GKar

Have the 2" version of the 605. Has been a good shooter for both my wife and I. Used it for HCP qualifying. Only "reliability" issue occurred when I left the yoke screw a bit loose and it fell out - took about 2 weeks or so for them to send me a new one, but they did so at no charge and they sent the spring and stop with it, too. Ours is the newer version with the lock (never used, but never problematic) and the full hammer.

The interpretation of the emphasized part is the key. On any property/enterprise that is privately owned, I may be able to come and go as I please when the doors are open, but I still don't have a RIGHT to be there...I'm only there as long as the owner allows me to be there. The only areas where I truly have a RIGHT to be there (other than those areas I own) would be those areas owned/operated by the local municipality/governmental authority.

This is the original amendment from several weeks ago (March 10, I think, in a House Jud subcmte) that first rewrote the House bill. This is the version of the bill that was later further amended by Tindell in HFWM, and by Jackson in Sen Jud.

IIRC, the override votes happened pretty quickly in both chambers - both within three business days of the veto, perhaps? And didn't they both occur in the "message" portion of the floor session (which is much easier to get scheduled)?

I don't think Jackson knew it was an issue long before this meeting today...however, it was not possible to offer an amendment to this bill due to the way it was written. Since the bill caption was only to repeal a section of the code and no other changes, amendments to the bill that wold have prohibited consumption were not possible (according to the legal staff). So, once the bill was entered back on Jan 19, it was fatally flawed once the consequences were fully understood. Seems I remember some early conversations when 2694/3125 were first offered (probably over at TFA, actually) that simply recognized the difference in consumption restrictions, but no real in-depth discussions...

According to the legal staff for Sen Jud, at this time it is illegal to consume. A by-product of passing 2694 would apparently be making it legal to consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm until you reach the point of "under the influence" (however that is defined). And the error here was apparently by the House sponsor (Dennis), who brought the bill to Bunch simply seeking a Senate sponsor. Given the reaction by Jackson, Bunch, et al during the Sen Jud cmte, this "clean" bill never stood a chance once this implication/consequence was fully understood....which, if it hadn't occurred in Sen Jud, would have occurred on the floor of either/both houses. Seems very clear that the Gen Assembly has no tolerance for any consumption while carrying - so, in retrospect, this one was dead before the ink was dry. I thought at one point that this bill (2694) was also the better way to go, but wondered to myself if the consumption nuance would become an issue.

SB3735 is now before Sen Jud cmte...Bunch didn't really know what the bill sought. Marerro asked if this bill allows consumption; Bunch couldn't answer that question, so they deferred to their lawyer who advised that the other existing laws outside of the old section (the one proposed for removal) do not address consumption but rather only a prohibition of possession while intoxicated, and thus this proposed legislation would allow consumption up to point of "intoxication", which is covered by that existing law. With that, everybody quickly retreated, indicating that outcome was not one they would/could support. This one is now officially dead, as Bunch removed it from consideration EDIT: this is also HB2694, so HB3125/SB3012 is all there is for this session...no viable alternative any more. The House version (3125) is scheduled for consideration on 4/29 in the House Calendar/Rules committee - presumably, that is the body which will schedule it for Floor vote. Presumably, it can move to the Senate floor anytime, but the Senate floor calendar for Thursday has not yet been posted (prob be posted Wed afternoon or evening, capturing committee votes on Wed). General Assembly activity seems to be winding down towards a May adjournment...statement made today that this was the last Sen Jud cmte meeting to be held this year, and fewer committee meetings are appearing on the calendar.

Drank the kool-aid (or is that kvass?). Came home today with a 1929 Tula hex M91/30 (ex-Dragoon, maybe?)...3 of 4 serial numbers match (mag floor plate been renumbered), furniture in very good shape, bore and action look to be well-maintained. With sling and toothpick, out the door for $100. Way its raining tonight, may use it for an oar tomorrow...

