midtennchip

Well, this may sound crazy to many (maybe most) of you, but I shot a 1911 for the first time today. I now understand why so many people love them. I traded my Sig 556 for a Taurus PT1911 Stainless this week (thanks, HanSolo) and finally had a chance to pull the trigger today. Wow! What a wonderful shooter! I grew up with my grandfather's revolver and got back into shooting several years ago. But I've limited myself to polymer until today. I don't think the PT1911 will be replacing my HK P30 on a full-time basis, but the difference in the guns is quite amazing. I'm almost afraid of getting my hands on anything of higher quality than the PT1911. I know my wife would shoot me with all of my guns if I get into the 1911 lovefest!

I continue to be amazed at how little uproar there is among average people over the ineptitude of the current administration, particularly in response to the Gulf oil spill. The linked article describes the "A Whale," a new retrofitted oil tanker from Taiwan designed to filter up to 21 MILLION gallons of water a day. From the article, it says "the shipping firm TMT Group retrofitted the oil tanker after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon." So, it the same amount of time this administration has had, the Taiwanese have (1) designed a tanker for the job, (2) retrofitted it for the job, (3) gotten all the way from Taiwan to the Gulf of Mexico, and (4) gotten through the US red tape (maybe the most impression feat of all) to get the tanker operational in the Gulf. What the h*ll has the administration been doing all this time???? FOXNews.com - Giant Oil Skimmer Being Tested in Gulf of Mexico

Not a problem! I think you are probably preaching to the choir here, but I am all for people who are passionate about the original ideals of this country. Not sure how many of you are watching much of the History Channel this weekend, but the stories of the men who led the revolution are very inspiring. I think I'll start watching my John Adams DVDs again (probably for the 4th time). I wish there was a similar book and movie about George Washington. One of the VERY FEW politicians who CHOSE to walk away from power when many people were all but making him a king. WOW! I don't think you can ever discount the effect of that example (particularly as the first President).

I wasn't going to post, but I guess I felt compelled. Not only have I read it many times, I have a framed copy in both my home office and at the firm.

Boy, the Judge came immediately to mind (even before you mentioned it). I haven't shot one, so I can't comment on recoil issues. However, I think it is ideal for home defense because it seems to provide the best of both worlds. As good as shotguns are, my wife could not maneuver one around the house and (without the recoil reducing stock I put on it) our 12-gauge has too much recoil for her.

Personally, I agree with the view adopted in Rock Island Armory. But, from a legal perspective, that is only a U.S. District Court case and has no precedent value. The 10th Circuit has adopted the same view, so there is precedent in the 10th Circuit. But the 4th Circuit has specifically rejected that view. Finally, the SCOTUS has taken a similar view (on different facts) to that adopted by the 4th Circuit in Minor v. U.S., 396 U.S. 87 (1969).

Well, where does the NFA apply to "any lawful firearm" like the DC law? Second, the SCOTUS has been heavily persuaded by the "in common use" theory when looking at particular classes of firearms (like "handguns"). Again, I don't disagree that some of these cases SHOULD have a bearing on the NFA. I am saying they WON'T have a bearing because the laws in question are easily distinquishable by the courts.

Try Tom Marker. He owns Lock, Stock & Barrel on Southeast Parkway (just off South Columbia near the new Target and Chili's).

The 1986 amendment is not the type of ban that Heller struck down. The NFA does not ban handguns, or rifles, or shotguns. It does control certain types of handguns, rifles, and shotguns, but it doesn't ban them. If you want to equate, for example, "full auto rifles" with "all handguns," I just don't see a court buying that argument. Secondly, the majority opinion in Heller also had a big problem with DC's "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense . . ." Heller at 64 (Emphasis added). The NFA doesn't apply to "any lawful firearm," so I don't see how one can equate the NFA to the DC ban. Do I think full auto weapons, suppressors, and the like OUGHT to be available without all the redtape? Yes, I do. I just don't see the NFA as haven't the same outright ban effect that the DC ban had.

