midtennchip

Thanks, guys! I'll have to keep an eye out for one.

Got a link? I have a Savage 30-06 and would love to have one like this.

This has been my experience as well, except that FedEx MAY allow shipping through FedEx Ground (I just shipped 3-day ground for less than $12, which beats the heck out of UPS that does require overnight delivery). Res Dog posted links to the UPS and FedEx rules, but his link has different rules than the link below for FedEx. This link does not say overnight delivery is needed. http://www.fedex.com/us/national/rulestariff/prohibited_articles.html Maybe I just got lucky, but I'd ask the clerk to ship it the cheapest way possible (then add insurance if you think you need it).

I think we agree on our personal opinions on this general topic, but regarding the AG Opinion, keep in mind that the Rule of Negative Implication (in Latin, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.") is a basic rule of statutory construction. To avoid it, you sometimes see a legislature include a specific provision in a law saying the rule does not apply (for example, the Uniform Commercial Code has one). The AG could have said "officer" rather than "off duty officer," so by implication, the "off duty" reference is intended to distinquish between "off duty" and "on duty." I certainly agree the AG could (and should) have been more clear, but I suspect the vagueness was VERY intentional. Paul Summers was the AG at the time this opinion was released, but there's another AG Opinion that uses the same language that was released under AG Robert Cooper: http://state.tn.us/attorneygeneral/op/2008/OP/OP17.pdf Again, this is a very academic discussion. The issue regarding LEOs is NOT the same as an HCP holder. BTW, the lobbyist in our firm released a "legislative update" yesterday in which he said he expects this issue to be brought up early in the next legislative session. Whether the bill ever gets through committee is anyone's guess since these things take on a life of their own once they get introduced. (My small attempt to get back on the original topic; sorry for the thread drift!)

Yes, the AG Opinion predates 39-17-1350, but the explanation of what constitutes discharging duties is what (I think) is important. It is the only somewhat authoritative opinion we have. Keep in mind that, although persuasive, an AG Opinion is NOT law (just ask one of my clients!). However, the Opinion differentiates between on duty and off duty officers. For an off duty officer, the moment he "responds" makes a difference. But, that same issue does not apply to an "on duty" officer. If an LEO is on duty, discharging duties could be any number of things. Here's a couple of potential issues: If the officer at O'Charley's is doing paperwork while eating, does that make a difference? If the officer is discussing LEO issues with another LEO while eating, does that make a difference? To me, if the officer is on the clock, the AG Opinion supports the argument that the officer is discharging duties (however minor those duties may be). I do not think this Opinion is particularly helpful, but it does suggest (fairly clearly in my mind) that an on duty officer can carry in such establishments. However, the one thing I am quite certain of is that you'll never see an LEO arrested or charged for doing it!

I do not mean any disrespect, but the statement "unless he is drinking or intoxicated he should be armed" is clearly contrary to state law (at least with respect to off duty officers). My opinion on all of your statements is the same as yours, but the legislature doesn't agree with us. Clearly, the legislature could have just stated that the only exception was if "drinking or intoxicated." They chose (wrongly in my opinion) to extend the prohibitions further. However, there is, in fact, an AG Opinion on this issue (see link below). You have to look at Footnote 2 to get the real answer, but generally the opinion says that an "on duty" officer is in the "actual discharge" of his duties all the time. This is not explicitly stated, but notice that the opinion says that situations "could arise where an off duty officer may or may not be in the discharge of his or her duties" which would give rise to the exception. The negative implication to that is that an "on duty" officer is always discharging his or her duties and can carry in an establishment that serves alcohol (unless, of course, the LEO is actually drinking). http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/agopinions/ag_99024.asp I guess the opinions can start to fly on that negative implication.

Just keep in mind that was just the LEO's opinion. I am not saying it is wrong, but I doubt a jury would look at it that way in all cases. For example, you live in an apartment with doors very close together and your new neighbor opens the wrong door. If you shoot, the jury may not be very understanding. To me, the key word is "reasonably." That is, the fact that a BG did or did not use "force" to get into the house is probably AS MUCH of an issue as what you reasonably believe in regard to force. If your idiot teenage leaves the door wide open and a BG just walks in on you while you're in bed, I think you would have a reasonable belief that he forced his way in when you see him standing over your bed.

