midtennchip

Okay, I'm sure this has been covered before, but I'll ask anyway (and expect the flaming). I have started looking for a subcompact for concealed carry. I have a H&K P30 (which could be a CCW for many people), but I rarely wear a jacket or a shirt with the tale out. I wear a tucked in shirt every day. As a result, just about anything with which a holster is visible will not be an option. Based on online listings and ads in gun magazines, I have been looking at the Kel-Tec PF-9, the Para Carry 9, and the H&K P2000 subcompact. I have not held any of these yet, but I wanted opinions on these and other similar guns. I am not stuck on a particular caliber. Are the Kel-Tec and Para that much smaller than the P2000? If so, how much of a difference? Can any of these be carried in any manner (other than ankle holsters) without a jacket or long shirt? Thanks.

I am a lawyer (sorry, vero1, I ruined it), so I guess I'll pitch in here. Even some convicted felons will regain their rights to possess guns if they have their civil rights restored. However, in the situation where the felon is still prohibited from possessing (as opposed to owning) a firearm, you have to be mindful of "constructive possession." Federal case law makes it clear that whether a felon has constructive possession of a firearm owned or possessed by a spouse (or other person) in the same household is a factual question to be determined by a jury. That is, the felon can be charged with possession, and then the jury will decide if the felon had constructive possession. Generally, constructive possesssion means the felon is aware of the presence of the firearm and he or she has the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. So, does that mean that a spouse, family member, or roommate cannot have a firearm in the same household as a felon? NO. Would doing so subject the felon to further criminal charges? Possibly. Although not specifically about the issue raised in this string, the following article by David Raybin (THE authority on criminal law in TN), will be interesting to a number of you, particularly regarding the restoration of civil rights. http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/1/189956.html

Folks, before anyone gets too upset about Heller, there are a few clarifications that need to be made. 1. The SCOTUS (at least as a body) does not listen to arguments made outside of court, so the Montana officials (nor anyone else that wants to tell the Justices how they feel) will not have any bearing on the outcome. Obviously, some of the Justices allow their own political/social/etc views cloud their legal reasoning, I personally do NOT want the SCOTUS as a body to make decisions based on what people WANT the outcome to be. The people have the ability to voice that through their elected officials, not the SCOTUS. 2. Having spent a great deal of time reading law review articles and court opinions on this issue, I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will actually hold that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right. If we (i.e, gun owners) were to be on the short end of Heller, it will likely be a much more technical issue (i.e., one of the "technicalities" people gripe about when criminals "get away with it."). 3. Even if the SCOTUS upholds the ban, that DOES NOT mean that guns will automatically be illegal throughout the country. There is no current law outlawing gun ownership, except in those very few cities that have passed such laws. For gun ownership (or certain types of guns) to be outlawed, more laws must be passed. I'll leave it to you to wonder if a federal, state (TN), or local ban would be passed after the Heller decision that would affect you. Most of the members here probably know all of this already, but a few of the posts made it seem that this decision is more important than it really is. Regardless of how the SCOTUS decides this, the case WILL NOT be the end of this issue. This post is already too long, but an explanation of why the decision will not solve the issue would be WAY too long to post here.

cstandi, thanks for your service. Luckily, you also show a great understanding of the issues you face in that service. Unfortunately, the "militia" is already "federalized." (see Articles I and II of the Constitution and the current Militia Act). Also, even if the federal government didn't control the "militia" legally, it always has the ability to "persuade" through funding (as you noted). This would also apply to PDs and sheriff departments, as well. Just cut funding (or more likely tie funding to specific actions, like they've done with road funding over the years), and the feds can effectively control any branch of government it wishes. There certainly are checks and balances, but they have been fairly ineffective in many other "federally mandated" programs (TennCare, for example). Good luck in your new endeavor!

Rabbi, I agree. A decision in Heller against us would be a big blow, and I don't want to wait for a subsequent decision or a legislative act (which is another way to overturn the decision from a practical sense). But, if the decision does go against us, it will likely be a decision that only affects federal enclaves, not the states. The Appeals Court ignored that issue, but the gun control advocates will use it as a carrot for the liberal Justices to justify a gun control result.

