midtennchip

I guess I don't really understand what you are getting at. Business owners prohibit a lot of things. If you look, there are "no solicitation" signs on many businesses. That's a First Amendment prohibition. If you walked in and started preaching, I suspect many businesses would escort you out the door. So, I don't see this as a "guns only" issue.

Okay, we are getting close to finalizing this class. It looks like March 10th will be the day. I have PM'd several of you about confirming your attendance. If all of those guys confirm, I think we'll have 1 or 2 more spots (max). If you are interested (or need to confirm attendance), please PM me quickly. Thanks, Chip

By that analogy, no one has a "private" house either. The government can control whether you can operate a business out of your home, whether or not you can cook meth out of your home, etc. So, if that means your home isn't "private" either, then you couldn't stop someone from practicing their religion or speaking their mind (1st Amendment) in your home.

DETAILS OF THE CLASS Folks, we are narrowing down the schedule for this class. At this point, the tentative class information is: Date: either Saturday, March 10th or (secondary) Saturday, March 3rd. Place: Franklin, TN Start Time: 9am End Time: Approximately 6pm Cost: $115 in advance (but first four confirmed attendees will get a $15 discount) We are probably going to limit the attendance to 7 people due to space limitations. Please PM me if you are interested in attending on either or these two (2) dates. We need to confirm that we will have a minimum of 4 attendees before finalizing the class. Thanks, Chip

Brian: I read your article this morning and you did I good job. My only suggestion is that it would have been nice to see you challenge some of the statements from Mr. Glaze. Specifically, the statements he made in your last paragraph are demonstratably false. To suggest that these background check issues would stop the next Jared Loughner or Virginia Tech massacre is fear-mongering. Loughner did, in fact, pass a background check (see Arizona Suspected Gunman Passed FBI Background Check | Fox News ), as did the VT shooter. If they think background checks work to stop these things, why didn't they work for these two. Rather than focus exclusively on the alleged "loophole," as the Mayors' group wants, I would love to have seen you at least challenge their reasoning for pushing this stuff. Thanks, Chip

I don't think there's any range time for this class. Just the classroom stuff. I'll let TresMon post more details about his class, but I know a number of members attended his Middle TN class last year.

Everyone: I contacted TresMon about holding one of his long range shooting classes at my office in Franklin in the near future (ie: next couple of months). Obviously, we'd need more attendees to make it worth while, so if you have any interest, please let me know. Thanks, Chip

If you want to do it yourself, a basic Saiga sporting model is still available for under $400 (I've seen them listed for around $350 on the internet recently). Plenty of information (including videos) on how to convert the Saiga. However, I don't have the time or patience for doing the conversion, so I bought a Red Jacket (yes, the one on Sons of Guns) conversion about a year ago through Atlantic Firearms. Atlantic didn't have them for a LONG time, but appears to have them again for around $600: Red Jacket Firearms AK74 Rifle RJ 240 Sons of Guns Sorry, just realized that is the AK-74 model in 5.45. They may not have the 7.62 version any longer.

This issue about having to send the FNAR back to FNH comes only from the Notice in the manual. But that same notice now appears in almost all of FNH's semi-auto manuals. It is in the SCAR manual (but at 5000 rounds or once a year) and in the semi-auto pistol manuals (at 2000 rounds). Obviously, this is not unique to the FNAR and probably arises from a problem FNH has had with customers over the years. I would chalk it up to a CYA notice. It other FNH products meet your durability expectations, don't let this issue affect your judgment on the FNAR. It appears to be nothing more than standard language in FNH's semi-auto manuals now.

Got an FNAR for Christmas. Due to some issues with my laser boresighter (see below), I didn't get to shoot it until today. It is a 20" heavy barrel model and I was thoroughly impressed after my initial short-range testing today. The wind was brutal today, but I ended up with some very tight groups (at least for me). The recoil is very mild and the trigger is good (not as good as my bolt action Savage, but very good for a semi-auto). I put a Vortex Viper 6.5-20x44 scope on it, which is a wonderful scope for the money. I think the combination of the FNAR and Viper will meet my needs well and make the FNAR a better shooter than I am. Now, to the SiteLite boresighter. I tried to get on paper with the boresighter (like I do with every rifle I have) and just could NOT get close. Tried remounting, reversing the scope rings, even called Vortex for help. Just wouldn't work. Turns out, the SiteLite is out of calibration. So, I had to zero the old fashioned way. Took longer and more ammo, but the Viper's mechanical zero was actually pretty close. Both Vortex and SiteLite customer service were outstanding. The tech from Vortex took around 30 minutes on the phone trying to rule out every possibility with the scope. At the end, he insisted that I send the scope in (at their expense) if the boresighter turned out not to be the problem. As for the SiteLite, it did turn out to be the problem. So, last night (Sunday, January 1st), I sent a note through their website asking about service on it. Within an hour, the CEO sent an email saying send it to us and we'll either fix it or replace it, no questions asked. I am very happy with the FNAR, but just blown away by the customer service of Vortex and SiteLite. If you are in the market for any of these, I highly recommend all three products. When I get to the 300 yard range, I'll post an update on the FNAR and Viper.

