midtennchip

Yeah, I am a big fan of Fenix, as well. The PD32 is great. Rated at 315 lumens, it is really bright on high and actually very easy on battery usage. I also have an ExtremeBeam M-4, rated at 310 lumens. I would recommend the Fenix over the ExtremeBeam many times over.

McNairy County (TN) and Alcorn County (MS) were a mess in Pusser's time. The stories I have heard from parents, their friends, etc. of what was going on in the area are almost completely unbelievable. Buford stepped on a bunch of toes (not all of which were criminals), but overall has a positive influence. Most complaints about the original movie were that Hollywood made a lot of stuff up that, at the end of the day, wasn't even as interesting as what really happened (at least according to the local legends). Buford just had many run-ins with all kinds of people, just ask Jimmy Buffet.

  I meant the REAL movie from 1973:   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070895/

I grew up in McNairy County and still have a lot of family there.  I went to school with Buford's granddaughter and was told about Buford many times as a kid.  If I am not mistaken, my mother even signed Buford's death certificate (she worked at the hospital back then).  The story in the movie is FAR from accurate.  But, the real story is just as amazing.  A pretty good read if you are interested:   http://www.amazon.com/The-State-Line-Mob-Intrigue/dp/1558538615   Just a little background here:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Line_Mob

Yes, this is the report Obama ordered after Newtown. The actual report is available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=2 Evidently, it was published in early June. Funny only one major news outlet (Washington Post on June 8th) has even mentioned it. Don't remember hearing anything from the Administration, either.

Suing the guy who did it, I agree. Suing someone else, not because she was involved in the actual assault but because she didn't adequately explain the risk, doesn't seem to fit the bill. I haven't seen anything where the family didn't accept what happened. After 8 months, they hadn't sued anybody. The quotes in all the news reports are statements in response to the deputy's lawsuit. Now, I would certainly expect the family to counter sue. If the deputy was trying to head off a lawsuit, filing his own is NOT the way to do it. It only invites them to counter sue (and do it without having to pay the filing fee). On top of that, if they have proper insurance coverage (they probably don't), they can even do it with the insurance paying for their lawyer.

Contacting a lawyer after being involved in a shooting is certainly a good idea. Hiring a person injury specialist to fire a lawsuit 8 months after he fact does not appear to be a "preemptive strike". The Complaint contains the Plaintiff's factual basis for filing he lawsuit and it claims the caller did not adequately inform him of the risk involved in responding. In essence, it claims that a 911 caller has to make some evaluation of the actual danger a situation poses to first responders. It is not claiming that the caller purposefully withheld information, just hat she didn't explain the situation better. Second, this isn't LEO bashing. I look disfavorably on both this particular LEO and the lawyer who filed it. But lately, I continue to see some people on this board immediately blame the lawyers for these toes of lawsuits. I can tell you that 99.99% of lawyers would not file a suit like this. That was the only purpose for mentioning at all.

Not only that, an LEO might even sue you for calling 911!!!   http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9207650   Katy, TX sheriff's deputy claims a 911 caller was negligent in failing to properly inform 911 of the risk he was being put in by responding to the call.  Now, before the litany of lawyer bashing, keep in mind there is a deputy sheriff who went looking for a lawyer to file this case.   BTW, this case probably has no chance of even being filed if this were to occur in Tennessee.  Our law changed in July of last year to make frivolous lawsuits much more difficult to file (at least without having to pay the other side's costs for defending it).

