JAB

  Honestly, it is just that sort of crap that causes people who might not otherwise support unions to do so.  I think most contemporary labor unions are little more than a racket to exploit the employee and employer but some employers bring it on themselves via such draconian rules.  Employees are just that - employees.  Not indentured servants and not slaves but some employers seem to think that giving a person a paycheck in return for a certain number of hours worked/amount of labor expended grants the employer the right to control the employee's whole life.

  Chiappa also has a .22/.410 O/U.  It is called the 'Double Badger'.  Also not an M6 style, though.  It doesn't appear to be a take-down type but the blurb on the company website does say that it is 'foldable'.   http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2626   I think it is a pretty nice looking firearm but don't know that I'd want to pay the >$300 price tag when the aforementioned Rossi can be had for half of that - even though it would be nice to have both barrels on the firearm and functional at the same time.

Another reason I think that approaching the issue from a broader perspective - as in recognizing that the confines of a person's vehicle constitutes that person's private property just like a person's home - is that it avoids being strictly a 'firearms issue'.  Sure, the main impetus behind my desire to see such laws passed might pertain to firearms but there really is a larger issue.  That issue is private property rights.   Every time this comes up, you have some folks (even on here) who want to start a hue and cry about employers' property rights.  What those folks seem to ignore is that the employee also has property rights where his or her vehicle is concerned.  However, whereas the employer 'property' in question is nothing more than a rectangle of blank concrete, asphalt, etc. (parking space) that is part of a larger area of blank concrete, asphalt, etc. (parking lot), the employee property is his or her vehicle and anything contained within it.  I would argue, then, that the more complex 'property' and the rights pertaining to such property far outweigh the rights pertaining to an area of bare concrete, asphalt, etc.  By that measure, yes, employers should have every right to tell employees (or anyone else) what they can or cannot possess within the confines of the employers' buildings (or company vehicles, etc.)  Employers should also have the right to tell the employee (or anyone else) that certain items are not permitted beyond the confines of personal vehicles even within the boundaries of the parking lot.  However, when it comes to privately owned vehicles, the employer should only have the right to tell an employee (or anyone else) that he or she can or can't park his or her car in the employer's parking lot and nothing more.  Beyond that, the employer should have no ability to restrict an employee from having ANY otherwise legal item within the confines of his or her vehicle, no matter where it is parked.

  True, but it does at least prohibit an employer from stating 'no firearms in vehicles on company property' in their employee rules, handbooks, etc.   Honestly, I think the best way to fix a whole lot of problems would be to have a state law that recognizes a person's vehicle as their private property and clearly state that the confines of said vehicle have the same protections as the confines of one's residence regardless of where said vehicle happens to be parked.  The parking space, itself, might be an employer's property but the vehicle and its contents remain my property and, unless there is some evidence a crime has been committed (which should require LEO involvement) it is none of their business what otherwise legal items I choose to keep in my own, personal vehicle.  Further, as RobertNashville said, make it clear that only LEO can compel searches of private vehicles, that even LEO must have a warrant or very strong probable cause and that an employer is committing a crime if said employer so much as insinuates that an employee will be fired if he or she doesn't 'voluntarily consent' to a search of his or her vehicle.

As someone who doesn't live all that far from Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg and the GSMNP, I rarely go there this time of year.  I actually enjoy walking around Gatlinburg but I wait for the off season.  Heck, if you go there on a week day during the off season, you will almost think that the apocalypse has happened because the place will be almost deserted.   During the Summer, though, I prefer going to the Tellico Mountains.  Every year it gets a little more busy up there but nothing like the Smoky Mountains.   I remember discussing 'red wolves' in a zoo-archeology class at U.T. back in the '90s.  My professor told us that there was one, very good reason that the efforts to 'repopulate' them kept failing.  That reason, he said, is because there is no such thing as a 'red wolf' as a true species nor has such a species ever existed.   Instead, the creatures which are called 'red wolves' are actually a hybrid of wolves and coyotes.  Further, according to him, they are not nor were they ever a very viable hybrid.  In other words, nature makes every effort to get rid of them and these so-called 'conservation' efforts were actually working against the natural order.