Well, I've heard about issues with the Crossfire line, as well. But, I had my first experience with Vortex customer service on Friday and I was VERY impressed. Bought a Viper and could NOT get it on paper using my SiteLite laser boresighter. Called Vortex and was immediately put on the phone with a tech person who was extremely helpful. He walked me through every possibility before we ruled out the scope as the problem. Probably spent 30 minutes on the phone and, at the end of the conversation, he said, "if it turns out not to be the boresight, just call me and we'll take a look at the scope, our expense." Can't ask for anything more than that. I'd try the Crossfire if I thought the specs met my needs.

I think you need to be more specific about what you are looking for. What do you mean "anticompetitive situation in certain government entities?" If you are referring to a situation in which a governmental entity is engaging in activity that you believe may constitute an anti-trust violation, you need to understand that governmental entities (even quasi-governmental entities such as hospitals that are chartered under the authority of a municipality or county) are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Everyone: Patrick Stegall and I have been talking about writing an article on this issue to be posted here, but haven't finished yet. Several times a year, I get a call from someone who has had his rights restored in another state and is being denied a HCP or a gun purchase here in Tennessee (despite the fact same person was able to purchase guns in his prior state following the restoration of rights). Tennessee's law is a bit different than many states and, in essence, a restoration of rights does not necessarily restore gun rights. David Raybin, a VERY good criminal attorney in Nashville, is handling the case referenced in the Tennessean article linked below. It is a fairly decent article on what the case is about. I believe this case (which started last year) has been discussed here before. But, with the decision for the Tennessee Court of Appeals expected soon, this is a timely article. Should pardoned felons have gun rights? | The Tennessean | tennessean.com Chip

I have stayed out of this discussion to avoid the appearance of marketing. However, I have had several people send PMs asking more questions. So, to give the information one time and help everybody, I am posting now. I do not advise using a trust to everyone. I personally think each person should decide if the cost of a trust is worth it. However, I personally don't think the cost is much of an issue if the client is wanting other people to be able to use the NFA items. Much better to spend the money to avoid any issues. However, if someone is using the trust only to avoid CLEO signature and/or fingerprints and photos, then I certainly suggest weighing the costs versus the benefits. The biggest benefits of a trust are: 1. avoiding the need for a CLEO signature. Sometimes this is an issue, not only where a CLEO might not want to sign it, but simply for privacy. A number of clients have had various reasons to want the privacy of not having to get the signature. Time is also an issue for a number of clients. 2. avoiding fingerprints and photos. Somewhat the same issues as the CLEO signature. 3. having multiple trustees who can use the NFA items. This is a huge issue for most clients. Technically, even allowing someone to use an NFA item that belongs to you at the range (with you there) is a violation of federal law. Yes, there is a chance nothing will happen (same with speeding, tax evasion, and any other crime), but if you plan on doing it, better safe than sorry. 4. making sure the NFA items are properly handled after your death. Yes, this might be handled properly without a trust, but the trust puts it into a legally binding document that the items are to be handled propering. The trust will legally designate who is to handle the items, how that person is to handle the items, when that person is to transfer the items to the correct beneficiary(ies), and name someone else in case that person isn't around. There are some other issues, but these are the biggest ones. The issues with copying trusts from someone else, using a "fill-in-the-blank" trusts, or using a "gun shop trust" are as follows: 1. Copying someone else's trust will often cause problems with naming the correct trustees, grantors, and beneficiaries. I often make a number of changes to the way I name people (not just change the name) to accomodate specific issues. You won't get that by copying someone else's trust. And you probably won't even know you've got a problem. 2. Fill in the blank trusts, or those from Quicken or other software, are almost always intended for estate planning purposes. They are drafted for use with non-regulated assets, such as real estate, money, stocks, etc. As a result, NONE of the provisions I use to cover the NFA regulations are in those trusts. Things such as, what happens if a trustee or beneficiary becomes ineligible to possess NFA items, what happens if only one NFA item exists when the trust is to be divided between the beneficiaries (you can't use "divide" an NFA item). You are looking for problems with these trusts. Look at it this way, you are essentially using a prescription drug for a purpose it was not intended for. Yes, it MIGHT work, but it might be a real problem. However, from my experience, the fill in the blank forms do NOT have the right provisions for NFA items. The ATF certainly might approve one (they've done it many times), but that isn't going to protect you if you ever run into a problem. The ATF approval is no defense! 3. Gun shop trusts are problematic for the reasons set forth above. But, as Patrick mentioned earlier, a gun shop that is helping people complete trusts are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. That might not matter to the customer (except for the issues already raised), but I think the gun shop owner should be VERY concerned about it. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (which handles discipline in the legal profession) has been fairly active in pursuing people who are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. They have made numerous examples of public notaries in the Latin American community in the last few years and they are expanding that effort to other areas. If someone calls me, I talk the client through these issues before recommending a trust. I am NOT in the business of taking money from people if I don't think my work will be helpful. Several people on TGO have been advised by me NOT to set up a trust. The top issue in those cases was the fact that the client already owned NFA item(s) and really didn't intend to allow others to use the items. As a result, the trust didn't make financial sense. But, even in those cases, if the person was going to continue to purchase/trade NFA items, the trust might make sense. It is a personal issue and should be evaluated as such. Thanks, Chip