Going back to my file on this subject (yes, I have a legal file on this in my office), I decided to post this LAST bit of information before I leave it alone. I've probably beaten the horse (unfortunately, it's long from dead) long enough. Dave, you say individuals have a right to bear arms, but the 2A does not provide that right. Then, from where does that right come? If it’s a God-given right, keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was written specifically to preserve those inalienable rights. You seem to be concerned that the Court will decide the gun rights issue based on a provision (the 2A) that does not provide that right. If the right exists somewhere other than the 2A, then a decision concerning only the 2A shouldn’t concern you. The right would still exist after the decision. Further, despite your claim to the contrary, the overwhelming legal precedents point to an individual right in the 2A. I’ll do this in bullet (no pun intended) form: <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->the 2A is an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights, and England, of course, didn't have states, so the English right couldn't have been a states' right; <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->all of the notable 19^th Century constitutional commentators, including St. George Tucker (1803), William Rawle (1829), Justice Joseph Story (1833 and 1840), and Thomas Cooley (1880 and 1898), believed the 2A conferred an individual right; <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->exactly one statement in the 19^th Century cases and commentaries supports the collective rights view, a concurring (ie, not the actual opinion) opinion in an 1842 Arkansas case; <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->the three most prolific (and arguably most important) liberal constitutional law professors, Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA, Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, and Professor Sanford Levinson of Univ. of Texas, currently teaching and writing have changed their views from a collective rights to an individual rights view of the 2A; <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->the Court said in the 1990 case U.S. v. Verdug-Urquidez that "the people" has the same meaning--individuals--throughout the Bill of Rights; and <!--[if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->throughout the SCOTUS's history, the Justices have mentioned the 2A in only 27 opinions, in 22 of which the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. Of the five remaining case, the only one that even leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), and it could be equally well explained as preventing only ex-felons from keeping guns. The first problem with the “militia interpretation†is that the 2A speaks of a right and appears in the Bill of Rights. (Powers with respect to the militia are enumerated in Articles I and II of the Constitution.) No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for government but denied to the people. As Rabbi pointed out, it is an untenable position to argue that while the Framers used the term "the people" to mean individuals in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, they suddenly used the same term to mean "the States" in the Second. <o:p></o:p> Based on this research, I have a hard time understanding anyone’s argument that the 2A does not confer an individual right. If the Framers meant to say that States have a right to arm militias or that only militia members have a right to guns, they simply could have said, "the right of the States to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed," though that would have contradicted Article I, Section 8, which delegated that power to Congress; or, they could have written, "the right of members of the state militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," though that would have contradicted Article I, Section 9, which forbids the States to "keep Troops…in time of Peace." As we can see from the 10^th Amendment, they were capable of saying "States" when they meant States and "people" when they meant people. <o:p></o:p> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>

Dave, I intend no disrespect by this, but I have (and do) study the Constitution (that's what we lawyers do). My emotion does not play into this at all (hence, providing the citations to actual law and legal scholarship). But, I suspect your experience as a LEO does play into your reading of the Amendment. I commend you for your service to our community (and other communities), but you are the first person I've ever heard that thinks the 2nd Amendment provides a right to arm police officers. That includes ALL of the attorneys at the Cato Institute that comment on this, Glenn Reynolds (UT Constitutional Law Prof and frequent speaker on the subject), TN Supreme Court Justice William Koch (who taught me Constitutional Law), and countless other legal scholars. If the Amendment was as crystal clear as you state, the SCOTUS would not be hearing the Heller case this term. By the way, the SCOTUS will decide the case and present its ruling before the term ends. In granting the appeal, teh SCOTUS stated the issue as, “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?†Obviously, the Justices believe there is an issue, so the reading of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear in their minds (or the minds of Appeals Court judges). I share your concern over this decision. But, the SCOTUS decisions are never "final." They are always open to being reversed in another case (see the Dread Scott decision and its reversal, for example). However, a decision upholding the DC ban would be a HUGE victory for gun control folks. I just don't think the ban will hold up. The Appeals Court certainly didn't think it was constitutional. There is one other possibility, though. The more liberal wing of the Court could convince Kennedy to deny Heller the ability to challenge the ban on jurisdictional gounds. That would allow the ban to stand without actually ruling on the intent of the 2nd Amendment. If the ban is allowed to stand, that will probably be the Court's ruling. See the website below for an explanation. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

