GKar

If you aren't eligible to own a firearm if on SSRI's, then you shouldn't be eligible to hold public office if you take them, either...just sayin...

SB108 finally passed out of jerkwad Kelsey's Sen Jud Committee yesterday by an 8-0 vote.  The bill goes to Calendar and, supposedly, should end up on the Senate floor for vote.  The bill as passed confirms tho the previously passed House bill, and does NOT contain any language that would allow the records to be accessed or mined for political purposes.  Confirmation of presence/absence in the database of a specific name must be by individual request, and that request must be accompanied by government-issued documentation of a parameter that would disqualify that individual from possessing an HCP.   We'll see.....

I love my Micro-Compact.  Had an EMP .40, but found the Micro was just actually easier for me to shoot, so I traded the .40 for an EMP 9mm, which became my wife's favorite gun.  Personally, I found the .40 just as nice to shoot as the 9mm.  I never really noticed any difference in the weight of the .40 vs the 9.   Oh - check out grip panels by Esmeralda for these.  She makes some knockouts!

New-to-me 1942 Remington 513T military .22LR trainer. Serial/date codes are from Oct 1942. Looks to be a Raritan Arsenal cartouche on stock, along with two "P" proofs - one serif, one not. Lyman 90 rear sight, original blade front.

I assume you mean they are looking to get around the provisions that allow non-employees to possess in the parking lot, for that is the only thing thats really changed for a company.   Employees are still toast.

Springer Micro-compact might fit the bill.

The argument up here in the fingertip is that TN is losing considerable revenues as folks just step across the state line to VA and buy wine in grocery stores.  Of course, if they had any real integrity as to the "best practices" aspect of that argument, they'd also realize that folks can just walk across the state line and carry in ANY park in VA, and the local governing bodies can do nothing about it...

In spite of what Mr Ramsey may say, there's a world of difference between "can't be prosecuted" and "can't be punished".

Ramsey says it aint dead yet.  Plans to shepherd Senate version thru, and will undoubtedly be twisting House arms to resurrect it over there.

Interesting...Lundberg (the sponsor) asked to roll it a week (?so Harwell could save it again?), and the full committee objected and prevented that.  Hill seemed willing to allow it to roll, but Eldridge and others objected and kept it on the committee floor. Lundberg indicated that amendments were not welcome, Stewart cut off all debate by calling the question, and it died right there.

On a local news show, Hill indicated that his turning point was a dictate that no amendments would be considered...a tact that R leaders in the legislature have trotted out of the closet more than once of late.  He voted to pass the bill in Subcommittee, then switched his vote in full committee

I've often wondered why Ruger didn't take a more active role in the whole LTR idea.    I like the Marlin partnership...just wish their offering came with a wood stock instead of synthetic.  Always been more partial to furniture than Tupperware...

Seems Marlin has partnered with Project Appleseed to make available a out-of-the-box Liberty Training Rifle based on their 795 semi.  Synthetic stock (not a great fan), two 10-round mags, AccuTrigger, Tech-Sights, 1" web sling.  Also, purchase thru July 4th comes with a free certificate for participation in an Appleseed shoot.  Will be interesting to see how this goes.   http://appleseedinfo.org/ltr-marlin.html    

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-patriot-groups-splc-report-20130308,0,2444361.story?track=rss   This, from the land of fruits and nuts...aided by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Coley was clearly no fan from the get-go, and almost joked about that..  Stewart, of course, mandated that federal law was the unchallengable law of the land.  Died 4-2 with only Lundberg, Carter voting yes.  Done deal before it ever saw the light of day.   And House 0248, correlate to SB0250 (Sen Beavers bill), was taken off notice...effectively killing SB0250.

The real battle looks to be in the Senate...Ramsey's stated position differs significantly from HB0009.  Note the lack of Senate co-sponsors on SB0108?  I truly hope I'm wrong here, but at the moment, I'd bet dollars to donuts this one gets amended in the Senate Jud Cmte next week to open that door a fair bit wider.

Well, Sen Jud Cmte rolled Campfield's competing bill (the weaker one) to next week, supposedly (according to Kelsey) to be considered along with SB108.  We'll see...

This is probably old news for most, but if it saves one person some $$$...   If you are approaching the speedway from Johnson City, take great care thru the fiefdom of Bluff City/Piney Flats.  Speed limit drops to 45, and BC has made well over $1.5 million in the last few years off of a strategically-placed speed camera monitoring both sides of 11E.  They're located about a quarter-mile or so past the Industrial Park intersection (red light) if Bristol-bound, and just past Pardners BBQ if JC-bound.  Watch for the small warning signs, and don't feed the trolls...