This is out of Baltimore. I know I am preaching to the choir, but really, does he think a $1 per round tax in the city of Baltimore will stop ANYTHING? The cost of crime with go up? So, assuming that the criminal didn't buy the ammo outside the city or illegally, is a criminal really going to stop buying ammo because it's too expensive? Oh, it's going to cost me $15 extra bucks to fill that magazine. Guess I won't shoot anybody. Really??? 'Bullet Tax' Proposed By Mayoral Candidate - Baltimore News Story - WBAL Baltimore

Is that on their website or is that a special price for multiple units?

Sentence came down today. Life! He will be eligible for parole, though. Pharmacist gets life for killing would-be robber - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

I don't practice family law for two reasons, this being one of them. Too much emotion with those cases. However, there are three divorce attorneys sharing office space with me, so I keep the PM9 close at hand.

Take a look at the FFL newsletter (link below) published by the BATFE in 2004. It addresses the residence issue of active duty military personnel and specifically addresses the unusual issue that Ft. Campbell raises. The applicable information starts on Page 2. http://www.atf.gov/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2004-08.pdf

Well, I've seen almost every argument known to man made against lawyers and "out of control" lawsuits in this thread. However, what I haven't seen is anyone actually cite Tennessee cases where a Plaintiff has received an outrageous sum of money. I do almost NO personal injury work. However, the few I have done prove to me that there is no reason for tort reform in Tennessee for the following reasons: 1. Despite the sentiments of many people, there is a cap on punitive damages across the country. Under State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the punitive damages have to have some reasonable relationship to the injuries of the Plaintiff. There is no standard percentage, but under State Farm, the SCOTUS basically said anything over 9 times the actual damages is unconstitutional. 2. Tennessee juries are historically more conservative than the vast majority of other states. We just do not see big punitive damages in Tennessee and we don't even see that much in the way of "pain & suffering," which are actual damages (not punitive). For example, in California, it is almost automatic that "pain & suffering" damages are paid at approximately 3 times the amount of actual medical expenses. In Tennessee, we usually don't even see 1.5 times actual medical expenses and insurance companies rarely settle for more than that unless they know they will lose at trial. 2. Most plaintiff cases HAVE to be taken on a contingency fee basis (ie: a percentage of the recovery). The vast majority of plaintiffs would never be able to hire an attorney if the attorney had to be paid on an hourly basis. A good attorney is going to run at least $200 to $250 an hour, and many are significantly more than that. A small case and a large case take similar amounts of work. So, a case with only $15,000 of medical bills would likely not be worth filing if someone paid hourly, but someone with a $100,000 case might be worth it. What that means is that, if you got injured, you'd simply be stuck with whatever the insurance company offered. Just find yourself in that position one time and see if you think the insurance company is being fair with you. 3. The tort reform bill currently proposed has little to do with capping punitive damages. Rather, it really is focused on capping "non-economic" damages. That's pain & suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, DISABILITY, DISFIGUREMENT, etc. So, let's say you have an injury with $100,000 in medical expenses. You have a 50% disability to your body. Under this bill, you could get SOME (see below) of your medical bills and the actual loss of income, but damages for anything else would be capped. If you are 25 years old and 100% disability for the rest of your life, is $750,000 enough? 4. The tort reform bill is going after "collateral source rule." Basically, under the Tennessee bill, the medical expenses that a jury could actually consider would be limited to the Plaintiff's "out of pocket" expenses. So, if you got hit in an accident, had $100,0000 worth of medical bills, but your health insurance paid all but $5,000 of the expenses, your lawsuit could only ask for $5,000. If "non-economic" damages are capped at a percentage of actual medical expenses, you would get much of anything, even though the Defendant caused $100,000 of damage. On top of that, your health insurance company gets stiffed. BTW: If someone did not have health insurance, that person would get more from a lawsuit than the person who did buy health insurance (is that fair?). 5. Since 2008, medical malpractice lawsuits (which everyone seems to think are wrong) have actually decreased in number by 44% and account for only 3% of all civil lawsuits in Tennessee. Malpractice insurance premiums have decreased by an average of 23%. So, there isn't any real evidence that we have a problem in Tennessee. In my personal opinion, the current tort reform bill will do LITTLE, if anything, to fix any problems in Tennessee. We do not have runaway juries. We do not have many (if any) frivolous lawsuits. In fact, the Defendant CAN recover defense costs if the case is deemed frivolous.

