double rows of chambers but it still shouldn't need to be too huge.  Going with .32 and .22 would help keep the fully loaded weight to at least somewhat reasonable levels.   EDIT:  Oh, wait!  Use the selectable double-revolver concept in something like a Circuit Judge, a revolving carbine/rifle.  .45/.410 in one row of chambers and barrel (probably a 5 shot) and .22LR/L/S in the other.  Wow!

  You are probably right, now that I think about it.  Unless I am mistaken, the TCM has a .22 bullet in a necked down 9mm casing.  Is that right?  If so then it would make sense that the 1911 convertible combo would be TCM and 9mm.  Thanks for the correction.

  That is exactly what the .25 NAA I mentioned in my previous post is.  NAA (the same company that makes the mini revolvers) chambered some of their Guardians for it (might still be making them for all I know.)  It is a proprietary cartridge, though, and to my knowledge the only way to get the ammo is to order it from North American Arms.  Supposedly, it can attain 1,275 fps out of a two inch barrel with a 35 grain Hornady XTP bullet.   North American Arms also created the .32 NAA - another proprietary cartridge that is a .380 necked down to fire a .32 bullet.  It supposedly launches a 60 grain bullet out of a two inch barrel at 1,222 fps.   There was a bit of excitement over those, two rounds when they first came out about ten years or so back.  At the time, some folks seemed to think they would really catch on and the ammo would become more widely available but that didn't happen - at least so far.  I think that they might have if Ruger hadn't come out with the Little Copied Pistol (basically a rip off of Kel Tec's P3AT that had already been around a few years by that point) and started the .380 pocket pistol craze.  Then, of course, the popularity of .380 pocket pistols pushed some manufacturers to come up with pistols chambered in 9mm that were just about as small.  Why buy a little pocket pistol that shoots a hard to find, proprietary cartridge when you can have a pistol chambered in a more common round that is just about as small?     The .22 TCM is the current 'next big thing' in small, high velocity 'boutique' rounds.  Although the TCM sounds interesting, I personally expect it to ultimately become about as popular as did the two NAA proprietary rounds - although the TCM might have an advantage in that the guns being built for it are full-sized, usually 1911 platform guns and some of them, through swapping the barrel, mag and maybe a spring, can fire .45acp, as well.  In fact, being that the full size pistol end of things already exists then if a rifle were created to fire the TCM round (and for all I know someone has already built or is working on such a rifle - or maybe an upper for an AR15) then something very similar to what I suggest could be achieved via the TCM.  Still, I'd rather stick with an 'off the shelf' round (well, off the shelf when the ammo craziness is not going on, anyhow.)  That is why I would rather stick to the more or less commonly available, 'lowly' .25acp for my fantasy project.   This is a link to an old article about the .25 NAA and the .32 NAA.   http://www.defensereview.com/naa-guardian-32-naa-and-25-naa-pocket-pistols-with-added-penetration/

  This.  Exactly this.  I fully agree that an employer should have the right to prohibit firearms inside their buildings, facilities, etc.  I even agree that they should have the right to prohibit firearms outside the bounds of private vehicles within employee parking lots.  However, as I have said, before when it comes to private property (a gun) stored inside private property (a privately owned vehicle) I do not see how the employer's rights with regards to a rectangle of pavement (or gravel/dirt) in a parking lot supposedly trumps my rights with regards to my privately owned vehicle.   As I have said, before, I think the real problem is approaching this as a 'guns rights vs. property rights' issue when it is really a 'property rights vs. property rights' issue.  Instead of specifically saying 'guns' I believe the law should clearly state that an employer has absolutely no right to search an employee's privately owned vehicle, ever, period, under any circumstance.  Further, the law should state that no employer can make employment conditional on an employee agreeing - expressly or by implication - to allow an employer to carry out such a search.  The employer should be prohibited by law from even asking to search an employee's privately owned vehicle.  If the employer has reason to believe that a criminal act that is harmful to the company (such as theft from the company) has been committed and that evidence of such is inside an employee's privately owned vehicle (such as stolen company property hidden in the vehicle) then the company should be required to notify police, report the suspected crime and allow the police to handle obtaining a warrant and conducting a search - but only with probably cause.  Again, the employer's property rights regarding a slab of pavement do not trump my property rights regarding my private vehicle - no matter where that vehicle is parked - and should not trump those rights under the law. 