  Quote from that site:     Ummm...well...I have this neat, little laminated card that the state sent me to show that I am approved to carry a firearm in public - and even this site states that I still need to carry the card even with the badge so what purpose does it serve?  Then, they answer that question:     So, it is really about looking 'cool'.  Uh, yeah, I think I can think of other 'fashion accessories' which would do a better job of helping me 'look cool' (well, as much as it is possible for me to look 'cool', anyhow) without using something so serious as the fact that I am legal to carry a potentially lethal weapon in public as a fashion statement.

Having never held either, just based on pictures, something about this one kind of makes me think of the Springfield M6 Survival Rifle.  I think the Chiappa rifle looks interesting but for just about the same money I could pick up a Rossi Youth combo that comes with interchangeable .22LR and a .410 barrels and which would likely be more comfortable to shoot (I think the last time I priced them at Walmart they were at $169.)  From what I have read, the Rossi breaks down pretty easily without the use of tools so it should be pretty easily packable, etc.   For some reason even I don't truly understand, I kinda want one of those Rossis.  I don't really have all that much use for a single shot .22LR or a(nother) single shot .410.  That said, I already have a .410 single that was my first firearm and I already own other .22LR rifles so it isn't like I'd be adding another type of ammo to buy.  There is just part of me that thinks such a firearm along with a few rounds of each ammo type would be a good choice for 'get home' or 'pack' gun as well as a back up 'meat getter' as Caster said.

  Yep.  Right around $25 for 100 rounds.  If you are in the right place at the right time, you might even have your choice between Winchester or Federal.  I have read where more than one person said they liked the Federal better because Federal's shot cup does a better job of controlling spread for a longer distance but I haven't done a side by side comparison for myself.    A lot of the bulk packs I see are #8 shot but one Walmart location (Madisonville) had #8 in Federal and Winchester in addition to #7.5 in Federal (the boxes for both sizes of Federal looked pretty much the same.)  This was about a month ago, though.  I was looking more for general use (varmints, etc.) in addition to casual 'plinking' shells so I wanted at least #7.5 and I would have preferred slightly bigger shot than that.  If I were to come across bulk packs in something like #4, #5 or #6 then I'd be all over them.

  That is good but until I can walk into basically any, local Walmart location or LGS and see multiple 550 round bulk boxes of Federal, Winchester and Remington .22LR on the shelf - with none of them priced above $20 - I won't consider things to be anywhere near 'back to normal' (heck, I remember at least some of them being $15 and change before the last ammo scare.)  Still, it is good to know that things might at least be slowly heading that direction.   I know Walmart isn't the 'be all and end all' of ammo supplies but I do think that their shelves being fully stocked is a good indicator of a 'normal' ammo situation.

I saw in the News-Sentinel that Ramsey is blaming the AG for 'muddying the waters' regarding the recently passed 'parking lot bill' and how it doesn't impact and employer's ability to fire an employee simply for having a firearm stored in the employee's private vehicle in the employer's parking lot.  Ramsey is saying that it may now be necessary to revisit the bill in order to protect employees from being fired in such instances.   The thing is, I seem to recall that the bill as it originally existed did protect employees but that Ramsey and a few others pushed for the gutted, nearly useless 'compromise' bill that ended up passing.  I also seem to remember some folks pointing out the problem to Ramsey when the 'compromise' was being discussed.  Am I remembering incorrectly or has Ramsey simply participated in creating a problem in one legislative session so that he can trumpet how he is working to 'fix' that problem in the next legislative session?   The article also said that Gov. Haslam doesn't want any gun legislation in the next session.  Well, with all due respect (which means very little) to Haslam, I don't really give a tinker's damn what he wants.    Some friends and I are planning a trip to Kentucky and Ohio next weekend so I looked up the carry laws in those states on the handgunlaw.us site.  I think what we need is to pretty much copy Kentucky's 'parking lot' law verbatim.  The Kentucky law appears to be simple, straightforward and to the point.  Which is why Tennessee would never adopt the wording of this law - it isn't convoluted and confusing enough for TN firearms law.   That law is quoted on the handgunlaw.us site as:    