+1 on the Kahr PM9. It fits in any front pocket (with a Desantis Nemesis holster) I have. 6+1 capacity and the recoil is very manageable. With the flush floorplate magazine, concealment is great. If you have big pockets or carry IWB or OWB, the magazine with the pinkie rest helps slightly with accuracy.

Verbal, my intent is only to point out areas for people to review before relying on one of these documents. If you (and anyone looking to use it) are comfortable with the trust created by Quicken, please do not let my concerns stop you, particularly after your lawyer has given it the OK. However, I would much rather see someone not use a trust at all than to step one up improperly. That may not be a popular opinion here (I'm a lawyer, I'm use to people not likely my opinion by now ), but an improperly drafted NFA trust could have severe consequences. Although I haven't reviewed Quicken with respect to an NFA trust, I have seen numerous issues with it for general wills. Quicken has published versions that were out-of-date for particular states at the time of publishing. I have also seen several Quicken wills that were totally screwed up, including one in my own family! Sometimes that is the fault of the person using Quicken, but I've heard way too many issues from fellow attorneys to not have some concerns. I understand the desire to cut down the cost on these. I am NOT saying don't use them. What I am saying is educate yourself on the issues (Google "NFA trust quicken" to find some of the issues). I think a number of the issues can be overcome, but you just have to know what to look for. The link below outlines some of the issues with Quicken. Yes, the author is interested in more business for himself, but there are SOME valid issues raised in his article. http://www.floridaestateplanninglawyerblog.com/2008/10/using_quicken_to_prepare_a_tru.html

I would not make that assumption. Again, I haven't looked at this particular trust (it very well may be a good one), but if the trust does not specifically state that the grantor has a right to remove a trustee without dissolving the trust, my guess would be that the grantor would have the revoke the trust and start over. If I'm not mistaken, that would pose some transfer issues (i.e., have to transfer the weapon back to the grantor and then back into the new trust). What I would suggest is writing in a provision that states a trustee is automatically removed if such trustee becomes ineligible to legally possess the weapon. It seems to me that, since a trustee is deemed to have possession of the assets of the trust (in this case, the weapon), there is a strong argument that a trustee that becomes ineligible to legally possess the weapon has possession of the weapon until the trustee resigns or is removed (even if he doesn't have physical possession). I don't know if a DA or the ATF would make that argument, but I sure wouldn't want to find out. One other issue. In your original post, you asked how many beneficiaries you can have for the trust. Keep in mind that, if you (the grantor) die, the trust becomes irrevocable. The trust should specify EXACTLY how the assets (i.e., the weapon or weapons) will pass to the beneficiaries. For example, if the trust simply says the beneficiaries (if there's more than one) get the assets of the trust and there is only one item, what happens? Maybe this program handles that (hopefully), but you cannot divide the single item among multiple beneficiaries. In all likelihood, the weapon would have to be sold.

I think this kind of situation is a toss-up. As previously said (and said well, IMHO), it really depends on the facts of the case. However, I do think there is a good argument that, if someone continues to come after you once they know you are armed (even if you've pulled away), the person was likely a real threat. But, if you pull away and he doesn't continue the attack, do NOT shoot. On the stall thing, I take a different approach. I don't like having my back to everything, particularly when I would be cornered. If the urinals do not have partitions, I typically go to the urinal on the far side. In this case, where my gun would be against the wall. That way, I can see what's going on around me and can react. I know you can lock the stall door most of the time, but what if there are multiple attackers. You may never see them coming. Midtennchip Unofficial Resident Attorney