For purposes of federal law, the term "militia" is defined as follows: § 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ( The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. 10 U.S.C. § 311. Therefore, if the 2nd Amendment applies only to the "militia," the right would ONLY belong to "able-bodied males" between 17 and 45 years old and female members of the National Guard. There's nothing in that definition for police officers. Also, the modern PD didn't arrive until the NYPD was creatd in 1845. Prior to that, constables and sheriffs were the most prevalent of the local "police" entities, both of which were generally elected by the local electorate (ie, not a state department). Dave, if you have a reference with which I am unfamilar, by all means correct me. But, I am unaware of any argument made in a court of law or by a legal scholar explaining the 2nd Amendment in terms of protecting a state's ability to arm police. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/constable Secondly, if the 2nd Amendment protects, as you state, PDs and the Guard, the Militia Act would be completely unconstitutional (since it gives the President control over the "militia"). Since 1792, that Act has never been challenged on a constitutional basis. Further, the same people who drafted the Constitution voted on the Militia Act of 1792. If they thought the 2nd Amendment applied only to the militia (and couldn't be subverted by the President), why did they give such sweeping power to the President over the militia? www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm We agree, as far as I can see, that the issue before the SCOTUS now is whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (I thought I made that clear, but maybe not). But, where we disagree is that I believe the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right. Why? Because the Militia Act and others make it clear that those who ratified the Constitution and voted on the Militia Act knew that the two did not contradict each other. They understood the 2nd Amendment to mean: Because "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not not be infringed." Yes, the Amendment is not written this way, but the use of three commas (instead of two or one) makes the language in the Amendment ackward. Luckily, the SCOTUS will likely make this more clear in a few months. Personally, I think, like Rabbi, that the SCOTUS will find that the Amendment confers an individual right. However, like many other rights (including free speech), the SCOTUS will clarify that the individual right is not absolute. As a result, many new gun control laws will be enacted. They just will not be able to ban guns outright.

I respectfully disagree that "militia" includes police departments. The vast majority of police departments are local, not departments of a state, so the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects PDs (at least in contrast to the "people") would not mesh with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a "state" right. The source of my assertion that "militia" means the Guard and Reserves is the arguments of pro-regulation proponents. However, in any case, a lot of details regarding the ability of the President to "call up" the "militia" is given in the Militia Act of 1792. The Act also requires that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." That certainly does not sound like the PDs. The argument is whether the 2nd Amendment provides a right of all people (individually) or whether it says states have a right to have militias. Since the Militia Act of 1792 gave the President the right to control the militia (including a fine of one year's pay for a individual that failed to obey the President's order), I renew my argument. If the 2nd Amendment only allows a militia to be armed, the President could effectively nullify the right. That cannot be what the Constitution means.

Unfortunately, it is not a new (uh, remade) Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) Party. What we NEED is a remade electorate. As Alexander Tyler once stated (only he was referencing the fall of Athens), "[a] democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." Both parties have fallen into this trap. GWB didn't do it alone (although I have plenty of problems with him, despite voting for him - TWICE!?!?!). The problem is you almost can't get elected in a national race without pork barrel spending and goverment entitlements. We need a better educated electorate. Since that's not going to happen, I'm just waiting for Mr. Tyler's quote to come true. We are giving it away piece by piece.