That's an interesting theory and might have some chance for success on some level. Maybe when I actually get some free time, I'll review it more closely. However, I think there are two issues that would make this very different than the poll tax issue: 1. the NFA tax does not prevent anyone from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in full, it only prevents exercising the right in a particular fashion (i.e., a particular type of gun, rather than any gun); and 2. the SCOTUS has taken a tremendous turn in its view of "reasonable restrictions" since the Jim Crow days. Again, I like the creativity of the argument. The restrictions that were overturned in DC and Chicago amounted to outright bans and (although at least 4 Justices didn't see it this way) were clearly unconstitutional. While I don't like the NFA and the tax that goes with it, the NFA does not amount to an outright ban. So, I think the SCOTUS (and probably including some of the more conservative Justices) would not be quick to overturn it on Constitutional grounds. Even Scalia was quick to say in the Heller opinion that he didn't think the decision would have any bearing on automatic weapons.

I just checked my Primary Arms M4 sight. It's on a 1/2" YHM riser and it will co-witness with the standard sights. Sorry, I wish I had an idea to help.

I have been using the standard sights, simply because I don't shoot very often with iron sights on my ARs. I would think it would be easier to adjust to using the red dot after training with the standard sights than vice versa. However, I have a red dot that I need to take off my Sig anyway, so I'll let you know if I run into the same problem.

Yeah, I enjoyed the first episode. I haven't watched all of the second episode, though (it is available on Comcast's On Demand for those who are interested). Cody's winter shelter was really good and the "ice anchor" in the second episode was interesting, although I don't ever see me using the ice anchor in Tennessee.

Yes, there are some cases where people are prosecuted under 39-17-1307(a) and (. However, ( is the convicted felon prohibition (which I assume does not apply to this set of facts). Also, ( is the one with the "possession" prohibition. I cannot say I have exhaustively researched cases involving 39-17-1307, but I have yet to find one that doesn't involve more factual issues (ie: prior felony conviction, the effect of restoration of rights, or similar issue) that would raise the "possession" issued that are not contained in 39-17-1307(a). If we are talking only about (a), then I think "possession" is a different issue. Also, keep in mind that, if "possession" alone is the standard, it would likely be illegal for the non-HCP holder to even be in the car to begin with if the gun is kept in the console. The girlfriend or wife has just as much control (ie: "possession") over the weapon with the HCP holder in the car as she does when the HCP holder is not in the car unless the HCP holder has the gun on his person.

I must have missed that first thread on this issue. Nevertheless, I think there is something most people are missing on this issue. TCA 39-17-1307(a)(1) says "a person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed . . ." The issue of possession is not contained in 39-17-1307(a). The issues of possession are dealt with in 39-17-1307(-(f), which I don't think would be applicable the facts in this thread. She did not "carry" the gun and likely didn't have the "intent to go armed." So, I think there would be numerous defenses to charges under 39-17-1307 (if such charges were ever brought). As others have mentioned, I'm not sure why anyone would ever find out that the gun is in the console. If a search of the car was conducted though, I think there would be some issue about whether a search was justifiable (unless there were other facts).

While the AG opinion is dealing only with parks, the logic of the argument is the same regardless of what type of property is "used" or "being used" by a school. First, an AG opinion is not law, so a judge may not see it that way. Hence, my concern over the difference between "being used" (which the AG opinion says is the "plain meaning" of the statutory language) and "used." Second, the language "used" will have to be interpreted if a case ever arises. Does "used" mean "in use by a school," "regularly used by a school," or "has ever been used by a school." I also wonder exactly what "school" means. Is a "school" just a secondary school, or does it cover colleges, pre-schools, mothers-day-out programs, etc.? My church as a mothers-day-out program that functions like a pre-school, so does that mean I am prohibited from carrying in church? If so, am I only prohibited when the school is in session, or is the church off-limits? I don't think we really know the answer to that question. If "used by" means "regularly used by" or "ever been used by" a school, then there are numerous places that are off limits that most of us haven't thought about. For example, the Zoo, the Children's Museum in Memphis, the Aquarium in Chattanooga, the Factory in Franklin, A Game Sports complex in Franklin, any of the hockey rinks where high school hockey is played, most movie theaters, and any other place that rents itself out to schools from time to time. There are just too many variables on this one. That's why my personal opinion is that the AG's opinion is likely correct. But, that doesn't mean that an LEO or a judge would see it the same way.

