eehlert

Does anyone know of someone that can make a paddle holster like this one? Thank you Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you looking for percussion or flint? Price range? barrel length? caliber?

Does anyone know if 12th and Porter is posted?

If he was, in fact, using laser, he knew exactly who he was hitting.

I also prefer the G32. I am issued the G31 and G33, but bought the G32 because I like the feel better. I do not enjoy shooting the G33.

I was at the last Goodman Gun Show and saw, read or was told nothing about FTF sales requiring a background check. However, everyone was given a yellow card stating that if selling FTF, each party was to ensure that all involved were residents of the state of TN, No straw purchases, etc.....but nothing about a background check among private individuals. Didn't notice any empty tables either, and I am unaware if private sellers who rented a table were told to conduct background checks, but if they were, it didn't cause anyone to leave that I noticed. In fact this last show was one of the busiest shows I've seen at the Fairgrounds.

Depending on what you want to do with it, you could buy the Safariland RLS (Rapid Light System) that way you would have a belt clip and the ability to use the light on your handgun. From what I have seen the LED Lenser is the same light that safariland uses in their package. However, you can buy just the mount and use your flashlight. I did this very thing. E

I recently had the opportunity to shoot a friend's Colt Series 70 in 9mm. I was telling him that I wanted to find a 9mm 1911 badly and he told me that he had one. He retrieved it and let my fire about 50 rounds through it. It only confirmed that I have to get my hands on one. I would have NO problem utilizing it for self defense either. E

I have hunted deer exclusively with a flintlock since I was about 8 years old (I am 30 now). As for squirrels, I mostly use a flintlock, but will sometimes use a .22. My dad was a custom builder, so I got started right and have never turned back. E

So does 11 days after the last post make this a thread ressurection? A couple years ago, I had two instances of problems with Copsplus (I know, I should have learned the first time). They did not seem to care that I was unhappy and intended to never spend a dime with them again. I got my money back in the end, but to this day I won't even open up there website. Their low price guarantee was a joke also. Its a shame that they suck becuase from what I remember, they had a good selection (at least on the website, not necessarily in the warehouse) and their prices were good. E

That's the problem, the law concerning signage does not give a very specific statement for compliance concerning the language that must be on the sign. We have no case law and even the Attorney General hasn't made a ruling as to what exactly the sign must say. It must simply "contain language substantially similar" to the wording in the law. Yet he even states the law is unambiguous. But I can't think of a more ambiguous statement than "contain language substantially similar." Furthermore, who will make this determination? Well, first it will be the business owner, then the LEO, then the magistrate (in the case of a custodial arrest), then it will be the judge. In this equation wherein lies the problem...there is NO specific statement for compliance.

What I was saying is that there are many people on here that firmly believe that the statute concerning proper signage will provide them a defense against entering the criminal justice system ...that they will be immune from arrest and/or prosecution because of a business owner's ignorance. If this were a perfect world that would be true, but since it's not there is no total immunity. Never did I say that anyone would get a life sentence for this offense, but I tried to point out that troubles could still brew even though technically no law was broken because of the incorrect sign. "you'd only arrest someone where the owner absolutely insists on it, or if the HCP holder is acting like a complete ass." And if I were put in this position I would not make an arrest, even if the owner insisted, because I know the law. And its funny that I never mentioned arresting anyone for this violation...I simply said "be entered into the criminal justice system" which could be arrest, etc. So it might be beneficial to get a little less angry and actually understand what I wrote. And to whomever stated that an arrest is not an arrest until the commissioner signs it is mistaken. However, if someone is taken into custody and then taken to jail, a warrant must then be signed by the commissioner or magistrate, etc. . . Being arrested does not necessarily involve taking a trip to jail. And the above blanket statement about being arrested is exactly why I wrote my initial post. There are too many absolutes in people's mind and in the case of the criminal justice system....there are to many gray areas to take any comfort in absolutes. I was simply trying to inform everyone that it is not always as clear cut as walking into an establishment that is incorrectly posted, having the law called and pointing to the incorrect sign and being let go about your business. It is unfortunate that things are this way, but its the imperfect system that we live in/with. I simply want everyone to use caution and good judgement. Does everyone remember all the news reports about all of the LE agencies that are against the "guns in restaurants" bill? Does everyone remember all the LEO present at Bredesen's veto (which incidentally, my agency was not represented, thankfully)? My point is, everyone needs to really think about whether or not they really want to test the system, especially in one of the cities that was represented. Geez people, I am on the side of the 2nd Amendment all the way and was just trying to give some advice. I am sorry that I interjected, but I don't want to see anyone get in any trouble. E