Well, "something" got into my chickens this past weekend.  It killed my little Bantam rooster and one of my Bantam hens.  Whatever it was, it injured my other Bantam hen badly enough that she eventually succumbed to her injuries.  So now I have only one chicken left - the White Leghorn hen.  I don't think the killer was a raccoon, fox or possum as whatever it was didn't drag any of them off nor did they even appear to have been chewed on or partially eaten.  In fact, had it not been for the one hen being obviously injured, I would have thought some kind of disease got them.  I have heard that weasels will kill chickens and drink the blood without doing much damage but I don't know how much truth there is in that.  I am also not ruling out the possibility that it was a snake.  Whatever it was, if it returns I hope to contribute greatly to its sudden, bloody and violent demise.  Either way, I will have to figure out where something could get in to the coop, block that up and then get some more chickens.  I might look into some more White Leghorns - they are good layers of large, white eggs.  I also wouldn't mind having a couple of gold and/or silver laced Wyandottes as they are supposed to be good layers as well a fairly hardy birds - plus I think they are pretty birds.  We'll just have to see what I can find, though - I might end up just getting some of the sex links from the 4H auction.

  I am a bit leery of umbrellas for a different reason.  My reason?  Well, because most of them are built on metal rods.  I mean, here we are, walking around outside in a rainstorm where lightning is a real possibility and I'm blithely holding a big, metal rod in my hand - complete with a nice, metal spire tip that juts up beyond the umbrella and a 'network' of thin, metal pieces that make up the frame.  How smart is that?

Right now, my 'irrational' fear is that .22LR ammo availability and (bulk) pricing will never return to what it once was.  At least I hope that turns out to be an irrational fear.

  Classic!  This has kind of been what I was getting at all along.  I do NOT believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc.  I do believe that the actual act of shooting Martin was done in legal self defense.  I simply believe that Zimmerman exhibited poor judgement and made some pretty unintelligent decisions which ultimately contributed to putting him in that position.       I agree with 99.9% of what you said.  The only part with which I disagree is the statement that, "In the end it doesn't matter what they could or should have done."    The reason I disagree with that, particular statement is that it is the difference of whether others learn a lesson from this case or not.  Further, it is important because it points out the reason why Zimmerman should NOT be treated like the poster boy for responsible handgun carry.  As a person who carries a firearm for self defense, I both hope that Zimmerman is found not guilty (if only to avoid setting a possible precedent that could impact even those whose use of a firearm in SD wasn't preceeded by dumbass decisions) and want to dissuade any comparison of Zimmerman to the majority of legal handgun carriers as much as possible.   Likewise, I am not a Martin 'supporter'.  I believe this case ultimately involved two people who made dumbass decisions.  Maybe Zimmerman thought he was following Martin for the 'right' reasons but that doesn't make doing so any less of a bad decision.  Maybe Martin, as a 17 year old boy, thought that it was somehow his 'duty' to 'man up' and confront Zimmerman.  I and others have said that we might not take too kindly or feel too comfortable about having someone following us when we are just walking along, doing nothing illegal and minding our own business and I stand by that statement.  Going directly to violence and attacking Zimmerman with no apparent verbal interchange, however, was both wrong and stupid on Martin's part.  Mostly, I think this case involved a couple of would-be swingin' dicks who both made stupid decisions which put them in the other's path.  Being a dumbass earned Martin a dirt nap.  Being a dumbass has also probably ruined Zimmerman's life as it was those questionable decisions which likely opened the door for this farce of a trial to begin with.   I don't think Zimmerman is 'innocent' in this whole thing - he wasn't just out for a stroll when he got unexpectedly jumped and his bad decisions are partly to blame for him being in a position to have to use his firearm in self defense.   That said, I certainly believe that he is 'not guilty' in a criminal manner since, as Lester stated, "being a dumb-ass ain't against the law."