You're going to love that gun. I was as pleased with mine as I could possibly be after the initial range trip, but the more I shoot it, the better I like it. S&W hit a homerun with the 15-22. Glad it didn't put me in the doghouse, though!

Please note that I am NOT giving a legal opinion, just pointing out what the latest Attorney General Opinion has said. Personally, the language "owned, used or operated by" gives me a little concern over the AG's opinion, but the AG opinion appears to indicate the following: If the property is not owned or operated by a school, then the prohibition applies only when the school is "using" (note the difference from the "used" in the statute) the property. It does on to say that not ALL of the property would be off limits, either. http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2009/ag_09_160.pdf

When I took the Defensive Carbine class through CIS, there were two guys running Wolf ammo. They had TONS of problems in the class. Although it was hard for me to gauge how much difference there was between the rest of us and those two guys, my guess is that they had at least 3 to 4 times the number of jams/failures that the rest of us had. As stated above, it may be more of an issue with the lacquer coating and the steel casing. However, having seen the number of problems those guys had with it, I certainly would not want to trust it if the ammo is for self-defense. Maybe using it for target practice would be okay, but that's as far as I would go.

The liability does not change and I do not believe the "standard of care" would change, either. The issue I think your friend is talking about is whether a shooter negligently shot someone. In a home defense situation, negligence is rarely the issue. Rather, the shooter made a conscious decision to shoot, so the negligence standard would have little (or nothing) to do with it. Having training would, in my opinion, make it easier to defend a self-defense shooting, mainly because the training would make it more likely that the shooter did not over react to the situation. If you listen to Massod Ayood (and I do), he will tell you that using the training as a defense is much better than not having training. When a jury hears how much training was taken and what was specifically covered in the training (i.e., when shooting is justified, how to recognize situations, etc.), it is much easier for the attorney to establish the fact that the shooter had a good faith belief that his life was in danger.

I have one on my Mossberg 500 and it makes a LOT of difference. As to the reason for using it, it was a necessity for my wife. She shot the Mossy one time before the SpecOps stock was installed and didn't want to shot it again. After install, she will tolerate it and now has enough experience shooting it to use the gun if she had to.

Just finished second range session with the M&P 15-22. Again, I used only the Wal-Mart 550-round value box of Federal (36-gr, HP). Not a single hiccup! Accuracy seems to be very good at distances of up to 70-75 yards, but today was more about seeing how the gun functioned from a tactical standpoint. We ran a number of drills I learned at the CIS Defensive Carbine course and the gun performed very well. It is VERY close to a real a AR-15 from that standpoint. Although I liked my Ruger 10/22, this gun is much better for training.

The main reason was that I was replacing another rifle. However, the two issues that made the difference were: 1. after some research, it appeared that the dedicated M&P 15-22 was more reliable (by how much, I don't know) than a conversion; and 2. I didn't want to put that many rounds down the barrel of my more expensive rifles (I plan on shooting this one ALOT! ).

Just the basic threaded barrel. I love the look of the MOE, but this is just a training rifle and the basic model is good enough for that. I'll leave the tacticool stuff to my real AR.

This is an EXTREMELY complicated issue. Not necessarily from a legal standpoint, but from a factual standpoint. For example, if I'm in church and hear a gun go off or see a BG with a gun, I'm pulling my gun. There's almost no reason that would prevent me from protecting myself, "mine," and the church members. But, in that case, I can likely tell within a half-second or so whether or not the BG belongs there. Not much chance of a problem using deadly force. However, let's say I am at a different venue (make one up, but I'm thinking a big wedding, banquet, etc.) where I don't know everyone. I will be much less likely to pull my gun unless I know the victim (or potential victim). Just too much risk. To narrow the discussion, I think if you know or recognize EITHER the BG or the potential victim, you have something to go on. However, you still might be shooting at an undercover LEO. If you don't know or recognize either, call 911 and keep you gun concealed.