I have long thought that a full-sized pistol and semi-auto rifle combo chambered for .25acp would be fun.  I know some folks say that the .22LR has more power than a .25 but they are usually comparing .25 vest pocket pistol energy/velocity to .22LR out of a rifle or much larger handgun.  I imagine that out of longer barrels the energy/velocity would be about the same or maybe even favor the .25.  Being centerfire, one could reload for the .25 (unlike .22LR) and being a full-sized pistol and rifle it should be easy to build them strong enough that handloaders could work up something like a .25 +P to shoot in them.  I don't know if there is enough unused case capacity, etc. but it might even be possible to safely push it into .22 Magnum territory (I know there is .25 NAA but that is proprietary ammo that is hard to find and there are still no full sized pistols or rifles made for it, to my knowledge - I'd rather stick with .25 acp for my fantasy project.)  Also, being centerfire and being that Browning designed the .25acp to be fired from a semiauto there shouldn't be the same kind of design challenges/ammo capacity limitations that seem to sometimes plague guns chambered for rimfire ammo.   A double barreled pump shotgun would be kinda neat, too.  I have actually seen where someone built one by taking a right-ejecting Remington 870 and another, left-ejecting Remington 870 and fusing them.   http://www.lesjones.com/2008/06/16/double-barrel-pump-shotgun-moe-szyslak-style/   Mine would have only one trigger and it would fire both barrels at the same time, every time.  It would also have a really big recoil pad.  12 gauge would be a must for the first one but I might even want a second one in .410.  For HD, the .410 could be loaded with buckshot in one side and slugs in the other.  Both fired at once would be a pretty mean little HD shotgun.

  My mom tells the story of being with my late father when he was bringing home some building materials from Lowes or Home Depot, etc. a few years before his death.  He was driving an old truck that had farm tags and got pulled over by a cop who was also, apparently, a first class jerk.  Mom said the conversation went a little like this (I wasn't there so I might have gotten the exact details a little off and some of the laws may have changed since then but this was the gist of it):   Cop:  I pulled you over because your load is longer than your truck bed.  I am going to have to write you a ticket for that. Dad:  No you're not. Cop:  What? Dad:  If you look, I have a bright red rag attached to the end of the longest board to make sure other drivers see it.  That is all the law requires. Cop:  Oh.  Well, you two aren't wearing your seatbelts.  I am going to write you a ticket for that. Dad:  No you're not. Cop:  Why? Dad:  This truck didn't come with seatbelts as original equipment.  The law says I don't have to install them. Cop:  Oh.  Well, you are driving a truck with farm tags and you aren't supposed to use that for anything but farm related business.  I am going to write you a ticket for that. Dad:  No you're not. Cop:  And why wouldn't I? Dad:  See that stuff on the back?  I am working on a stall for my horses.  That sounds like farm related business, to me.   At that point, the cop (apparently ticked that dad had outmaneuvered him at every turn) didn't even really say anything, more or less stomped back to his cruiser, got in, slammed the door and took off.

Based on the way he and his two, main lackeys in the state legislature have acted so far I would almost expect the Haslam supported design to look a bit like this: As far as the non-reflective plate issue goes, to me if the county clerk isn't worried enough about it to address the issue I don't know that I would be, either. I'd probably email them and keep that email handy to show proof that I tried to address the issue - as well as the response from the clerk's office - in case I ever ended up in court over it, though.

  Project Vote Smart has voting record information for many (most?  all?) politicians, both state and national, who are currently in office.  They also have something called the 'political courage test' that attempts to help identify where candidates - both incumbent and challengers - stand on various issues.  Not every candidate (incumbent or challenger) agrees to fill one of those out, however.  So, while not a perfect or entirely complete source, it does serve as one resource for researching a politician's stance on different issues (you can choose from a list of issues and one of the issues listed is 'guns.)  I don't know if Project Vote Smart has any, particular affiliation or bias but I haven't seen anything on the site to lead me to believe that they do.   http://votesmart.org/

  Different bill than the one discussed in this thread but that is part of what SB1672 will do if Haslam signs it or allows it to pass unsigned.  Under that bill, along with extending the valid period for an HCP to five years, permit expiration dates can be staggered just like they did with drivers' licenses several years ago.  The end result would be that the HCP would expire every five years on the HCP holder's birthday, just like drivers' licenses.

  Yes and by that standard laws that would stop an employer from interfering in any way with an employee's right to protect their own life by keeping personal property (a gun) in their own, personal property (their private vehicle) are exactly the kind of laws that the government should be passing and enforcing.  Instead, however, politicians kiss the posteriors of big business while not doing their job and protecting 'life, liberty and property' by instead allowing employers to interfere with the private property rights of their employees.  You are correct in that taking the side of these employers over the 'life, liberty and property' rights of the employee is both immoral and evil but the politicians have to get those kickbacks and 'campaign contributions', you know.