DrBoomBoom, to answer your original question, what makes your fellow poster (is that the right term??) think firearm registration is unconstitutional? Numerous states require firearm registration and even the federal government requires registration of certain firearms (such as NFA items). To my knowledge, these registration laws (as opposed to bans) have not been struck down by the courts. SeeUnited States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). (YES, I am a lawyer!) Or, see the website below: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-02/index.html However, the reason the registration of firearms SHOULD be held unconstitutional while vehicle or voting registration would not be unconstitution is simple. Unlike the right to "bear arms," the rights to vote or drive a vehicle are NOT written into the Constitution. Yes, the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments provide that discrimination in the voting laws is unconstitutional, the actual RIGHT to vote is not established by those Amendments (or anything else in the Constitution). That is, IF a right to vote exists (sometimes the right has been created elsewhere -- such as state constitutions or regular ole laws), then that right cannot be denied on certain discriminatory bases. For example, DC residents do not have a right to vote for members of Congress. But, female DC residents cannot be denied the right to vote for local officials (which right was granted by local law). See the websites below: http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm+ http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html Now, regarding the 2^nd Amendment and the use of the term “militia,†we can debate what the founders meant with the awkward use (or lack thereof) of commas in the Amendment. If “militia†means the National Guard and Reserves (according to the anti-gun crowd, today’s “militiaâ€), which are effectively controlled by the federal government, the “right to bear arms†could be taken away by simply not calling up the “militia.†That is, if only the “militia†has the right, and the federal government controls the militia, then the federal government could negate the 2^nd Amendment with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, the Amendment (which was meant to stop a tyrannical government) could be negated by the very thing it was intended to stop! <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Yes, I got mine a couple of weeks ago and LOVE it! However, I ordered mine (sorry to dealers here) and was out the door for less than $800. You might look around on hkpro.com for other opinions on the P30, as well.

Thanks for the offer. I am do just that tomorrow. I like Sigs, as well. The new P250 has caught my interest.

I picked up the HK P30 last Friday and got it to the range this week. I wonderful gun. If I knew how to post pictures on the forum, I'd show the new toy. Although I probably cannot write much of a range report, I can tell you that I shot the P30 more accurately than either my Ruger P95 or my brother's Sig P229. It has very low felt recoil and the ergonomics are great. For those of us with smaller hands, it is almost perfect. But, I guess that's what you should expect from a $700+ handgun.

I fell in love with the HK P30 at the gun show this weekend. http://guns4u.info/?cat=143

I've purchased over 2000 rounds of .223 and 9mm from these guys. Not a single problem and lowest prices I've found. Currently: 9mm, 115gr JHP is $225/1000 plus shipping (probably another $20-$25). .223, 55gr FMJBT is $250/1000 plus shipping Website: www.wisconsincartridge.com

UPDATE - Well, Ruger customer service indicated that the P95 likely had a firing pin problem. Jim Mills at Ruger in Arizona said he had not seen this particular problem before, but had heard about it from others at Ruger. I sent the gun to him (shipping of $50) and waited 2 1/2 weeks. The gun came back on Friday and appears to be in good working order. THE GOOD - Ruger took care of the problem and returned it before originally promised. The folks at Ruger are fairly helpful, if (and only if) you ask them a direct question. THE BAD - Ruger is not particularly good at communication. I had to specifically ask about shipping costs (they indicated they would reimburse me the $50 if I sent them a receipt) and they never indicated what was the actual problem or what service was performed. The letter (if you can call it that) returned with the gun said, and I quote, "REPAIRED, SAFETY INSPECTION, RETURNED". I guess I should be thankful that the gun now works and it didn't cost anything for the repair. But, I just don't understand why I had to pry information out of them. Oh well, just thought I would provide an update on this. Thanks to those who responded.

Okay, I am new to handguns, but I had a problem right from the start with my "new" P95. Any help would be appreciated. I inserted the magazine, pulled back the slide, and fired the first round. Second round chambered, but the gun will not shoot. If I pull the slide back again (which ejects the second round and chambers the third round), it will fire. But, again on the fourth round, it will not fire. The armorer for one of the PDs in TN indicated (over the phone) that it likely is a problem with the single-action seer. Does this sound right to anyone else? Any other thoughts? Thanks.

Wisconsin Cartridge has a pretty good deal on almost all of there stuff. I bought 500 rounds of 55g FMJ for $117.50. While I'm not an expert on this subject, I have been impressed with it after shooting about 300 rounds. Very clean and absolutely no problems. http://www.wisconsincartridge.com/prodtype.asp?PT_ID=70&numRecordPosition=6&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=