RobertNashville

  It was a GREAT seminar and that one fact is probably the most important piece of information I picked up (and one I'm sure a majority of folks don't understand)...I've tried to educate myself about the legal concerns of a SD shooting and I've attended other seminars but that piece of information was either never covered or I've just always missed the distinction!

Well, the imperial Republican legislature has better things to do right now...they aren't worried about the "conservative" vote - their primary concern is not pissing off their big business campaign contributors.   Ideally, we should be able to legally carry and transport our arms without need of a "permit" anywhere in this state that we are legally allowed to be.  The only reasonable exceptions being private property used for private purposes and, the interior of businesses and "public facilities" such as the legislative offices, court rooms, etc.  "Parking lots" at that point would be a total non-issue....no "opt out" for any city or county, etc. Carrying past a sign should never entail more than a trespassing charge and I think we also need changes in the employment law so that employers cannot ask if an employee/prospective employee owns or uses firearms and the records of those who have HCPs should not be public information to anyone.

I agree but in a right to work state if the employer wants to fire an employee they don't need a reason so regardless of what a "guns in trunks" bill says about it if your employer wants you gone; you are gone, correct?   What needs to happen is to SEAL the records of everyone who has a HCP and perhaps take it step further and make it illegal for am employer to not hire and/or to fire someone just because they have an HCP.  If that happened the only thing left would be to make it illegal for an employer to compel or even ask to search a person's vehicle (except of course on suspicion of a crime/police involved/probable cause, etc.). I'm not saying this is anything close to a perfect bill but how often do we get perfect bills?

This really is often the result of the culture/society the person was raised in.  As was noted before, travel in Europe or the Middle East and you'll see a lot of definitions of "personal space" and how comfortable or uncomfortable people are with distances between each other.   There has already bee some good suggestions but how to handle it is something that you just have to work through yourself - 99.9% of the time these people don't mean to cause you to be uncomfortable so finding a way to maintain the distance YOU are comfortable with without making the other person feel he did something wrong is usually the best way to go. ;)

I'm sure one of our fine attorney's that frequent TGO will correct me if I'm wrong but nothing can prevent another person (like a family member of a thug we had to fire upon in self defense) from filing a civil suit for damages.  The law in Tennessee is an affirmative defense to such a claim.   I suspect that, because they know this, most attorneys are probably not going to bother to bring such a suite for that family member but I don't believe anything can stop them from doing so.   It's also important to note that for that section of the TCA to be in effect, the shooting must be RULED to be justified meaning that having a DA simply chose not to prosecute DOES NOT give us protection from civil liability.   So...if you are ever involved in a SD shooting you had better call your attorney IMMEDIATELY after you've called 9-1-1 and you should have the name and number (cell phone number preferably) of an attorney you can call with you at all times...I DO.

If you move away from the "mandatory" issue and take firearms out of it for a moment as we;; I believe most of the complaints about liability insurance could be made about all insurance of any kind. I doubt that any of us like insurance or like buying it but that doesn't mean we don't need it or shouldn't have it.   I would much rather not have to pay the significant $$$ I pay out every month for medical insurance and be able to just ignore the bills when I get sick.   I'd much rather forgo paying auto insurance and, if I cause an accident, I guess that's just too bad for the other guy and if I total my car in the process well, then I go buy another I suppose (with all the money I'd save by not buying auto insurance I'd be able to easily save enough for another car ;) ).   Same thing with homeowners insurance; if my house burns down I'll just stick the mortgage company with the worthless remains and move somewhere else.   Buying insurance is not fun...it's expensive...but we do it (or should do it) because it's both the financially responsible thing to do for ourselves/our family and also for the society we live in...unless we are wealthy enough to afford to pay out of pocket for every emergency and/or any damage we might do to another person; we need insurance to step in and fill the gap.   God forbid that I ever have to fire my weapon to protect myself and God forbid TWICE if in the course of doing so I happen to injure or kill an innocent bystander - should that ever happen I would at least hope that I can make some restitution to that person or that person's family.   My right to own and bear arms and to use the same in defense of my life does not supersede my obligation to innocent persons I may injure in the process. Except for the very wealthy, liability insurance is the best option we have to be able to meet the obligation for the harm we might cause.