Down around the Delano/Benton area in the state/national park there is the Spring Creek shooting range - or I assume it is still there as I haven't been in about a year or so. It is an outdoor range. There is no range official or anything like that so there is the chance that there will be some yahoos shooting there but I have never run into that problem. There is a public toilet (one of those cinderblock outhouse style facilities like you see in most state and national parks, no running water) and they are open daylight hours, sunup to sundown. Oh, and it is only $3 per carload to shoot there - or, again, that was the price the last time I was there. There is a sort of a large 'shed' type shelter. One side of the shelter faces onto the handgun range which goes out to 25 yards. There is a sort of long counter running most of the length of that side that functions as a shooting table. Another side of the shelter faces onto the long gun range which goes out to 100 yards. That side has individual stations, each with its own shooting bench/table. To get there you turn like you are going to Gee Creek campground, almost (but not exactly) right across the highway from the turn to go to the Magnolia Manor winery and the Amish market. You drive past Gee Creek Campground and keep going. You will probably think you have missed it or went the wrong way by the time you actually get to the shooting range. The road is mostly dirt/gravel. I think they are closed to the public one day a week (maybe Tuesday or Wednesday) for some type of LEO use. The pics below were taken in '09 but the place still looked more or less like this the last time I was there. Handgun side: Long gun side:

Well, they ain't Amish but, instead, Menonite (they used to be one group but the Amish broke away from the Menonites way back when.)  In Monterey, Tennessee (near Crossville) there is a Menonite settlement at Muddy Pond.  I don't know if that is far enough 'middle' for you but they have a couple of general stores there including one large one with a tack shop next to it.  There is usually some outdoor furniture for sale outside that store.  You could check out the quality, etc. of those pieces and if you like what you see I bet the folks working at the store could tell you how to get ahold of whoever makes it so you could talk to them about the possibility of making exactly what you want.

Day-um.  That looks nice.

None of the above.  I can't carry at work.  Not only is there an employer rule against it but - more importantly, to me - because I work for a private college doing so would also be illegal.   Other than when I am at work, however, I carry pretty much all the time.  I even usually carry when I am at home and I certainly carry wherever legally possible when I am not at home.  I personally believe in carrying whenever i can but even if it weren't for that, given all the money we have to spend in order to buy the priveledge to excercise a right in this state, I'd carry whenever possible, anyway, just to get my money's worth!

  I see that the bill to extend the valid period for HCPs has also, finally, been sent to Haslam.  There must have been a whole passle of legislation that came in toward the end and that was being sent all at once to him.  I read in the newspaper last week that there was a bunch of legislation to be sent to him and that the legislators had already decided not to reconvene for a veto override session if he vetoes any of those bills.  For his part, though, Haslam said that he didn't anticipate vetoing any of them even though some weren't exactly what he had hoped for (it seems like it was some of the education bills were referred to specifically - not a peep about any pro-gun or pro-carry bills.)   My hope is that Haslam realizes that pro-gun rights folks are watching him while the antis and the media seem to be pretty quiet about the bills in question - at least so far.  If he knows his fellow the antigunners aren't watching but we are, maybe he will think that the best political move is to either sign them or just let them pass.

  Maybe that is why you didn't get it back.  Heck, it might even be why the charges were dropped.  Someone just wanted you to go away so that they could get on with enjoying their new, free Ruger.

  I don't believe that Tennessee has any 'escalation of force' laws for private citizens.  Instead, as some folks mentioned in above posts, TN sets a 'threshold' for use of deadly force and that is about it as far as personal conflicts go.  I think there are laws about other uses of force that are specific to more narrow situations - such as the law allows for using appropriate force to prevent crimes such as theft of property in which deadly force is not allowed by the law but lesser force might be.   This is what the code says about defense of property/prevention of theft:       I thought there was also something in the law about the allowable use of force when making a citizen's arrest and how the use of deadly force is not legal for such but I can't find it right now.   Of course, there were also a couple of scenarios presented in one of the videos which were part of the HCP class when I took it that fleshed out the 'use of force to prevent theft' issue.   In one, a citizen caught a burglar stealing his property and confronted the burglar.  The citizen had a loaded firearm and the burglar dropped the property and ran.  The citizen shot the fleeing burglar in the back.  That was used as an example of a bad shoot in which the citizen might face criminal charges as he used deadly force in the defense of property when his life was not being threatened.  Of course, that video was probably made before the official adoption of 'castle doctrine' type laws clarified that the burglar simply being in your home in the first place is cause for reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury.  Still, shooting the burglar in the back as he tried to run away might not pass muster for 'reasonable' use of deadly force if a prosecutor decides to challenge the citizen on that.   In another scenario, a citizen sees a guy trying to break into the citizen's car which is parked in the citizen's driveway.  The citizen takes his handgun - just in case - and goes out to tell the guy to stop trying to break into his car.  In response, the guy raises the screwdriver he is using to try and jimmy the lock into a 'stabbing' position and advances on the citizen.  The citizen, whose life is now being threatened, shoots the attacker.  Because he shot in defense of his life and not in defense of property the shooting was presented as 'justifiable'.