I'm on my fourth AR15 and I went with a M&P-15 the last time. I still have my original Bushmaster, but for the money, the M&P-15 is a better buy. However, I just helped my brother with his first AR purchase and he was willing to pay about $1200. We went with the Daniel Defense AR with their Omega rail (which has built-in sling attachment). You can get a DD for less than $1,100 if you really look around. As to reviewing specs, there use to be a chart showing all the major brands on M4carbine.net, but it has been taken down. The remaining link is below. However, as I recall, the rating of the manufacturers based solely on compliance with Mil-Spec was something like the following (from best to worst): Colt Noveske LMT Daniel Defense S&W Bushmaster CMMG Rock River Arms Olympic http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsEuEhjFwPrgTA&single=true&gid=5&output=html There were a few others on the list, but manufacturers that make mostly lowers (like Spikes has been historically) were not on the last chart I saw, which was about 3 months ago. Based solely on that list, I became comfortable that S&W and Daniel Defense were the best "bang for buck." Evidently, some of the manufacturers have improved their compliance with mil-spec, so this may not be accurate any longer. But this is what I used to cut through all of the opinions.

Thanks for all the positive comments guys. It has been a pleasure dealing with all of my TGO clients and friends.

I don't represent Mr. Clark. When I said "we," I meant here in Williamson County. I know the attorney and, last I heard, he was planning on appealing. However, he moved to East Tennessee and I am not sure who picked up the appeal.

The facts of the case are stated in the Appeals Court decision below. Basically, another guy was angry over a youth basketball game and came at Clark with a knife. He retreated to his vehicle where I had an unloaded handgun. As I understand the facts, Clark pulled the gun out of the console of his truck and placed it on the seat of the truck in sight of the other guy. The decision below was only in regard to whether the case should have been dismissed before going to trial. In the trial that followed this decision, Clark was found guilty of unlawful possession on school property. The trial was a bench trial (just a judge, no jury) and the judge determined that, because the gun was unloaded, Clark was not using the gun in self-defense. I certainly understand the judge's thoughts on it, but I think reasonable minds could conclude that simply brandishing a gun (whether loaded or not) is an act of self-defense. But, as stated above, there is just a lot of gray area here. http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tcca/PDF/082/clarktopn.pdf

Please review TCA 39-17-1322. I believe that is what Patrick was referring to in his post. Basically, if a handgun (note that the statute says handgun) is used in "justifiable self-defense" or "justifiable defense of [a victim]" during the commision of a crime, then the person possessing, displaying, or using the handgun cannot be convicted of a crime under Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 (i.e., the weapons possession provisions). This is a tricky issue. We have a case here in Williamson County where a guy brandished an unloaded handgun on school property. The judge determined that his "use" or "display" of the gun was not in self-defense simply because the gun was not loaded. The judge admitted that, had the gun been loaded, the guy would not have been convicted of carrying on school property. There have been several discussions on the board regarding this case. The defendant's name was Tracey Clark. While the law says you cannot be "convicted" (doesnt' say you cannot be charged or tried), the issue of "justified" is still a problem. Many people would say that whether the gun was loaded or not doesn't matter, but it certainly mattered in this case.