I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I have to tell you, I am concerned with the use of Quicken or any other software to create a trust. Most of the discussion in this thread relates to who can possess and/or use the weapon. However, a trust has a very specific purpose for the transfer of the weapon. The problems arise when the trustee (particularly you if there are multiple trustees) dies. Does the trust adequately instruct the new trustee how to handle the trust (and the weapon)? What happens if a trustee becomes ineligible to possess the weapon? Does the trust have specific provisions to remove a trustee if the trustee becomes ineligible? There are many issues. I admit I am not familiar with the trust documents that Quicken or other software programs produce. But, if they are like the wills I see from software, you could have some major problems. Yes, as many of you know, I am an attorney. However, I do not currently draft NFA trusts (although I will start doing so at some point in the future), so I am not looking for business on this issue. What I am suggesting is that you do a LOT of research on this before relying on a do-it-yourself NFA trust. For your reading pleasure (HA HA ), I would offer the following link as a STARTING POINT. Mr. Howell and Mr. Goldman are well-known NFA trust attorneys. http://www.2aforum.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=23689&Main=1483

Does GT only sell to LEOs or can anyone go in and buy?

I agree, NRA membership is the first step in the process. But, it occurs to me that the NRA (unless they are doing it and I just don't know about it) is missing the boat on the recent gun purchases. If the NRA could have put it together fast enough (maybe impossible), it would be a great idea to approach FFLs about adding the cost (or maybe splitting the cost) of NRA membership to the gun price and have new buyers sign up. To avoid duplicate fees, the FFLs could offer a "discount" to NRA members. I know certain authorized vendors are already doing this, but it would make a big difference with all the new buyers for FFLs to be doing it right now.

Yes, I've purchased four guns through gunbroker.com. I've had nothing but good experience on it. You do need to pay close attention to pictures and description on used guns, but the three used guns I bought were exactly as described in the ad. I can also say the I saved at least a hundred bucks (including shipping and fees) on every gun. In the current market, there's another benefit. The seller has the gun in stock. A family member has been trying to buy a certain gun locally for over a week and no one has it. But, a seller on gunbroker will be delivering it by the end of the week.

As you stated, I do not think the statute is at all unclear. As such, I am unaware of any significant Attorney General Opinion on the subject of self-defense. The Tennessee Firearms Association maintains a list of what they consider "significant" AG Opinions at the link below: http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/ag_opinions.asp However, I think the question in this thread (as well as the discussions I've read in other threads) deals with the subjective aspects of the law. That is, it has been proven time and again that juries frequently ignore the "elements" of a law and go with their gut instincts. Likewise, Assistant DAs and District Attorneys use their discretion on whether to bring charges in a particular case. Therefore, I do think discussions with attorneys on their experiences in court would be very valuable. But, I do not know a single attorney that has actually had to defend a true self-defense case (other than a real criminal case in which the criminal tried to use the self-defense argument, but it was futile). Therefore, I really don't know how many attorneys in Tennessee have any real experience in this area of the law. It just comes up too infrequently.

Dave, to answer your question, no I do not regularly practice criminal law at this time. I do stay very up-to-date on self-defense and gun laws, though (mainly for my own benefit and to help out some of my criminal defense buddies who are not "gun people"). However, your question about whether lawyers would generally engage in an "open discussion" would be the same issue for all lawyers. That is, there are ethical issues (and warnings from the Board of Professional Responsibility) in doing such things. The attorneys on that video are not taking questions and, under the ethics rules, would in no way be considered to be giving legal advice. But, I also didn't think too highly of what they had to say, either. Some lawyers are more than willing to engage in such open forums (I go occassionally, as well), but it is a risk. The problem with such open forums is that someone will hear a lawyer say something, take it out of context or misinterpret it, and get into some trouble (my clients are known to do it from time to time). Then, that same person will blame the lawyer (either through a lawsuit or an ethical complaint -- which we are REQUIRED to answer). I am not suggesting that your idea is wrong; quite the contrary. I like the idea. I just know most lawyers are fairly risk-adverse. But, when I do start practicing criminal law (and I suspect that may happen in the not too distant future), I think I would be willing to do it on a limited basis.

