DaveTN

[quote name='K191145' timestamp='1353985759' post='851124'] I don't have much sympathy for a common theif but OFTEN, a completly innocent person will be accused and assualted by some over zealous private security guard or employee. [/quote] Most shoplifters are innocent. They all have their sad azz stories about how they didn’t steal anything and the store was setting them up. Right up to the point where the security officer plays back the video of them hiding stuff on them and walking out the door. “OFTEN”? …. Please. However… That isn’t what happened here. This was a convicted shoplifter. That information came from the Georgia Department of Corrections that leads me to believe he has done time. It wasn’t a store security guard that made the initial stop, it was the store manager. When the suspect ran the store manager grabbed him by the hood of his sweatshirt causing him to go down. He came back up and attacked the manager, hitting him in the face and chest. If someone attacked a Police Officer like that I think most people know they would get hurt and go to jail, I don’t know why anyone would expect a business owner to allow a thief to run off. Unfortunately this Security Officer is probably hosed. Wal-Mart has suspended the two employees and “removed” the Security Officer. They are turning their backs on their employees. But then, how could we expect anything less from Wal-Mart? What’s happening here isn’t right. But these store employees may not have the money to be able to defend themselves. Hopefully if this gets enough attention; someone will come forward to help them. [quote name='K191145' timestamp='1353985759' post='851124'] I still contend that a security guard that is not a government law enforcement officer or deputized in some way has no more authority to physically handle anyone else than any other "PRIVATE CIVILIAN" unless it's a matter of self defense or defense of another person, or defense of your personal property in which there are limits to that. If someone want to arrest or detain me, they had better have the name of a city, county, state, or U.S. in front of an official title. [/quote] Then you are in the wrong state. A citizen in this state can make an arrest just like a cop. Just because someone that doesn’t have a badge stops you when you are committing a crime, doesn’t give you the right to attack them. People that are wrongly accused don’t fight. They stop, they deal with the situation, they get a lawyer and they sue. Guilty people fight and try to get away.

Your insurance company will tell you for free who the [u][i][b]owner [/b][/i][/u]of the other car was. Most people run because they don’t have insurance, a driver’s license, or are drunk. Your sister in law will find out if they have anything to get before she starts suing anyone. Good luck, hope your wife is okay.

[quote name='crimsonaudio' timestamp='1353971601' post='851001'] And you don't think this sounds like a wannabe cop? I don't WANT to be a cop, or I'd be one. If I see someone stealing a DVD player from WM, I'm going to be a good witness - maybe that's not 'principled' enough for you (again, said with very serious face), but my job isn't law enforcement. If someone were being hurt, that's a different story, but that's not the case here. [/quote] No one is asking you to risk anything, or saying that you should do anything. A Security Guard with the help of a couple of employees was doing his job. Since we don’t know what happened I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Security Guard and the employees; not dirt bag thief. I know I’m really going out on a limb here, but I doubt those store employees jumped that guy and choked him out for no reason. Does Wal-Mart have a company policy that says the only shop lifters you can take into custody are those that come willingly? I’m sorry the guy is dead, but he put the events in motion that led to his death. It’s sad that some people feel because he died at the hands of security for one of the largest corporations in this country that his family should hit the lottery or that the people during their job should be arrested. What if he is a cop wannabe; is there something wrong with that? A lot of guys work store security until they can get on as a cop. Being a Police Officer s an honored profession. It takes a long time to get on some departments and not everyone can make the cut. Would I stop a shop lifter or help someone else do it? Nope. But if I saw a thief attack a security guard or a cop; I would help them if they looked like they needed my help. How do you know the guard wasn’t attacked?

We are a weak people when we have to stand by and watch thieves walk away. I don't care if its a store employee, Security Guard or Cop; no special training is needed to walk up to a person and ask them to step back into the store they are under arrest. If they decided to fight; so be it. People die fighting trained cops the same as Security Guards. When we have to stand by like sheep and let the criminals have their way there will be no safety anywhere.

Don’t use a sand blaster; you need a glass bead blaster.