That's a good choice...I have one and really love it.  However, it's not much like a 1911 IHAHO. :)

Well, nothing can prevent a civil suit but at least in Tennessee, if the shooting is ruled to be justified then the shooter has an affirmative (and I think pretty iron-clad) defense to such a suit.   That doesn't mean you won't need a good attorney, however.   More the problem is a DA who is a bit overzealous and/or who doesn't understand why someone would keep shooting until the person is down and clearly out of the fight.

I didn't call him an idiot...I simply said he should either know the laws of his state (our state) or should have been able to figure out that carrying an AR to this protest was probably not a good idea even if it were legal.  Beyond that, please don't misunderstand; I'm not in any suggesting that carrying a long gun, loaded or otherwise, SHOULD be illegal. If I were dictator for a day about 99.9% of all existing firearm laws would be immediately removed from the books...I believe people should be able to carry anywhere they are legally allowed to be and carry any weapon that a "militia" would generally carry on their person.   That said, ignoring the laws that do exist and especially doing so in a public location where the media will be LOOKING for a way to make an issue out of something, is not the way, in my opinion, to go about getting laws changed nor in "getting people used to seeing people carry long guns".

Wow...I wish every gun owner could and would speak with as much passion and impact.

And they would be wrong. I've heard essentially the same argument made for open carry but I've yet to see anything other than opinion and an anecdote here and there to give any credence to this line of thinking. This is not about "hiding in the shadows"; what the person did is ILLEGAL. "2 or 3 people with an AR on their person" in public will result in 2 or 3 people getting arrested and rightfully so under current law. Anyone can make a mistake but those who chose to carry have a responsibility to KNOW the laws regarding carrying arms, especially in our own state...even if completely unintentional and well intentioned; all this person did by taking an (apparently) loaded AR to the rally was give the gun-haters/fear mongers something to feed their opinions and use to their advantage.

Even if the man didn't know it was against the law (which is a bit difficult to believe); he should have been able to figure out that it was a bad idea...we have a difficult enough time just getting people to accept civilian carry of handguns - carrying around an "evil looking assault" rifle is not going to win the hearts and minds of those who want to see those weapons outlawed completely.

Exactly what I've been taught at every class I've ever taken.   Many people, even firearm owners, don't realize that it just doesn't happen like it does on TV...unless you happen to make THE perfect shot into the brain or the heart the attacked is likely not going to go down; even a heart shot can result in a few seconds of life during which time the attacker can still perhaps get a killing shot off at you!   Unfortunately; juries often don't understand this truth so if you end up facing one you'll need a good attorney and an expert or two to explain it to them...it also helps if you've had training and can show that you followed your training "shooting until the thread it stopped"!

I would stay away from Kimber...I've had several. They are nice firearms but IMAHO are overpriced based on their quality and performance.   I recommend taking a look at the SigSauer line of 1911s or DanWesson; they aren't inexpensive but I think they give good value for the $.  

There seem to be some folks who feel that they have some sort of obligation to set the police "right" to the extent of doing so at the side of the road or on a sidewalk...I don't know if it's some natural mistrust of police or if it comes from past bad experience or a misguided belief that it proves that the civilian values his freedom and independence more than the next guy if he argues with or corrects the officer(s) when he has an encounter with a LEO that may not, in the opinion of the civilian, know the law correctly.   I do agree with the prior statement that in general, one should never give consent to search (and there are a good reasons why you shouldn't)...the police may search anyway but that's not the point.   I agree that LEOs make mistakes on the law and that should be taken up with supervisors later but you absolutely can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist or that the citizen thinks doesn't exist - if the police actually make a mistake and arrest you for something that actually isn't a crime or they conduct an illegal search or make other mistakes, that should be dealt with in a courtroom, not out on the street.   As far as I can tell, the OP's friend did nothing wrong...it appears he was carrying openly (or concealed very poorly)...the officers also did nothing wrong by stopping him since, without an HCP, it is illegal to carry a weapon in public (openly or concealed) in TN...as far as I know, police can and often will run the SN or a firearm (VIN numbers on a vehicle, etc.) and they have the legal right to do so...I can't see that the police did anything wrong here save for their mistaken instructions about carrying a round in the chamber and I hope the OP's friend takes it up with those officer's supervisors.   Other than that one mistake by the officers, this whole thread seems much ado about very little.

You can't necessairily or at least not automatically blame that on the trainer...it could be just as likely that the individuals didn't hear correctly or didn't understand when it is/isn't legally to have a round chambered.