  Quite possbily.  However, there is a flip side to that, too.  Some folks who would never have considered getting an HCP, otherwise, might start carrying in their cars, realize they like the idea of having their firearm with them and decide to take the next step and get an HCP.  In that way, car carry might turn out to be 'gateway carry' for some folks.

  Have you ever lived in a bad neighborhood where you didn't have an attached garage and had a work schedule that meant you got home after dark?  I have.  In fact, before I moved in there my grandmother had her purse stolen in broad daylight in the back yard - the same back yard I had to walk across when I got home from work.  Before I had my HCP, with a crack house on the corner and drive-by shootings across the street (which, by the way, it took at least twenty minutes for LEO to respond to those shootings) it sure would have been nice to have been legally able to have my firearm in my car.  Not to prevent a carjacking 'on the street', necessarily  but to have for protection in case some low life decided I looked like a good target after arriving home one night (my great uncle and great aunt had their car stolen from that same back yard while they were eating Thanksgiving dinner with my grandmother - the cops found it stripped a few blocks away.)  But, hey, if someone lives in a bad neighborhood and can't get an HCP either because they may not have $200 plus to spare or because they aren't yet 21, screw 'em.  They deserve to get stabbed, robbed, beaten or shot, right?   Have you ever gone fishing in a remote location?  I have.  There is a little public ramp/fishing area in Blaine, back off the beaten path.  I was there one evening fishing, minding my own business, when a car with a couple of guys in it pulled in and parked at the other end of the gravel lot with their car facing me.  No one got out and I didn't see any fishing poles, etc. sticking out of the windows or anything so I got a bad feeling.  Tossed my fishing gear in the back of my truck and decided to leave.  As I was crossing the parking lot, the car started and they attempted to block me from the little driveway that was the entrance and exit.  Luckily, I learned to drive on gravel roads so I was able to just barely outmaneuver them (I was willing to ram them if necessary but that was no guarantee I would get out.)  I have no idea why they pulled that stunt but, as that was also before I got my HCP, it sure would have been nice to have been able to have a loaded firearm in the vehicle.  But, hey, incidences where you might need a gun just in your vehicle never happen, right?  Wrong.   Where I now live is very rural.  Possibly remote, even, by some standards.  There has been at least one body dumped under a bridge on a secondary road that I cross every day on the way to and from work.  There are pull offs at both ends of that bridge where people pull off to fish and there are sometimes some pretty sketchy-looking characters there.  Crime in the area is generally pretty low but it only takes getting killed once to pretty well ruin your day.  With the constant rise in meth related crimes even rural areas where crime has traditionally been pretty low - maybe even especially rural areas - are not necessarily safe.  To me, it would make perfect sense for a person to want to have a loaded firearm with them in their vehicle on such a commute even if they did not have an HCP and didn't want to carry everywhere.  But, again, that doesn't fit with your world view so it must be stupid.   Here is another aspect that no one is considering.  Have you ever needed to go in some place where firearms are not allowed but had a non-HCP holding adult with you who decided to stay in the vehicle?  Under the old law, that person could technically be in violation of the law if you left your loaded firearm in the vehicle with them.  If I understand the way the car carry bill is written, under the new 'car carry' law (if Haslam signs it) they would have nothing to worry about.   Yes, I prefer having my HCP and I prefer not having to leave a loaded firearm in my vehicle.  That was one of the reasons many of us really wanted the law changed so we could keep our firearm on us when eating in a restaurant where alcohol is served.  Still, I believe that having the option to keep a loaded firearm in the vehicle is preferable to not having any option for access to a loaded firearm outside of one's home, at all.