Unless you have a job, then that judgment will likely show up as a garnishment. Judgments also last for at least 10 years (often longer), so it could sit dormant for a long time before being executed against you. In a case where a self-defense shooting results in a civil judgment against you, it might not even be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

As with any situation, I would encourage everyone to view things from both angles.  There was case up in Michigan several years ago where a woman had posted an ad for a roommate on the bulletin board of her church looking for a "Christian roommate."  She was charged under the Fair Housing Act because it discriminated against people of other faiths.  Had the ad said she was looking for a "Christian female roommate," presumably she would have been charged because of both the religion and gender issue.  Should she be required to accept a roommate who is a _______ (insert preferred religion here) or a male?   Assume you own a rental house and someone who is a member of the Santeria religion wants to rent the house.  They also want to conduct animal sacrifices in the backyard (which is not otherwise prohibited by zoning or health ordinances).  Do you have to rent your property to them?  Their religious practices are protected under the 1st Amendment, right?   Take it a step further and say the Santeria member wants to perform animal sacrifices in the backyard of your residence.  Does that person's freedom of religion trump your property rights?   In another situation (that is admittedly a little more realistic), what if your neighbors are exercising their Constitutionally protected rights (like conducting worship services, shooting guns, operating a printing press, etc.) but those activities invade your quiet enjoyment of your property because of the noise, pollution, etc.  Should they be allowed to do whatever they want because their activities are Constitutionally protected?   Yes, these examples could go on and on.  In fact, every one of these examples has been tried in court.  By in large, the courts recognize property rights above the Constitutional rights.  Why?  Because those people can always go somewhere else.  They are not prohibited from exercising their Constitutional rights in total.  They are prohibited (or stopped) from exercising their rights in a particular place because those rights violate the property rights of someone else.  Find a place where you are not violating someone's property rights and the problem is solved.  That's about the best explanation I can give for why property rights are held so highly by the courts.

First, that was a decision regarding the California Constitution and the California Supreme Court had already ruled that the shopping center had to allow the solicitation under the California Constitution.  The SCOTUS was not willing to say that the California Supreme Court could have interpret its own Constitution.    Further, many states (13 at last count) with a constitutional free speech provision have declined to follow Pruneyard.  In fact, California itself refused to apply the Pruneyard decision to apartment complexes (pretty important to the discussion in this thread).  Further, the Pruneyard decision is VERY narrow in scope and has been held (even in California) to only apply to the parking lot and then only in a lot shared by multiple businesses.  Costco has stopped solicitors in their parking lots in California (ie:  single store parking lot) and been successful.  So, that case is not helpful in the issue being discussed here and probably not helpful at all except for very limited circumstances in California.   Commercial entities (like shopping centers) have more limited ability to prohibit individual's rights because they are engaged in commerce.  Because of that, many laws (like the federal anti-discrimination laws) can be applied to them under the Commerce Clause.  However, that only applies (in most cases) to public areas and only if the prohibition violates a specific statute (ie:  the Constitution alone doesn't do it).  Because the issue here (ie:  the Colorado apartment complex) does not apply to a public area (ie:  the inside of an apartment), the constitutional issues do not arise. 

I guess I will jump in and try to address several issues in this thread. First, no the Constitution is not the end all be all of the law as it pertains to how private individuals deal with each other. There certainly is some relation to the Constitution, but the Constitution deals with the Government (as Monkey mentioned). The Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with actions between private individuals (unless such individual is acting under color of law, like a citizen's arrest). The reason we have things like the Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act is to prevent private individuals and entities from discriminating against "protected classes of people." The Constitution, by itself, does not prevent it. No one has a First Amendment right in my house. I have the right to throw anybody out of my house because of something they say. To that end, yes, my property rights trump that person's rights in my house. He has no rights (ie: under the Bill of Rights) in my house. Private businesses have a similar right. That is why they can prevent solicitation on their property. Government has a much lower level ability on these fronts. Why the difference? Because the Constitution limits governments. In this case, he apartment complex owner can make whatever rules it wants. You don't have to sign the lease. The only restrictions on the apartment complex are based on anti-discrimination laws, not the Constitution. However, with this particular complex, I believe it has been reported that the complex accepts some government funding, some there could be some additional restrictions on the complex owner because it accepts such funds. In any event, the actual owner (as opposed to the management company that instituted the rule) has voided the rule, so it is a moot point now at this complex. The big difference between leasing and owning is title. An apartment is owned by the landlord and the renter is given a limited right to possession (not ownership). The landlord has rights that a mortgage company would not have, like the right to inspect the property, to come in for repairs, eviction for various reasons (beyond non-payment), etc. Mortgage company would have none of that. There is a huge difference between owning and renting to leasing. Yes, you can agree to allow someone to restrict your ownership rights (such as HOA restrictions), but that is because you agreed to it by contract. Violations, by you or the HOA, is a contract dispute, not a Constitutional issue.