As a LEO, HCP Holder and overall Pro-2nd Amendment feller, I would strongly caution anyone from going against a sign that does not meet the "letter" of the law. Sure, common sense tells us that if the sign is not legal, then by carrying, you are not breaking the law. However, the way this great state operates, judges get to make the final call, with little to no oversight. My point is, everyone must make their own decision on how far they are willing to go to exercise their right. Case in point... a sign is posted on an establishment, but it does not meet the legal requirements, though the intent is clear; can you still be entered into the criminal justice system (arrest, court, etc)? Sure you can...even though it may not be exactly lawful...but do you really want to go through that hassle and possible expense... all for the judge to decide that the establishment's sign was articulate enough to establish intent? Again, just throwing this out there. Each person needs to make their own decision based upon how far they are willing to go with the possible consequences. I just don't want folks to be so brazen and think that the signage will be an air-tight defense. To my knowledge there is no case law regarding this...and would like to keep it that way.

Do a search for "claw mount" for an MP5. I have not seen one that has the integrated rings, but they do make them with a rail for mounting a scope mount like you linked to. Unless I am mistaken (which is possible) you are gonna have to start with a claw mount for the GSG 5 or other MP5 variant as the groundwork for mounting a scope.

You "real" brother is correct. The firearms and ammunition need to be separate: 39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. — (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon... 39-17-1301. Part definitions. — As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires: (6) “Immediate vicinity†refers to the area within the person's immediate control within which the person has ready access to the ammunition;

I just bought one of these from sportsmansguide.com last week. I am pretty happy with it. The sights are actually pretty bright and its a screamer. Haven't made meat with it yet, but I have chased the crows out of the yard. Fun pistol and good value for $40ish. E

Two points to clarify: 1. THP Troopers carry the Glock 31...not 32. 2. As far as Glocks go, the .40 caliber magazines can also be used in the .357 Sig weapons. E

It is true, there is no law that contains a provision for lectures......BUT, a necessary component to Law Enforcement is EDUCATION. TN state law gives the discretion to officers on MOST violations to issue a citation, effect an arrest or none of the above. Its the officer's choice. Traffic Stops and other encounters are very emotional for most people. Recieveing a citation adds to that trauma and in many cases, getting a citation is blocked out of the mind for the time being, because it is viewed as simply a financial burden. Officers lecture to get the point across that certain behavior (e.g. speeding) needs to change. Issuing the citation alone doesn't do the job becuase that is largely a financial concern on the violator's part. So, if you are roadside and recieving a lecture, its probably not a lecture, its probably the LEO explaining what law you have broken, because you told him/her "that I have no idea why you pulled me over," when in the back of your mind, you know exactly why and thus, what he/she is explaining to you becomes a lecture becuase you don't want to hear what he/she has to say, becuase you already know you screwed up. My personal policy: If I am going to issue a citation or make an arrest = no lecture, BUT if I am not going to issue a citation or make an arrest = you are gonna get one heck of a lecture. Which would you rather have?

I will never understand how some folks become experts on the law, through use of the internet and other popular media AND insist on "exercising their rights" on the side of the road, by making the encounter with an LEO more difficult. Attitudes like "the law does not require me to answer any questions" only makes the situation worse. Anyone ever consider simply cooperating with LEO's...as long as the LEO's are respectful? More and more people are taking the low road nowadays. And revel in their bravado and hubris that they "beat the system". There was a lawyer in Nashville who used to tell clients/the public to not roll down the window, but only hold the DL up to the window for the LEO to look at. Any questions asked...have a notepad handy to write the answers down and likewise, hold up to the window for the officer to read. Is this legal? Under certain circumstances, yes, but why make the situation worse? And having the attitude, "when did exercising a right or acting in an entirely lawful manner make anyone an assh*le?" makes this world what it has become. So I ask you, Glock30Owner, the following: If I call your mother a less than reputable name or curse your dog, doesn't that make me an assh*le? It is still legal for me to say whatever I want to you and you can't do anything about it, but that doesn't protect my reputation. I am still an a-hole. And inversely, if you were stopped for speeding and issued a citation, exaclty how bold are YOU when dealing with the LEO that is acting respectfully? As for the SS card not to be used as Identification. That is true, it does not serve the purpose of accurately identifying someone by itself, but I hate to burst your bubble, it is a form of identification....just ask the IRS.