[quote name='Dennis1209' timestamp='1353884404' post='850563'] We will go into an agreement with the United Nations where the Constitution is null and void, and our UN agreement will be law. [/quote] No we won't. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/patriot.gif[/img]

[quote name='CZ9MM' timestamp='1353866133' post='850464'] What if someone used a knife to holdup a convenience store? Should we take away his right to own a knife after he serves his time? [/quote] Yes, not only knives, but guns and anything else the person may use to intimidate another for financial gain. Armed Robbery is near the top of the list of violent crimes and anyone that would walk into a store and threaten an innocent person with death should not have their rights restored, they certainly have no business carrying a gun. I’m okay with a Judge hearing his case and making a decision; but I don’t expect many Judges would restore the rights of an Armed Robber. As I said some things you can’t just walk away from. Using a weapon in an act of violence against an innocent person is one of them.

[quote name='CZ9MM' timestamp='1353864464' post='850458'] After someone serves their time they have paid their dues. If you cannot trust them with a gun in society, you probably cannot trust them at all in society. If you cannot trust them with a gun after their sentence, perhaps their sentence should have been longer? I'm advocating full restoration of rights after your sentence, and for those serious crimes to carry longer or even true life sentences. Because seriously, if you do not trust selling a gun to one of these convicts after they get out, do you really trust them at all? [/quote] I don’t have to trust them with a gun to let them out of prison. Just because you aren’t serving the rest of life in prison doesn’t mean you are okay to carry a gun. Nope, as much as some think there should be black and white for everything; there isn’t. You petition the court to get your rights restored, you bring witnesses, friends or family members that want to testify in your behalf and a judge makes the call.

I don’t own one, but they have an excellent reputation. Kevlar is not a good material for rifle stocks; I wouldn’t pay extra for it, it’s just marketing. I would like to see one put to the test against a heavy barrel like the 700 VLS or 700 SPS. You don’t see them come up for sale much; a new one is $2182 from Buds. I’m just bumping this discussion up; maybe someone that has one can offer some comments….

[quote name='East_TN_Patriot' timestamp='1353858277' post='850426'] Just as an aside, I remember when I entered law enforcement in 1997 and I supported the concealed carry law that was being pushed in Kentucky at the time. I was definitely a minority in policing at the time and that wasn't all that long ago. My point is that less than a generation ago, most LEOs were not supportive of one's right to carry and the major police organizations are not especially friendly to right to carry, especially the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Heck, that group even opposed the federal law granting national carry for LEOs. [/quote] I first became a Police Officer in 1978, and I still know a lot of cops and have family members involved in law enforcement; they are all in Illinois and almost every one of them supports citizens carrying. I have no idea why most cops in Kentucky would not support carry, that’s interesting. The NACOP is just a group of administrators; they aren’t street cops. But then it’s really a moot point, no one cares what the cops think about the laws. Legislators make laws; not cops. I took a week’s vacation in September and went to Illinois. Went to Chicago for two days. One of the best cities in the world for night life and restaurants. Illinois is full of good people that are working on getting carry laws. Unfortunately just like we just saw in the Presidential election those that want the government to support them are calling the shots.

If the right to own a firearm has been taken away it should never be automatically restored. Life isn’t fair and some actions have consequences you don’t get a second chance on. I think the way it is handled in Tennessee needs to be changed to allow the Judge presiding over the hearing to make the decision. Right now if the conviction involves drugs or violence he can’t restore your rights. This isn’t an issue of entitlement; I believe it should be up to the Judge. That isn’t a choice so I didn’t vote.

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1353813373' post='850292'] I was taught by my hcp instructor that anyone entering into your residence without permission is seen as a direct threat to you and you can exercise deadly force upon them whether they are coming or going, facing you or back turned, armed or unarmed. He said that was the way the law was written. I/he might be incorrect, but this is the position I've taken since I've had my hcp. Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2 [/quote] Well your instructor is FOS. There are no Free Fire Zones.