Thanks, Richard. I ran across that, but what has me puzzled is the PITTBURGH (no "s") engraving. Maybe that happened more commonly back then, but it is engraved like that on both sides. If that "error" wasn't there, I wouldn't have any reason to doubt it was made by GWGW.

A buddy of mine is into old guns and asks my help identifying and valuing them from time to time, but I know almost nothing about these old guns.  He has a side-by-side muzzleloader shotgun (caliber unknown) that I have not been able to find.  It is engraved as JH Johnston (GWGW), which I have identified as a Great Western Gun Works production.  However, the interesting part is that it is engraved PITTBURGH PA (without the "s").  We are trying to figure out if this is a bad reproduction or something else.  Can't imagine it would be worth enough for someone to want to fake one of them, but who knows. 

Yeah, ANOTHER Zimmerman post.  For those of you who are members of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, you probably received the August newletter in your email box this morning.  In it, Marty Hayes has an excellent article on Lessons Learned in the Zimmerman Case.  Very well written and informative.  I will share some bulletpoints and my own comments:   1.  Cost of the Case -  Evidently, Zimmerman's cost to date on his defense is over $400,000.  Part of that was $95,000 to his bail bond.  Even the best of self-defense insurance policies won't cover that full cost.  Be prepared to expend HUGE amounts of money if you are ever prosecuted.  The bail bond will be due very early in the case and will likely be significant.  Do you have the ability to make those payments, particularly in a short amount of time?  If not, how would you deal with it?  Are you going to be stuck in jail (i.e., no bail money) or stuck with a public defender (i.e., no retainer fee)?   2.  Ammo Selection - this has been discussed many times, but ammo selection is almost always a key part of a self-defense case.  Not necessarily whether or not your ammo was appropriate, but because of the physical evidence ammo leaves at the scene.  Being able to reproduce (as close as possible) the gunshot residue could be vital.  As a result, handloads have a distinct downside.  Even if you could reproduce the exact load, you would HAVE to testify to show that (and you might not want to testify, as Zimmerman chose not to).  Commercial ammo, particularly from a reputable company that still makes the exact load you used, gives you the ability to recreate the gunshot residue pattern and use an expert witness to bolster your case.  As you may recall, the gunshot residue was significant in the Zimmerman case to show that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.   3.  Changes to a Stock Gun -  while not specifically brought out in the Zimmerman case, Marty talks about 4 other cases where he has been a witness recently.  The state produced a firearms expert witness in each case to discuss the gun used, its safety features, etc.  Zimmerman's gun was, apparently, a stock gun, so not much came out about it.  However, changes to a stock gun (such as reducing trigger pull weight, personalized engravings, etc) would have been a big issue in Zimmerman, as it has been in other cases, if he had not used a stock gun.  If you make changes to a stock gun for your self-defense weapon, think about what those changes show to a jury.    4.  Your History - Zimmerman's history of calls to police, his desire to be an LEO, etc. were major issues for the prosecution.  If Zimmerman had made online postings that were negative, rest assured the prosecution would have used them.  Before you tell people how you would defend yourself, or before you post something on TGO, think about what that statement or post would look like in front of a jury.  There is a current post about whether someone needs to take a butt-kicking before defending himself.  I would suggest just looking at those posts and asking yourself whether or not you would want to have a jury viewing those posts if you were on trial.  Some of the posts would be fine, but I think there are a few that I would not want to have to defend in court.   If you are a member of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, please read that article.  Marty has the experience and knowledge that really helps to understand and learn from the Zimmerman case. 