Thank you for appreciating my thoughts and comments and thanks for the welcome. I have enjoyed my short tour here. And believe me, I know all about those who curse the police. And to some extant the complaints are valid, I will be the first to admit. Every profession has bad apples and people who are unprofessional. And every profession gets the broad stroke because of those few bad apples. Nothing new there. The unfortunate part is that some of those bad apples really aren't that bad. Like I said in an earlier post, being a LEO is one of the most complicated jobs to be had. And many times, those bad apples are dubbed "bad" by people that don't really understand the intricacies and complexities of enforcing the law. There is so much to take into consideration when fulfilling the role of LEO, that the badge bearers are going to make mistakes and it is so easy to MMQB them instead of looking at the big picture.

If you would be so kind to re-read my post, I prefaced my statements by saying that I am 'overgeneralizing". I simply cannot reference every situation and more importantly, I was not at the scene and therefore will not MMQB. I was answering another poster's questions and using an example. And, if memory serves I believe I also stated the following: "Once they gathered enough facts to convince themselves that no crime was or is going to be committed, the OP should have been let go." I apologize if I was too vague, however, my point was, in response to the original question, that the LEO's responded to a call of "man with a gun", upon arrival and recieving HCP from the holder, a possible next course of action for the LEO's would be to run the HCP to see if it is valid, thus further detaining the HCP holder. They (HCP Holder) would continue to be detained whilst HCP is being run through dispatch. It does not have to be taken at face value and is well within the rights of the LEO to run the HCP. Hope this explanation and re-reading my original post clears things up. Yes, the original call was "man with a gun", but that could have lead to further criminal behavior, HCP or not. Your post sounds as though if someone is stopped for speeding, than a speeding citation is all that should happen to them. I am sure glad that theory didn't hold true with Timothy Mcveigh.

You make some very good points. I can't stand the new-Rambo-officers. In a way, being overly gung ho can be advantageous. It tends to expose the new officer to a lot of things that may take years to experience. However, there is a fine line between being aggressive and being abusive. You bring up FTO's. I count myself fortunate to have experienced, what I feel to be, the best FTO training. I started my career as a Park Ranger. I enjoyed the LE aspect of protecting the visitors and natural resources, but as citations and arrests were to be only used as a last resort, I gained the ability to talk to people and the ability to hopefully alter their wrong behavior, just by pointing it out and letting them know why their behavior needs to change. Granted, some people absolutely need to be arrested or cited, but the majority of people can be converted through education.

Well, good questions. It is a gray area as to when the encounter is actually over, e.g. when the OP was free to go. The best rule of thumb that will cause the least amount of frustration, as to when the encounter is over is when the Officer tells you its over. The gray area I am speaking of is "unreasonable seizure" or "reasonable amount of time". There is no clearly defined limit as to how long an officer can detain you for questioning other than it must be a reasonable amount of time. I do not want to get too technical here, for those that could care less or any dirtbags that might look here for help in committing a crime. But to overgeneralize, if it takes 20 different officers 5 minutes to write a citation for speeding and it takes me 20 minutes (because I think there may be dope in the car but can't articulate why I feel this way, so I am going to call for a K9) then, my traffic stop could fail the reasonableness test, so to speak. As far as your second question, yes there is a difference between a police seizure (pulling someone over for a traffic violation) and a voluntary encounter. Therefore, in the OP, to summarize his post as I understand it: He went into store, was made by the park ranger who in turn called for backup. The OP was then confronted by police. Their job is to ascertain if a crime has been or is being committed. Once they gathered enough facts to convince themselves that no crime was or is going to be committed, the OP should have been let go. Would the HCP have done the job...most likely, but there is nothing saying that just becuase he has an HCP that he is not wanted for another crime committed in the recent past. As others have said, I have little regard for Officers who abuse their authority, but something else everyone needs to keep in mind is how difficult police work has become. Its no longer a matter of arriving on scene, arresting the bad guy and taking him to jail. There are so many things to take into consideration and factors to take into account and there is very little guidance on exactly how things should be done. Very few clear cut answers. So next time you see a police officer, consider how much stuff he has to take into account each and every day before he even puts on the uniform in the morning.

Tennessee State Law does not address "brandishing", but yes, it could be construed as "intent to go armed", which would still apply to a HCP holder if they meant ill will. A good thread indeed. And another reason to carry your wallet or flashlight or keys on your support side (side opposite your weapon) is so that your strong hand is free to draw the weapon at any time and you are not hindered by having your hand in your back pocket to get your wallet or front pocket to get your keys.

I do not know if gangs are a huge problem in Hendersonville, but gangs are everywhere nowadays...it just depends on to what extent they want to make themselves known. And I agree, I do not look like I would fit in a gang and would be taken aback if asked that question....my only point is, giving the OP's physionomy that he is not the typical gang member profile, there was a reason to ask that question. I don't know what the reason was, I wasn't there...but there was a reason.