I have all but stopped drinking when I am out 'in public'.  For one thing, I'd rather legally carry my handgun in public than legally drink a beer in public so since I am usually carrying, the decision of whether or not to drink in a public place is rendered moot.  Honestly, though, part of the reason is monetary.  I can buy a sixpack of decent beer for just about the same price that a couple of glasses of watered-down, mass-market swill would cost at a restaurant.  Likewise, for what a couple of mixed drinks would cost at a restaurant, I can buy a pint of pretty good stuff and pour them as strong as I want at home.   I also wouldn't drink even at home while shooting targets in the back yard, etc.  I simply don't see a 'need' for it nor do I think it would enhance my enjoyment of target shooting.   As others have said, though, if I am at home and have a firearm in my pocket or within arm's reach, the idea of drinking one beer isn't going to make me freak out and start locking everything up.  If I were going to have more than one, I'd be more likely to put the firearms out of reach but it is so rare that I have more than one, anymore, that I don't even devote much thought to that.   Certainly everyone needs to make decisions that will contribute to firearm safety.  I do believe, however, that our collective 'ideas' about alcohol consumption are influenced by the long-reaching shadow of Prohibition as well as living in the Bible Belt.   Case in point:  Way back in the mid 1990s, some friends and I spent a week at an all-inclusive resort in Mexico (Puerto Vallarta - before that location apparently became a big 'gay' vacation destination.)  We went into town on a couple of days to souvenir hunt and just to try and get some idea of what daily life there would be like.  I went into one store and bought a beer.  Now, this wasn't a Budwater, etc.  This was a La Boheme (Bohemia) that had not been watered down for importation into the U.S. (I have had Bohemia here and the alcohol content was around 4% - the one in Mexico clearly stated on the label that the alcohol content was 7%.)  I paid for it, the clerk popped the lid off for me and bid me a good day.  I asked, "So, I can just drink this while walking down the street?" and she assured me that, yes, it was no problem.  Well, as I exited the store I noticed that there was a road construction crew working on fixing the street outside that store.  They were apparently taking a break - and most if not all of them were drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette.  No one was freaking out that they were drinking 'on the job' or while operating construction equipment.  Obviously, having a beer on break was considered commonplace so I am guessing that it didn't regularly result in death and mayhem.   My point is that, despite how even the non-religious among us might have our opinions and attitudes regarding alcohol influenced by the specters of Prohibition and Protestantism, I don't believe that 'demon alcohol' is going to invade my body, mind and spirit and cause me to start shooting up the place after only one beer any more than that evil gun in my pocket or holster is going to jump out and start shooting up the place all on its own.  Notice that, so far, no one who has answered the poll has indicated that carrying and having even one would be okay anywhere and everywhere - pretty much just at home.  Further, no one has indicated that they think it would be okay to be 'snockered' and carrying a gun.   Oh, and just something I found interesting, as an aside:   When I was in Mexico, the conversion rate was roughly 100 pesos per American dollar.  A Coca-Cola purchased at one of the little stores in town was about 90 pesos.  That La Boheme beer I bought was seventy-something pesos and the bottles were the same size.  So Coca-Cola was more expensive than beer.

  I have shot one with the ATI stock and it was pretty nice but, honestly, I like the TS stock better.  The built-in accessory rail on the fore-end of the TS is nice.  One thing I really like about the TS (although I haven't gotten around to ordering any, yet) is that Hi-Point offers mag holders that install in the skeletonized buttstock.  You can install one on each side and have two extra mags onboard.  As the only thing remotely close to a complaint I have about the HP carbine is that they don't offer factory mags larger than ten rounds, the option of having two extra mags on the gun - for a total of 30 rounds 'on board' - is a nice one.

  I cannot verify this from personal experience but I once read a claim that the best return is to have rabbits in an elevated enclosure and enclose chickens below the rabbit enclosure.  The claim was that you don't even have to feed the chickens - they survive off of what the rabbits 'drop' (including droppings, I suppose.)    Anyone else ever heard/read this?

    Really?  Heck, even I never said it was illegal.  Not a very well-considered decision - and a decision without which I believe the whole fiasco could have been avoided - but not 'illegal'.

