DaveTN

On-Demand has an hour long show after the finale about the season. They also show the shooters for next year.

I saw a show on the History Channel where they had the Top Shooters from the Military, Police Departments, Etc. They weren't very impressive when handed a new weapon and a shooting scenario they hadn't practiced. Jerry Miculek is an icon, but I bet if I handed him my 686 he wouldn't be nearly as impressive as he would be shooting his own 625. George made the only really impressive shot of the show. I don't care who you are, but to pick up a cold rifle you have never practiced with and hit your target at 1000 yards with one shot is pretty damn impressive. I would bet money that if Craig Harrison or Rob Furlong had been there they couldn't have done that in one shot. If these were Pros knocking down every target it wouldn't be as popular. History Channel has that kind of stuff on all the time. It's popular because you are sitting on the couch telling your wife "I could have made that shot." And she belives you.

They just extract the password from you.

Give me a freaking break you They have 5 of these devices for the whole state and they are "using them on traffic stops". The ACLU doesn't even have any complaints from anyone. They discovered that the Police have a device that can extract data from a cell phone.... OMG...no good can come of that. Turn your phones off and wrap them in foil, remove the On-Star and the black box from your vehicles, disconnect your computer from the Internet, and whatever you do don't sign up for any gun forums (your information automatically goes to Homeland Security and you go on a list somewhere) Or.... you could simply take a deep breath and remove the Tin Foil Hat... it will be okay.:chill: 　

I would guess it is because the TSA (a Federal Agency) decided to let the state courts handle it. They could have charged him Federally, I doubt they care what the state court did, and they could still charge him if he tried to make a big deal about the gun. I would guess the price of the gun is gum money compared to what this cost him in fees and legal defense. Certainly He broke the law. A dismissal doesn't change that; its just means he wasn't convicted.

Scandium is a marketing tool; its aluminum. Aluminum alloys are okay for carry guns if you need the reduced weight. I wouldn't want one for a range or target weapon. I have owned many brands and models of 1911's. My choices now are all Stainless. As far as Quality and Craftsmanship, to me its a toss up between them and Kimber, but S&W has better customer support than anyone in the industry.

He said because of an accident he was a stay at home dad, and that's why he needed the money. George was an azzhat. He didn't give anything away; he choked. He was too arrogant to give a win to someone else, but that arrogance allowed him to keep his mouth shut when others implied that is what he did.

Not sure what you are asking. I have owned several AR-15's, own a PLR-16 now, have never owned a AR-15 pistol. I've never had a malfunction with my PLR-16. So performance is there. To me, it's a belly gun or CQB on steroids. I've shot it offhand at pistol range distances with good results; I've never shot for group size (I don't consider it a target or hunting weapon) I bought mine so I could throw it in the trunk (loaded) in case I was ever in a situation where I needed that kind of firepower. Once the law passed that allowed HCP holders to carry rifles that wasn't an issue anymore. The cons? As you point out it is not "traditional"; it is not an AR-15. You don't have the accessory options you have with an AR.

False. You are on your way to court and probably prison. Not only that but you may have let your family down by possibly bankrupting them with legal bills and you may then be leaving them on their own while you go off to prison. Would a reasonable person (that means a jury) believe you were in danger of death or great bodily harm? Nope. Think of the Castle Doctrine this way.... It doesn't say who or when you can shoot. It doesn't create any free fire zones. What it does is, in certain circumstances, it allows you to go into court with a presumption that you were justified. The Prosecutor can tear apart that presumption and send you to jail. You seem to be lost in 2008 lately.

This is what its always been about. Whether its parking lot carry or posting a business; all of the liability has to be on the gunowner. And right now it isn't. The lawyers need a payday, and the business is the only way to get it; I doubt they will give that up. The business owners don't want the lame azz protection we have. They want immunity from a lawsuit or having to hire an attorney; I don't blame them.

Balisong is a Butterfly knife. According to this article they are illegal to possess or carry in Tennessee. (I have no idea if this is correct, I just ran across it) The Butterfly Knife- Balisong

Unless your weapon is going to become visible I would say sit there and don't move. If a cop comes up to your side of the car, or asks for ID, I would calmly inform. If you are open carrying I would tell the driver to tell the cop his passenger has an HCP and is armed.

That’s up to the discretion of the Officer and then what the DA wants to charge. I have charged someone that was committing a battery with aggravated battery because they were armed with a gun. They didn’t use the gun but I felt the purpose of wearing the gun was to intimidate and imply that they would use it. The Judge agreed. I agree.

Sorry for your loss.

Sorry for your loss. My dog Harley dosen't have long left.

That story doesn't say they couldn't be concealed; it just says they wouldn't be required to conceal. They may get rid of a concealment requirement, but they won't get an open carry requirement.

I wouldn’t go into the woods without a firearm or a lighter. Or a cell phone… if my lighter didn’t work I would call someone to bring me some matches.

How can you know that for a fact; do you know what he did? He admits that he committed assault while armed; that's aggravated assault; a felony. The DUI just tells me that he was driving either during the incident or when they stopped him. Most DUI's aren't carrying a gun threatening people. Without knowing who he threatened or how a gun came into play you have no idea what a good lawyer could have bargained around. I would say this... A lawyer that can get a felony assault involving a gun reduced to a misdemeanor is a good attorney. A lawyer that could get a felony assault involving a gun reduced to a misdemeanor, AND you still be allowed to have an HCP is a great lawyer.

I would think you would feel strongly enough about this to write a letter and mail it. If more people did that you might have a chance.

If that were true this legislation would not be necessary.

A couple of important facts…. I think many of you are missing the fact that he was represented by a lawyer. Also, a Judge can do whatever he likes within reason. I think allowing a reduction in charges based partly on the voluntary agreement to a lifetime HCP revocation is reasonable. If the DOS is made aware of that I don't think they can simply decide it is not legal and issue a permit; they would need a court order. They aren’t going to do that; he would have to hire an attorney to do that. According to him, his attorney told him he didn't have to take this deal, but would likely stand trial on felony charges. He voluntarily agreed to the terms of the plea deal. Plenty of people get their nerve back when they aren't facing jail time; unfortunately you don't get a second go around.

Then that means that simple assault is grounds for denial. I didn’t think it was. I thought the only misdemeanor that was grounds for denial was domestic violence.

He pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor assault. I don't see why that would keep him from purchasing. It's not like there is a story attached to it. But you could be right.

Where did you see the cops side of the story?

Then you are hosed. And I don’t mean that to be mean to you, obviously you have learned from your lesson and feel bad enough already. Judges are not bound by “Plea Agreementsâ€. I’m a former cop and every time I have been in criminal court in Illinois the Judges explained to anyone that was pleading guilty that they were not bound in sentencing by anything you agreed to with the States Attorney (DA). Now generally they went by those agreements, but they didn’t have to. I assume it’s the same way in Tennessee, but one of the cops, criminals, or lawyers would need to address that. Its sounds as if your attorney made it clear to you what you were agreeing to, and implied you would be tried on a felony if you refused the deal; which may well have been the case. I doubt there is much you can do now, but as I said before your attorney is the only one that can answer that. Applying for your HCP and having it turned down would not be the worst that could happen. Having it approved and later revoked and then being stopped while carrying would be worse. I don’t see anything that will keep you from buying a firearm in the future. It sounds like the story of why you were arrested for assaulting someone while you were carrying a gun (aggravated assault) could be an interesting one that some people may learn something from; if you decide to tell it.