Seems like we have one of these threads every few months. One thing I keep seeing (and cringe every time) are scenarios like "a punch." To be frank, it is not going to matter what YOU think. It will only matter what a "reasonable person under the circumstances" (that's the legal threshold) thinks was necessary (but in most cases, what the DA thinks was necessary). The fact that someone COULD die (or be seriously injured) from a particular action (like a punch) really doesn't come into play. If the puncher is a 125 pound kid, there won't be too many people who agree with you. If the puncher is a 300 pound giant, you probably are going to be okay. The CIRCUMSTANCES matter! Unfortunately, I was faced with this very issue about two weeks ago at an Atlanta Braves game. We were in the park as the game ended. The guy behind me (who I estimate to have been at least 6'6" and probably north of 275) got upset with how quickly (or slowly) we were moving. He took it upon himself to shove me in the back. Of course, I responded to it. Since we were in the ballpark, I did not have my carry weapon, so that really didn't factor into it. He calmed down, but it was heated for a brief moment. The point is this: the fact that we were in the park, with many people around who likely would have jumped in to stop it, I seriously doubt I would have been justified in shooting him ( had I had the gun with me). But, if we had been outside the park, things likely would have been very different. The long and short of it is, circumstances matter. There is no clear cut rule on any of this. People can die from a simple push (if they fall wrong). Yes, you could die from one punch, but it isn't likely. It is not the action (the push, the punch, etc) that defines whether or not you are justified in shooting. You have to consider ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. If you go into every situation saying "I am not taking a butt kicking," then you increase the risk of having a problem if ever faced with the situation. No two situations are the same and what might be appropriate in one situation will not be appropriate in another. The key is "reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury." Not the fear that you might die if something out of the ordinary happens (like a lucky punch that could kill you). We are not talking about what could happen, but what is the reasonable fear.

Where is this going to be? I didn't see anything on that page indicating a general location.

I thought I could make it, but a last minute change in plans will force me to miss. Wish I could handle a few LWRCs before buying one.

I think they talked about this type of situation (not this case specifically, though) on The Outdoor Channel's Best Defense show not long ago.  The manner in which the light would have been used would be important, but yes, I can see how a working light (used by Zimmerman to scan the area) could have at least avoided getting blindsided.  Obviously, what happens after that is just a guess.  I am thinking Zimmerman would not have just left the area (like someone would who was trying to avoid a thief, rapist, etc. in the typical self-defense situation).  The whole reason Zimmerman was in this position (i.e., the community watch issue) appears to change the dynamics of this particular situation.  Who knows what Zimmerman or Martin would have done differently.

I saw those posts. Not sure what the guys on m4carbine.com have going, but that was the ONLY place I saw some negative comments. I don't completely discount it, but was looking for some additional input. I have found the extra parts for the LWRC are in stock, so probably will go that route when the time comes.

The SPR is what I am looking at now. Is it heavy (compared to a Bushmaster or Colt)? I had a Sig 556 at one point, but that thing was really unbalanced and a bit heavy.

No, you do not have to renew the trust. It is completely private. No filing it with the state (like an LLC or corporation).

I am thinking of finally getting a high end AR. I am really looking at an LWRC SPR. Love the fit and finish. I know there have been issues with early LWRC models (supposedly before the ownership change), so I am looking for opinions on CURRENT production (probably made within the last 2 or 3 years, really). I know about Daniel Defense, Colt, Noveske, etc., but not really that interested in those (at least not yet). The two (2) things that are question marks for me (because I just dont know) on the LWRC are (i) reliability and (ii) durability/ease of repair. The gas piston system concerns me simply because of potential unavailabilit of parts. But if it is sufficiently reliable, I may just take my chances. So, looking for informed opinions on it. Thanks.

Robert: Excellent choice of classes. Mass is great. Please let me know if he has any different take than we discussed a few months ago. Chip

Generally, no.