  The ' taking breaks' doesn't bother me as much as some of his 'advice'.  Being that I am not former SAS, etc. I am pretty sure that telling me (and 99% of the rest of his viewers) to go ahead and jump off of that waterfall - just be sure to land feet-first - in a survival situation where there isn't a camera crew there to help rescue me and a broken leg, especially in cold water, means almost certain death is probably not very good 'advice'.   That is why I say that 'Man vs. Wild' was about Bear Grylls, extreme outdoorsman and adventurer and not about what most, normal people should do in a survival situation.  In that context, it was entertaining to watch but comprised pretty much the opposite of 'survival advice'.  But that is just my opinion.

  This post makes me wish there were a 'really, really, super-especially like this post' button.

Yeah, I am betting it is a money thing. Turn around, get stopped and the cops find a good amount of cash in an envelope in your glove compartment. Your explanation: you are going to a fairly high-end auction in a nearby town and really didn't want to sit in traffic at a traffic stop for an hour, making you late for the auction. You are planning to pay cash for anything you buy. Their explanation: you are obviously a drug dealer. Sure, there is no evidence of drugs in your car but the amount of cash you have on you proves you are a drug dealer - so obviously their department needs to seize your cash and make it a part of their 'budget' (probably as in 'undocumented officer bonuses'.)

  Now here is something on which I think we can all agree.  I really don't understand the attitude that says, "I am so damned mad and I am not gonna take it anymore.  We'll show them - we'll destroy our own neighborhood."   Maybe it goes something along the lines of:  "I need me a bigger TV with clearer high def so I can keep up with all the injustices on the news better."   Or maybe, "That a-hole murdered some kid I didn't know and got away with it!  I'm gonna get some payback - by stealing a stereo from some guy who never even met either of them!"

  Oh, sure, let's pretend that Zimmerman just got out of his vehicle to take a little stroll in the rain.  Yeah, okay.   And if I am just walking along, minding my own business and some stranger gets out of his vehicle and follows me home there is a good chance I will start feeling like I am in imminent danger.  At that point, being that I am not doing anything illegal and am in a place I am legally allowed to be, I just might have to stand my ground.  Would I attack them without any further provocation?  No, but depending on their actions after that (as in reaching for a gun, etc.) it just might not be me who gets shot.  I guess I just have to hope that the person following me took a picture where he was flipping off the camera at some point so that I can have conclusive proof, after the fact, that he was as bad as Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jason Vorhees all rolled into one.

  Did Zimmerman witness Martin doing anything illegal before exiting his vehicle?  Did Zimmerman witness Martin threatening anyone before exiting his vehicle?  If not then his 'responsibility' wass to call the cops, make a good report and let them handle things from there.

  Kinda hard to beat someone's head against the grass, pavement or anything else if they are sitting inside a vehicle so, yeah, I think it is safe to say that if he had stayed in his vehicle then chances are that the altercation would not have happened.  Even if it had happened, there would certainly be no room to question Zimmerman's actions.  "Zimmerman shot Martin after Martin pulled Zimmerman from his vehicle and began beating him," is a whole lot more clear cut than, "Armed man shoots teen after getting out of his vehicle and following the teen on foot."   Now, if you want to talk ridiculous then we can talk ridiculous.  It is claimed that Martin went home and then came back.  I have also seen claims in this thread that Zimmerman was not following Martin but only got out of his vehicle to check the street signs.  Talk about ridiculous.  If that were true, it would mean that:   1. Zimmerman, as captain of a neighborhood watch in what sounds like a fairly small, gated community didn't know the names of the streets that he would have regularly patrolled?  Sounds fishy.   2. The house where Martin was staying was approximately 50 yards from where the attack happened.  So, in the time it took Zimmerman to exit his vehicle, look at a street sign and start back to his vehicle (which would take, what, five or ten seconds?) Martin had time to travel a total of 100 yards on foot, pausing to talk on his cell phone along the way?  Wow, someone should have gotten Trayvon onto a track team and on a path to the Olympics - or gave him a red costume with a yellow lightning bolt and a mask with wings.   But, yeah, we can at least agree that it would have been better if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck because then at least there wouldn't have been any doubt about his actions leading up to the shooting.  While I know that no one can know for sure, in that case I seriously doubt this would ever have gone to trial.  In fact, it probably wouldn't even have been on the national news for more than a day or two, if that.  Heck, there is a good chance it would have been a local news story for a week or so and then forgotten.