Went back to the video from 4/13 in Sen Jud and watched the proceedings again. At 2:00, Sen Jackson introduces (as his own) amendment 1 to 1, which seems to be the signage amendment seen as Sen amendment 1. His description of the amendment is interesting...indicating that this amendment is more "business-friendly" in that it will continue to allow signs that are currently posted at places like The Hermitage and The Peabody, which are apparently permanently engraved. This is an interesting point, and a potentially significant leverage point for most legislators, in that there are likely a myriad of places with more permanent signage that would incur a significant expense to change - signs that were not patently non-compliant with the previous law. For example, several of the hospitals in our area have their posting language etched into the glass entrance doors - no small penny to change those, and difficult for legislators to mandate such an "unfunded" expense. While this situation does not justify the other holes that the amendment can create, it does give an idea all the different things legislators must balance - and, at times, run afoul of even when perhaps initially well-intentioned. Perhaps the creative minds hereabouts can craft sufficient language as a helpful suggestion - language that would be able to both be successful in the current climate and meet desired outcomes? EDIT: just saw this explanation from John Harris, which seems to dovetail with what was said in 4/13 Sen Jud and matches the timings.. "As I understand it from the drafting of the amendment they had been advised by various state agencies that the state agencies had misread the existing law to allow either the sign or the circle slash and that there are state building in Nashville that use only the circle slash at present. If the amendment was written to clearly prohibit only the circle-slash it could result in a fiscal note that would now delay and potentially kill the bill." We've already seen how effective the use of fiscal notes can be in obfuscating pending legislation...it is just possible that these legislators who are now finding themselves under various buses here were, in reality, attempting to deliver as best possible in the existing environment a piece of legislation that their constituents said they wanted. If their efforts have morphed into something unacceptable and are advised of such, then they likely will be glad to let it die and move on.

Had real good luck using Maguire's x2.0 micro-fine car polish to clean grips and stocks, then using Howard's Feed-n-Wax to protect. Wally World has the Maguire's in the car wax section, and Home Depot usually has the Howard's with furniture polishes. Recently put a protective finish on a Springer M1A stock - 5 coats low-gloss tung oil w/ 0000 wool rubdown after each. Turned out very well.

AG Cooper is getting to it on the timetable he feels most appropriate...he actually would make a good Dothan...

Check this out: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA1281.pdf Also, look at the 7 fiscal notes now posted for various amendments to the House bill...interesting reading. The consideration of 3125 by House Calendar has now been deferred to 4/27.

I'm just glad that I eat in restaurants in Virginia about 90% of the time, and come July 1 won't really have to worry bout it.

Well, SB 3735 is now rolled to next week Sen Jud cmte...can you spell "ain't happenin"? Hope everybody gets what they want...

Unless the Senate version was dealt with in the first 20 minutes of the Jud cmte debate, it likely ain't gonna happen today/this week. They have been hung up on the juvenile sex offfender registry for the last 30 minutes or so, with no end in sight. Jackson's bleeding heart is beginning to drip a bit here, too.

Very early on, I said 2694 would be a better solution. I still believe that, with one caveat - it is a better solution only if it can pass in the current House. Unless there are some deep back-door dealings already at work, its beginning to look like 2694 can't/won't pass this session. So the real, real question - do you want to wait until next year, with a new legislature of unknown composition, to try again, or do you live with the current proposal - flawed it may be - until some future legislature can be persuaded to take the matter up again?

I believe the problem with your analogy is that, TMK, the court has never actually said you can legally walk past the circle/slash on the hardware store (if I'm wrong here, I apologize, and you can quit reading now) - that is only someone's opinion until it's actually tried and subject to a court ruling. And if that's the case, it matters not if a place sells alcohol or not - if you decide to walk past a sign, you are volunteering to be the test case. I don't like this legislation any more than most of you folks, but we need to make reasoned, factual objections that can stand the scrutiny of legal challenge if we are gonna make truly persuasive arguments to our legislators. Otherswise, we risk coming across as the hot-headed, ill-informed miscreants that the opposition loves to talk about...

I wouldn't think so. With the current language, it seems the provisions (allowing the circle/slash) are specific to the situation described in the bill (establishments that serve alcohol).