[quote name='Jon_L' timestamp='1352496405' post='842668'] Thanks for the input, all. I'll probably carry my TCP in my coat or something--or not if it's a chilly night I may want to give it to her. Glovebox? Haha, I don't know! [/quote] Based on the fact that I would be taking her somewhere that serves alcohol (which I would be drinking) and based on your selection for a user pic, I would say carrying a firearm would not be an option. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/biggrin.gif[/img]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353782397' post='850109'] This is, for me, a hypothetical situation. It's real enough, I guess, for some folks, but I think it would be rare. I would think, the issue would come up very seldom, and that if it did, everyone would go to a neutral corner. Unless, the employer is a total douche, which I would not want to work for; or because or I'm a total douche employee - and it would be an excuse to fire me. I'm thinking if we go to a "car searches cannot be a term of employment consent" it would be a useful law for Tennessee. And it wouldn't have to mention guns. For the big employers, like FedEx perhaps, that means that searches for shoplifting from the business take places with security at the company's door, not out in the parking lot. I'm thinking it's already like that for retailers with their customers. [/quote] Hopefully thieves will never be protected. If your employer suspects you of theft it is up to him about how it is handled. Most employers are going to handle that issue without the cops involved. Stealing from your employer is not shoplifting; it’s either theft, or in some cases burglary. Big companies singling you out for a vehicle search is like a lawyer asking a question he doesn’t already know the answer to; it isn’t going to happen. However, random searches of vehicles as they pass through a secured area is common and can’t be interfered with. If you don’t want your vehicle searched don’t drive through those gates. Most of the big companies I have been to have a notice at the gate that says something to the effect of “ALL VEHICLES SUBJECT TO SEARCH”. If you don’t agree with that; don’t drive through the gate. In your case if your employer asks to search your car; ask him why. I think most employers will answer that; they will answer it if the Police are involved. You will know right then what they are looking for and whether or not you have a job. If you are a thief or are violating company policies you don’t have the 4th amendment protections from your employer that you have from the government.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353778462' post='850075'] Ok, remind me . . . so, I have a Tennessee HCP, and I work for an employer that posts his lot "No firearms." I keep a firearm locked in a gun vault in the trunk of my car. I never say I have a firearm, I never say I don't have a firearm. And, said employer says he wants one of the company security guards to search my car. I tell him to pack sand, or get a freakin' warrant and get a city police officer to search it. What happens next? [/quote] The Police can’t search your car unless your employer is making a criminal complaint against you, theft, etc. If they are, the Police will either get a warrant or if they have probable cause they will search it. The cops aren’t going to get involved in this. So what’s going to happen to you? You know your boss better than we do; what is going to happen?

[quote name='BlessTheUSA' timestamp='1353637775' post='849628'] The add doesn't mention what calibers they are offering, so I'm hoping .308 is available. [/quote] Dicks puts 700 heavy with a scope on sale at this time of the year. Is that where you see the ad?

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353637519' post='849626'] nor has anyone offered a logical argument as to why the bill shouldn't be adopted. [/quote] Because if I’m a business owner I am going to be held liable for what goes on at my property; I have the ultimate right to make those decisions. I also have the responsibility to make my property as safe as I can for my employees. If I do not want you to bring a deadly weapon on my property, and I properly post my property; that is the way it is going to be. If you are a customer, don’t do business with me, if you are an employee, go find a job somewhere else. Are you going to give business owners absolute immunity from a negligent shooting on their property? Of course you aren’t because the lawyers aren’t going to allow that. Give the business owners absolute immunity from lawsuits, drop the HCP and recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutional right for all citizens of the state and I will gladly step over to the other side. Until then it’s just a special interest group trying to use the government to push around business owners.

I own a 700 VLS (Varmint, Laminated Stock) in .308. I don’t hunt, but if I did it wouldn’t be my first choice for a deer rifle. The round (.308 Winchester) would be my first choice for deer, but a 700 heavy barrel is kind of heavy for a field rifle. Most any heavy barrel is not going to have sights; not much point in a heavy barrel with iron sights. If I wanted to hunt deer with open sights I would just get a plain 700 BDL that comes with sights or a Lever action 30/30.

He had 18 years in law enforcement but only a year there, as I read it. Was it a legitimate ticket? If it was he just hit the retirement lotto. There is more to this story than we know. If not, it sounds like they will also need a new Police Chief if the city fires people for making stupid decisions. I would like to hear the real story.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353629221' post='849568'] And the state has the constitutional authority, both state and federal, to decide that people can carry and keep their firearms in their vehicles even when parked in a parking lot over the objections of the business property owner. [/quote] Not once Robert, have I implied they can’t decide they have that authority. A thug government has the authority to do anything the people allow them to do. You are one of, if not the, most vocal about cops and how you perceive they abuse their authority. Passage of this bill would be an abuse of government power; am I to understand you are okay with it when it’s something you want?

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353620350' post='849550'] How would it be different? [/quote] You could make an argument if you lived in a state that recognizes a [i][b]RIGHT[/b][/i] to bear arms instead of buying the [i][b]PRIVLEDGE[/b][/i]. But it’s a crime in this state; so this issue is a non-starter; or it should be anyway.