Most jobs do :) I know...not the same thing of course but background checks are sort of a fact of life today...maybe it's because of liability concerns or just people not trusting other people much anymore...heck...they even advertise background check services on TV to be used before going on a date with someone!   Just this past week I went through an pretty exhaustive BG check that took three work days (that went a lot further than the simply check they do for gun sales) and all so I could take a consulting position this week!

Or let's make sure they can never escape paying the bills unless they are truly poor (and not just living off the government because that's easier than getting a job) even if it takes decades.     When you get right down to it, one of our major problems we have as a country is too many people being irresponsible.   Everybody KNOWS or at least should know they should have health care insurance...that they should carry liability and other coverages on their car, home, etc. but a lot of people don't.  Sometimes they can't (or believe they can't) afford it but while that's certainly going to be true for some people, I would suggest it's more often a matter of priorities. No one, including me, enjoys paying for insurance..of course we'd all rather buy that new Glock or that 60" LED TV or that new car, etc. etc. but when we buy those things, and can't then afford the insurance coverages we need then we ARE being irresponsible because ANYONE can cause harm to another person and if that happens, we should do all we can to make that injured person whole again, at least to the extent possible; Just blowing it off as "their bad luck" is pretty callous to say the least. For most of us, making someone we've injured whole again means carrying the right kinds of insurance in the right amounts.   People can yell and scream about how they shouldn't be "required" to buy insurance just to exercise their rights...I tend to agree with that.  At the same time, if most people were taking responsibility for themselves they would likely already have such coverage.

Are you opposed to carrying liability insurance only because some anti-gun people suggested it be mandatory or are you just opposed to the whole concept of carrying liability insurance?   What I"m advocating is that people carry liability insurance because it's the responsible thing to do and it's also the smart thing to do to protect your family/yourself from financial ruin if you cause harm to someone else; I wouldn't have thought that concept would be so controversial.     Rowdy made an excellent point a few posts ago (that everyone seemed to ignore) when he asked...     I guess if a gun owner shoots an innocent bystander that bystander is just SOL.   :shrug:

I’m not drinking anybody’s Kool-Aid and throwing insults at me by suggesting I am doesn’t advance the discussion. It would seem you are either missing the point I’m trying to make or just ignoring it…this isn’t about the “antis” mandate; it’s about RESPONSIBILITY and I don't have to "link" anything because what seems to be getting ignored is that “RIGHTS” and "RESPONSIBILITY" are already linked...something I would have hoped that those who have firearms would understand.

True and yes, I realize that's where this thread started...however, I think the issue of whether we (firearm owners/those who carry) should have liability insurance to cover possible harm to innocent bystanders is a discussion that's worth having.

I feel sorry that there are poor people and elderly people on a fixed income and/or anyone who truly cannot afford to buy liability insurance. That said, I don't think that being in that position should remove that person's responsibility for making whole, any innocent person they might harm by exercising their right to keep and bear arms; to me; the right and the responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. People have a right to keep and bear arms...they also have a responsibility to any innocent person they might harm through the course of exercising that right. I'm sure there are poor people who have a "right" to bear arms but can't even afford the "arms"...are they being denied their basic right to self-defense too?   Should the government (meaning those of us who pay taxes) be forced to provide a handgun to every "poor" person so their "basic right to self-defense" isn't being denied???

I suggest you take your frustration out by working with the TFA and your own individual efforts to get constitutional carry passed in this state...that's a FAR better course of action than ignoring the laws that exist (no matter how much you don't agree with them). ;)

Yeah; life isn't fair but I don't see why that should be used as an excuse to not be responsible.   Taking responsibility for your actions is part and parcel with freedom and liberty - free men have a right to go armed but if a person chooses to exercise that right they ought to also be responsible enough to be able to make whole anyone they harm by doing so. That's really the only way a free society can work.

A perfect (and very sad) illustration of the problem - whether it's a firearm of a car or anything else, no one should be allowed to escape the financial consequences of causing harm to an innocent person. I don't have a problem with bankruptcy for regular debts and issues that arise through no fault of the person filing bankruptcy but when you cause harm to another; you should NEVER be let off the hook until the obligation is paid. Gun owners, especially those of us who carry, like to extol the fact that we are responsible, law-abiding people who believe in personal responsibility...if that's true rather than just a fantasy then we ought to be "responsible" enough to carry insurance that we can pay for our negligence if we harm an innocent person.