HB2694/SB3735 are the bills you are asking about, Macville. House committees are finished with 2694, and it awaits the House floor: SB 3735 is scheduled to be taken up by Sen Jud cmte this afternoon at 3pm CT (on a very crowded agenda, along with several other firearms bills). If it gets rolled today, you have your answer... If they wish to do so, I believe one chamber can move to adopt the bill as passed by the other chamber on the floor vote, thus avoiding reconciliation. The Senate Jud committee voted on that amendment couple of weeks ago - nobody noticed till now? The $500 fine has been in this bill since the start...its not a new addition via any recent amendment. Court challenge to this one seems unlikely to be successful, at least from the vagueness statues...whether you actually see the sign or not (crowds, etc) is NOT an issue of vagueness. Use of the circle/slash will be viewed by the court as a definitive action - whether one chooses to continue ignore it (an act never officially sanctioned by any court, TMK) likewise would not be viewed as an issue of vagueness, but rather as an irresponsible personal act. Spkr Williams caved to this amendment in the House proceedings yesterday, and even went so far as to express agreement with it...that should tell you the likelihood of getting any alternative legislation through at this point. I'll stop my comments on that point now before I get asked to take a vacation...

I've got a Springer Micro-compact, and have absolutely no complaints with it whatsoever. It will eat anything I feed it, even when pretty danged dirty, and carries very easily and comfortably. At defensive ranges, is as accurate as you are, maybe moreso. Recoil is surprisingly manageable...several folks have shot mine and been quite surprised at how easily handled this gun is in their hands. The only modification I've made is having SA put fiber sights on it - my eyes and the stock sights just don't get along, but that is true for all guns with that style sights. Oh, well, did put a set of Esmeralda's grips on it, too...

The Senate version of HB3125, SB3012 (Jackson's), already has the following amendment : (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. (2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. (3) (A) The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted and shall contain language substantially similar to the following: AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY OR BUILDING IS PROHIBITED. POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. ( As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that: (i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law; (ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and (iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense. Now, just an entertaining thought: under this proposed law as amended, the state is now dictating to a select group of property owners that they MUST post their property to forbid possession of firearms. Does that open the door for some such property owner to bring a charge that this is an unconstitutional barrier to their exercise of 2A? I realize that certain properties are already barred (schools, Fed properties, etc), but in general those are accomplished through a different legal mechanism. Just possible that this bil trades one brand of "unconstitutionality" for another?

I believe K-holsters may now accomodate both the 709 and the TCP.

And, with the latest amendment, suddenly the media perceives it as a guns-in-restaurants bill... Geezzzzz

In theory, the language here should avoid the "vagueness" objection posed by Bonnymore. In the former instance, her argument was that the old legislation required the HCP holder to make a determination as to whether the establishment met the qualifying/disqualifying criteria...a determination that an HCP holder may not be able to accurately make without being provided some type of additional information beyond what they could ascertain before/as they entered the establishemnt. This legislation shifts that burden from the HCP holder to the establishment owner, who reasonably has the knowledge to make a correct assessment. It also further removes ambiguity in that it REQUIRES all establishments that fall below the 50% threshold to post, and to post with exact signage at all entrances. Therefore, HCP holders can establish with accuracy prior to entering such establishments whether carry is allowed or not. As Macville, noted, in one sense it becomes pretty clear - if you have an HCP, you can carry anywhere that's not posted (regardless whether they serve alcohol or not), and cannot carry anywhere that is. And, you cannot consume alcohol if you are carrying.

I think this is the language from the amendment: by deleting subsections (a), ( and © in Section 3 of the bill as amended and substitutinginstead the following: (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2), an individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity. (2) (A) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof that operates or manages an establishment that is open to the public, serves alcohol or beer, and derives less than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the sale of food shall prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is within the confines of such establishment. ( For purposes of determining whether an establishment derives less than fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual revenue from the sale of food, such determination shall be made based on the prior calendar year of operation of such establishment. If an establishment has not been in existence or sold food for an entire year, the fifty percent (50%) shall be determined by the initial partial calendar year in which the establishment has been in existence. (3) The prohibition in subdivisions (1) and (2) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351. ( (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted or required by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by posting notices to be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering each building, or portion of the building or buildings, where weapon possession is prohibited. (2) If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. (3) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. In addition to, but not in lieu of, the sign set out in subdivision (4), notice may also include the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle. (4) The sign shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, premises or property and shall contain the following language: AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THIS BUILDING, OR THE POSTED PORTION OF THIS BUILDING IS PROHIBITED. A VIOLATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $500 AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT. © (1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section. (2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).