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353600466' post='849460'] [The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size] [/quote] Correct, and the legislature has outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms throughout the state for all citizens. For $115 plus the price of a class a very small (less than 5%) “Special group” has purchased a privilege that permits them a valid defense to this criminal charge. It’s beyond me how anyone can even compare something that is not a right with the commonly accepted right to control your own property. As a gun owner I would like to turn my head while the state of Tennessee tramples all over the rights of a property owner if it allows me to carry a gun where ever I please; but as a Patriot I can’t. The fact that a court in another state and a different Federal jurisdiction put their stamp of approval on it means absolutely nothing to me. Explain it? Why would I or anyone else try? I don’t even have to read the decision to know it’s wrong. The smoking ban was wrong, all the stuff the feds passed after 9-11 in the name of National Security is wrong, the decision on Eminent Domain was wrong. But the courts will uphold them. That doesn’t mean that free thinking Patriots have to agree with them, only that we have to abide by them. As I said before; this would be a different argument if this state recognized the right to bear arms; but they do not and until they do they hopefully will not be allowed to push this down the throat of business owners.

Tennessee isn’t in the 10th District, it in the 6th. If the law is passed and is challenged it will work its way to the 6th. We will be bound by what is decided there; unless the SCOTUS decides to hear it. The Federal Districts Court have made mistakes before. All but two ruled that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. The SCOTUS split the 2nd amendment in half and said they were wrong on half of it. However, I don’t see how this law can pass in Tennessee. Our state legislators would truly have to be a bunch of hypocrites to force allowing gun possession on business owners when they have outlawed gun possession in public and in private vehicles by citizens. Will I be shocked? No, I was shocked when many states passed the smoking legislation and caused some businesses to go out of business. So I won’t be shocked if the state delivers another blow to business.

[quote name='razorback2003' timestamp='1353541920' post='849267'] You do not think Senators or Congressmen at the fed level do not get federal deputy marshal creds to carry? I would think a few if they wanted them could get marshal creds. [/quote] They don’t need Federal Deputy Marshal credentials to carry. Any local Sherriff can make them a Deputy; then they can carry anywhere they like under LEOSA. The Executive branch of the Federal government was added to LEOSA, so the Justice Department is covered. No, I don’t want the Feds in charge of carry laws; no good can come from it. And the Feds can’t make a state allow you to carry if they don’t want you to; so it’s not going to happen anyway.

[quote name='DMark' timestamp='1353469397' post='849013'] 50 years old is a Curio & Relic as found in statute 27 CFR § 478.11. That is the Law. Original condition applies to the importation of military C&R firearms and Curios [u]which are less [/u]than 50 years old. [/quote] This discussion makes my point. As a holder of a C&R license I can only go by what is published and the interpretations the ATF posts. I guess I could make an argument about what the law says, but I could very well be making that argument in a courtroom; not worth the risk to me. The point is that having a C&R and selling a gun 50 years old doesn’t blanketly make it legal. You have C&R rules and you have state and local laws that you must know and abide by. Some dealers don’t want to mess with that. [quote]Q: What modifications can be made on C&R firearms without changing their C&R classification? The definition for curio or relic (“C & R”) firearms found in 27 CFR § 478.11 does not specifically state that a firearm must be in its original condition to be classified as a C&R firearm. However, ATF Ruling 85-10, which discusses the importation of military C&R firearms, notes that they must be in original configuration and adds that a receiver is not a C&R item. [u][i][b]Combining this ruling and the definition of C&R firearms, the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon.[/b][/i][/u] It is also the opinion of FTB, however, that a minor change such as the addition of scope mounts, non-original sights, or sling swivels would not remove a firearm from its original condition. Moreover, we have determined that replacing particular firearms parts with new parts that are made to the original design would also be acceptable-for example, replacing a cracked M1 Grand stock with a new wooden stock of the same design, but replacing the original firearm stock with a plastic stock would change its classification as a C&R item. Q: Does the Federal firearms law require licensed collectors to comply with State laws and local published ordinances which are relevant to the enforcement of the GCA? Yes. It is unlawful for any licensed collector to sell or deliver any firearm or ammunition to any person if the person’s purchase or possession [u][i][b]would be in violation of any State law or local published ordinance [/b][/i][/u]applicable at the place of sale or delivery. [/quote]