Make no mistake - NA$CAR is just as politcal an organization as any other.  Incredibly concerned with self-image.  That said, TMS (a Bruton Smith/Speedway Motorsports track, not ISC - thus, not France-family owned) and the NRA likely worked this deal out, and only then did it go to NA$CAR for final approval...and with actual money sitting in front of 'em, the suits in Daytona would be very hard pressed to say no.  Remember, they've been trying to shed the Southern regional mantle for years, and have tried and tried to make in-roads in the NY/LA/Chicago marketing areas.  So criticisms such as this certainly did not fall on deaf ears.  I'd hazard a guess that the living France's would just as soon distance themselves from the NRA as fast as they can, but dto do so is not in their financial best interest right now.   On a similar note...TMS recently indicated that they may break tradition this year and no longer award the winner a matched set of Colt SAAs. Even if they decide to continue that award, they won't let them be shot in Victory Lane, as winners of the past have done.

  That would change if HB 0009 (on the House floor today) manages to go the distance without any further amendment: it makes any records relative to HCP applications confidential, and restricts them from public view.  They would remain available to LEO if part on an investigation, and others can request verification whether a single person has an HCP IF they accompany their request with a government-supplied document demonstrating a reason that the person in question should not qulaify for HCP (ie, felony conviction record, commitment to a mental health facility, etc).   we'll see where that one goes...so far, it has cleared all HOuse cmtes with nary a whimper.  Troubling is that it has zero Senate co-sponsors (while the House version has about 20), and has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary cmte, where it doesn't have a date assigned yet to be heard.  A competing bill by Campfield does have a Jud date (tuesday) - and it is a much weaker bill, IMO.

HB009 has passed all House committees (State Gov Sub, State Gov and Calendar) and is on the House Regular Calendar for Monday, March 11.  It has a single amendment attached in the committee that adds the following:   (3) Any person or entity may request the department of safety to search its handgun permit holder database to determine if a named person has a Tennessee handgun carry permit as of the date of the request if the person or entity presents with the request a judgment of conviction, criminal history report, order of protection, or other official government document or record that indicates the named person is not eligible to possess a handgun carry permit under the requirements of § 39-17-1351.   There is a fiscal note stating there is no significant impact.  It's even picked up a few more sponsors.   The companion bill, SB108, still has no co-sponsors over in Ramseyland.  It has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee since Jan 30, yet to be given a date.  Given the makeup of that committee, its hard to tell what will happen to it there, it it ever gets there.   Here's where the plot thickens: a competing, yet weaker bill, has now been assigned a date of March 12 (Tuesday) in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The seemingly operative portions of this bill are as follows:   (3) Any information or other records in subdivision (o)(1) may be copied or reproduced, provided that not more than fifteen (15) records may be copied or reproduced by one (1) person in one (1) day. For the purposes of this subsection (o), one (1) record shall be the complete file maintained by the department of safety and homeland security relative to a handgun permit for one (1) person.   (4) A compilation of information or other records, including names and addresses of permit holders, may be provided if the recipient of such information or records signs a statement that such recipient will not publish such information or records nor will such recipient allow others to publish such information or records. A violation of this subdivision (4) is a Class C misdemeanor. Each publication event of such compilation of information or other records in violation of this subdivision is a separate offense.   Lets see how our pro-gun legislature screws us this time...

Have thought this one over a lot, and have come to realize that my problems with the bill lie as much or more with the way it was promulgated than its actual content. In particular, two dynamics are infuriating: first, it seems quite clear that the sponsors had no intention of acknowledging the lack of engagement of employee policy...best highlighted by Rep Faison's reticence to admit that in committee, and only did so when directly challenged by Rep Jones. The second is illustrated by the grandstanding by McCormick on the House floor, constantly saying that no amendment that hadn't been properly vetted by the committee process should be allowed...yet, in their initial remarks to the first committeees to see the bill and consistently therafter, sponsors on both sides declared that they would not entertain any amendments from the get-go. All which makes thier "promises" of future revision just seem like so much fairy dust...

  Yeah, and the legislature has such a good track record on that.  Parks opt-out comes immediately to mind...

  Only Ron Ramsey's word that they can't.  Which, along with a quarter...

Would not be surprised if someone sends it to the AG for an opinion on these ad some other questions...you know, the same AG that opined that HCP holders COULD be prosecuted for carry in city parks where the city prevented carry by ordinance yet did NOT post the "required" signage...  Can't wait to see his convoluted viewpoints on this one...