GKar

CZ550 Varmint in .308 Win. 26" bull barrel. Currently, a Mueller APV 4.5-14x50 sits atop on Warne medium rings, but that may end up replaced by a Redfield Battlezone 3-9x42 Mil-Dot (which will need the high rings - bolt lacks clearance by just a hair). Geez, I love the trigger on this thing...

  Precisely.  This is nothing more than a big PR exercise, with not a d**n bit of real interest in offering meaningful changes.  It's an attempt to look better than last year's debacle left them.  I would encourage every body to be sure and talk this shortcoming up to as any as can...I talked to a local talk show host today who had no idea that the key provisions RE policy were not in this years bill. Likewise, I've talked to at least 15 or more folks over the past two days who initially expressed positive feelings about the bill...until they found out what it did NOT do.  They were all both significantly disappointed, and thoroughly pissed off at leadership for hiding the truth about it from view.  This thing could make them look worse than last year, if we hold their feet to the fire and make it widely known how they sold it out.

If the NKorean device was the equivalent to Fat Man, it would be approx 20 KILOton. 20 megaton would put their device right up there with thermonuclear capabilities...perish the thought.

Brief conversations with some legislators close to the bill suggest that leadership has no stomach for addressing the policy issue or any other peceived weakness, and this one will be rammed home as is. Troublesome is that, while there is great awareness among legislators of the employer policy 'trap' the bill enables, no one on the Hill will bring it up in public. To me, that intentional deception is just as aggregious as last year's stonewalling by the same leadership. They are quick to point out that this bill is more restrictive than last years', but alway mention that its "limited to permit holders" in the saem breath...knowing full well that it is the omission of action RE employer policy that is the REAL restriction that made it palatable to leadership, because it likely got the nod-and-wink from big business in that the bill practically has no effect on them as it is currently written.

I stand corrected.  Just glanced at the board when the votes went up, and could have sworn there was a blank beside her name each time.  Musta been the hair...

  They don't have to.  There is nothing in this bill regarding employer's policies (which differentiates this bill from last year's, and appears to be the only reason Repub leadership is now cozy with it and all-too-eager to pass it).  So if your employer has a "no weapons" policy, you will be in exactly the same boat after passage as you are in today.  As long as you have a permit, you can't be charged criminally, but you can still be dismissed with nothing you can do about it.

Kyle's amendment got kicked to the curb.  He, Burks and Harper did some grandstanding.  Burks played the "big employers will leave the state after we spent millions to get them here" card.  Harper orbited the moon and several other planets, including Uranus, before landing in la-la land.  Otherwise, it was devoid of much substance...boring video except for the Dem clowns.  Ford didn't vote on Kyle's amendment, nor the bill itself...but she was definitely there...or at least her hair was.

Nah, its Bush's fault...

My thoughts as well - this one will be the litmus test. Lundberg will only jump when Harwell tells him too, so I look at his actions as somewhat of an indicator of whats going on behind the scenes. My WAG: it gets amended here, softening considerably (likely Haslam's hallowed UT exception along with a few others), and it's this amended version that the Senate ends up accepting when it comes to reconciliation. I truly believe its been the plan all along...Ramsey gets to grandstand to what he perceives as a conservative base in this end of the state thats been quite critical of late, but still allowing him to invoke the "I tried and this is the best that could happen" crap. Thats the only explanation that makes any sense in light of his actions last year vs this year.

Any ideas on this "compromise" bill that's supposedly being worked on in the House (per the Chamber rep)?

The time for the CJ Subcmte is up now: 3pm.  HB 118 is #4 out of 8.  Looks like it picked up Jimmy Eldridge as a co-sponsor, too.

Another question for those that were there: what was/is the purpose of the inquiry RE the types of firearms that are contemplated by the bill?  I thought the inquiry was strange...but thought the answer from legal was even stranger...

+1 on the trigger kit.  I installed that kit on my 452 Ultra Lux...made me smile  :up:   A friend has the combo in .22/.17   His comments mirror that of cannoncocker.  Never heard him say anything about negative experiences with feeding, etc.  He switched out barrels while we were at the range one time, and it didn't seem like it was any big deal.

WM - did you happen to get any info on the list of "questions" that the Chamber rep indicated had been produced?  I found his presentation to be particularly nauseating, frankly: especially the "Don't ask - don't tell" part.

Watched the video of the session.  It did nothing to ease my feeling that something is amiss behind the scenes...although it was fun to see Jackson have to be corrected with regards to last year's passage of SB3002 by the Judiciary cmte.   An interesting aside...Ophelia Ford is doing a bang-up job channeling Roseanne Roseannadanna with both her appearance and her babbling...

The Senate Judicial Committee is scheduled to take up ths bill today (Tues, Feb 5) at 3:30pm local time. As of this posting, no amendments have been posted to the GA website, and the only fiscal note indicates no significant impact. In the House, it has been assigned to the Civil Justice Cmte/Subcommittee. Unfortunately, Rep Lundberg from my district chairs the Cmte...Mr Corporate Image himself. I beileve we wil get a good idea of Harwell's intent for this bill by watchig what does (and doesnt) happen here. No calendar schedule as of now... HB118/SB142 tracking page: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0142&GA=108

CZ 550 Varmint.  26" bull barrel, single set trigger that's quite nice.  It will be every bit as accurate as you are. 

If you watch the CMP forums, (Parts for Sale>M1 Garand), you'll see USGI walnut stock sets appear fairly often.  My SA came with a CMP stock, and I was able to pick up a nice original finish USGI walnut set for a decent price...correct period cartouche, etc for the SN.

I have 2 from CMP: an HR and an SA.  Both exceeded my expectations...arrived in great shape, and both are great shooters.  Had good luck so far with CMPs bulk ammo, and haven't been able to beat the price.

Kettlefoot in Bristol also hosts IDPA - every 4th Saturday.

And once again, his Hollywood buds get a walk...

Worked for me. Typed in a last name only, got about a hundred hits statewide. Cleared, typed in only my city, got a list of 1475.

I think it safe to say that the Faison/Nicely bill is a work-in-progress...a caption bill...with significant changes yet to come.  I don't completely understand why that tact is necessary, but at this point, I'll take their word on it.

Here's a link to the Wyoming bill that seems to be so popular today (HB 0104 by Kroecker):   http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf   EDIT: upon looking at this one from Wyoming, it seems that Wyoming already had this statute on the books pertaining to firearms manufactured and possessed solely within WY; that's whee the penalties apply.  The part added is subsection (d), which has no penalties attached - only declares such Federal legislation unenforceable.

Rather than speculate on the intent of the terminal clause in section ( B), I've asked Rep Faison if he could clarify/explain the intent. Will advise if/when I hear back.