I think having some of the instructors (where are you, Todd) chiming in on this would be good, but as I understand it, they are not allowed to deviate very much from the state approved course outline. With that said, I do think having a more thorough discussion on the subject would be great in those classes. However, attorneys generally are NOT going to give much "advice" on a forum or in a handgun class. Why? They become targets for legal malpractice suits. However, I would suggest to anyone interested in this subject to go get a copy of the current magazine from Guns & Ammo called the Book of Personal Defense (I found it this week on the magazine rack at Gander Mountain in Jackson). There is a wonderful article by Massad Ayoob entitled "Court Issues and Armed Citizen Self-Defense." It is only a primer, but Ayoob does provide case law on the issues (such as the warning on using handloaded rounds for self-defense). Ayoob also has a book and a video available on his website (www.ayoob.com) on these issues that are much more in-depth. Midtennchip Unofficial Resident Lawyer

That was me. My Bushmaster has a slightly out of spec mag catch. I haven't had time to send it back to Bushmaster, but I plan on doing so soon. As Todd indicated, the mag catch took WAY too much effort to lock the mag (even with 25 to 28 rounds loaded in a 30-round mag). Although the problem seems to be a little better after tightening the mag catch, it still is a bit of a problem. Other than that, though, the Bushmaster has run almost perfectly.

Based on what I've read, I do not think the "ban" applies to civilian contracts. From what I can gather, the ban only applies to Rosodboronexport. From Rosodboronexport's own website (and backed up by other research I've done), Rosodboronexport works only with "military and dual-purpose products, technologies and services." Now, I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this (especially since I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this), but I've seen no change in the prices at Academy Sports on any caliber other than 7.62 on Monarch ammo. If what some of the people at Academy Sports are saying is true, logic would indicate that the price issue would not be limited to 7.62 ammo. Again, I'm no expert on this (and would love to know the truth on this), but since the sanctions signed in October of this year were an extension of a 2006 sanction, it seems things really shouldn't change simply because of an extension.

Does anyone have any experience with this stuff? http://www.thecmp.org/ammosales.htm A number of other forums have had good reports, but would love to hear what you guys have to say about it. I'm looking at 30-06.

I went into Wolfchase on Saturday night through the mall entrance just to the left of Macy's. There was no sign at all (but, I didn't look at the mall posters inside the mall). I carry a Kahr PM9 in my pocket holster and no one gave me a second look.

Okay, there now appears to be two different issues: (1) can you carry a loaded long gun while driving to/from one of the listed activities and (2) whether having ammo and a gun in the same "vicinity" is okay. First, everyone should understand that TCA 39-17-1307 (which defines the actual crime) requires more than just possession of the gun. It also requires "the intent to go armed." That's fairly ambiguous, but I think it clears up a lot of these issues. Carrying Loaded To/From Listed Activities I would suggest not doing this. It is a big stretch to say driving to/from hunting, trapping, fishing, etc. is "incident" to those activities. You really haven't started those activities while driving to them, so the carrying of a loaded gun cannot be "incident to" an activity that you haven't even started. Ammo and Gun in the Same Vicinity While an LEO might not make this distinction, the law clearly says carrying "with the intent to go armed." If you have the ammo in, for example, an ammo can or you have the unloaded gun in a case (particularly if the case is locked), it would be virtually impossible to actually convict someone under TCA 39-17-1308 simply because the ammo and the gun were in the same vehicle (or even in the same area of the vehicle). Although I shouldn't have do it, I have carried loaded mags right next to my rifle case (unlocked). But, I highly doubt I would have had a problem if I had been stopped. Midtennchip Unofficial Resident Lawyer

wjh, where are you getting the quotes in your original post? I do not have access to the pattern jury instructions at the moment, but I cannot locate any of the quotes you included above through an internet search. I have not been able to locate a single case in which a judge required a jury instruction in a self-defense case that stated the defendant had a duty to retreat (at least not one that was in contradiction to the "castle doctrine"). If you can point me in the right direction with your quotes above, I may be able to help. Midtennchip, The Resident Lawyer

No, not necessarily. Not all of the Amendments to the Constitution have been "incorporated" to apply to the states. There's a thread in the Heller discussions where I went into detail on this issue. The SCOTUS did not specifically address whether the 2A applied to the states in Heller. The issue of Incorporation was not applicable to the DC law, so the SCOTUS really couldn't address it (that is, any statements in the decision regarding state laws would have been "dicta" and would not have the force of law). Realistically, it appears the SCOTUS would find that the 2A applies to state laws, but we'll have to wait for another case to get a decision on that. The Resident Lawyer