Chucktshoes

Don’t know why the video was deleted, but here’s a news article covering the subject. https://news.yahoo.com/us-appeals-court-blocks-ban-230719481.html

Yeah. That just happened. I don’t understand.

Mine is Jack Johnson. Since I recently moved into his district, can anyone tell me the read on him on 2A issues?

My thoughts about HEV versus BEV are a lot more nuanced than just thinking about energy production. The “greenness” of BEV‘s has been vastly overstated with the carbon and pollution footprint of battery production having been greatly obfuscated from the general public by the nature of their production in other parts of the world. There is also the very real and pressing matter of resource security for the elements required to produce the batteries like the lithium and cobalt. Elements that we do actually possess reserves of in conus, but will not mine because of the massive ecological impact involved in doing so. That’s not even to get into more practical street level concerns like emergency energy, delivery or household charging. in addition, while the breakthroughs in fusion energy production are exciting and very promising, the reality is that nuclear power has been safe to the point of being essentially harmless for over half a century. The lies and fear-mongering of Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear lobby regarding nuclear power were well sold to the public by people with vested interests in preserving the fossil fuel industry.

I’ve stated my support for EVs in the past for where they’re practical. That said the more I read, the more I think that hydrogen fuel cells might be the better path. Regardless of what becomes the predominant method, it’s going to have to be undergirded with a massive amount of nuclear power generation. Solar/wind likely won’t ever be up to the task.

Nothing. It’s YouTube.

Yeah. I thought about too that when I saw the news.

He wasn’t a heavy poster in general, but he was very active in the trading post. I am convinced that he read every single ad in the trading post. I think most of our reports of issues with ads originated with him. He was very helpful in keeping this place running smoothly. His presence will definitely missed.

Damn. This blows.

This is excellent news.

In after the lock.

Haha. Here ya go @gregintennhard to believe it’s been over 11 years.

My exploits apprehending shoplifters when I worked at Walgreens in Memphis were famous around these parts at one time. It was a fun time.

I don’t really have to answer this question, do I?

Handcuffs hopefully.

Considering he shot and killed someone to not get caught shoplifting, here’s hoping that his lack of sense holds out long enough to get recognized in the same outfit.

Damn. Hope the catch the SOB soon.

As everyone else in this thread has made clear one way or another, what you were doing is soliciting someone to commit a felony. You may not be aware that it is such, but it is. it’s stupid, and it sucks, but it is how the law works on the subject. You cannot manufacture a firearm for compensation without holding the proper licensure from the ATF.

Sorry y’all, been busy on the road will get to the PMs now.

TCA 39-17-1313 Above is the link to the statute in question. As always I recommend folks read it and make their own choices to their own level of comfort, but I will point out that this subsection is referencing the requirement for hidden from plain view only when a firearm is transported or stored by a permit holder in a vehicle while on property that is posted as prohibited such as a school or non-federal government building. The statute regarding possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle is TCA 39-17-07 and it has no qualifiers for type of firearm (long gun or pistol) nor does it contain a requirement for the firearm be hidden form plain view. I am concerned by the implications of what you posted regarding the conversation with your LEO buddy. Your friend admitted to you that he either knows other officers or is an officer himself that will or has arrested folks on charges that are blatantly unjustified by the statute being invoked. It appears to be a case of the “you can beat the charge, but not the ride” line of thinking. That’s a problem and not a small one either. Whether it’s due to a misunderstanding of the statutes in question, or a desire and willingness to violate the rights of the citizenry, this is a very serious issue that should be addressed. The proper way to address it would be to fix the wording in the TCA statutes that only provide “a defense” to the unconstitutional nature of the laws that do it recognize the 2A rights of the citizens in their fullness All that aside, I will reiterate that everyone should read and understand the statutes regarding firearms possession, carry, and use and make their decisions based upon their comfort levels. Don’t take the words of supposed authorities who often spout incorrect fuddlore. All should read and understand the statutes for themselves.

The “hidden from view“ clause in the code only requires being locked in a case or the trunk when the possessor is not in the vehicle. A simple blanket or cloth laid over the top of the weapon would suffice. It even has a specific exemption to the hidden from view, for when the possessor is securing the weapon, in the process of leaving the vehicle. The purpose of that provision is really just to prohibit the old-school gun rack in the back window.

Cross your heart?