RobertNashville

That's right...he's on trial because he is a "white Hispanic" (whatever the hell that is) and cute, little, Travon is black AND because Sharpton and Jackson, Obama and the other usual race-baiters needed to increase their coffers with donations.

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1354890400' post='856405'] Maybe, and maybe not. [url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921"]http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/921[/url] This is the definitions section preceding the section 922 that OS linked to about loaning. it says [b](b ) For the purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his permanent duty station is located. [/b] [/quote]Not only an TN DL but a TN HCP and his vehicle is titled/tagged in TN last time I saw him back in April and we'll both be in TN when I loan him the weapon. But, as I read the laws and the helpful posts made here it doesn't look to me as if what state he lives in matters. If he lived in IL or NY or CA or some other states then it might be a different situation; thankfully he lives in a state that is more "gun friendly" than TN as far as I can tell.

[quote name='Hershmeister' timestamp='1354893472' post='856425'] You will be sued civilly and it will cost you - even if you prevail in the end [/quote]Yeah...I can be sued...you can be sued...anyone can be sued...if I worried about all the ways I could be sued I'd be afraid to leave my house (and that wouldn't protect me). What I was trying to clarify was whether loaning a friend a firearm for a while violated any federal or state laws and it doesn't look to me as if it does and if I someday get sued then I'll handle that when it happens.

[quote name='mcurrier' timestamp='1354845560' post='856190'] Wow! [/quote]"Wow" is right.

Good for him, I hope he costs them so much money that their peacock has to be done in black and white for a few years.

[quote name='AmericanWorkMule' timestamp='1354768402' post='855598'] This one got fired, not for shooting and killing a 12-pound mini-dachshund, but for filing a misleading report.[/quote] Yeah...that makes sense; we all know how dangerous a dachshund can be.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1354732072' post='855302'] A Cookeville, TN cop did the same thing to a boxer puppy; only he killed it. Nothing happened to him, the family did win their lawsuit though. [/quote] Yeah...I mentioned that a few days ago in a different thread and was told how great a guy the cop was and that I guess he's now a detective.

I really don't understand all the angst about reloads.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1354847473' post='856219'] Different state, different laws... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy"]http://en.wikipedia....ing_controversy[/url] Texas doesn't play around with self defense laws... It's very dangerous to be a criminal there, TN should take a lesson and toughen up some of our property crime laws to allow the use of deadly force... We'd see a sharp decline in crime if we did. [/quote]I'm not talking about "legal"...I'm talking about stupidity...different state laws don't turn a stupid act an intelligent act. If this thug had been armed, left the house but then turned and shot the homeowner when the homeowner followed him outside there would be any number of people here saying how stupid it was to follow the burglar out of the house... and those people would be right.

[quote name='buck1032' timestamp='1354809934' post='855872'] Robert, If that post is directed at me please refer to my last line. I was not commenting on him as a trainer, soldier, etc, just agreeing that his video post makes him come off as a very abrassive personality. [/quote]No worries; my post was directed at no one and everyone; just a general observation...if it were directed at you I would have quoted you.

[quote name='Hershmeister' timestamp='1354819379' post='855953'] I would think where he is residing would also play an important fact in this. Is he in TN? [/quote]He's stationed in Missouri which I think is pretty "gun friendly" with its laws.

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1354820070' post='855960'] Denying it doesn't make it false.[/quote] Anybody can assert anything they want but unfounded assertions on the internet aren't worth the electrons it takes to make them. But hey; you are entitled to your opinion...I would suggest, however, that if at some point in the future you need help because thugs are beating you up or trying to break into your home, don't bother to call for a cop since all they care about is "power and control" and have no desire to actually help people.

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1354816699' post='855914'] Said it before and I'll say it again - LEOs disarming citizens who have given them no reason to think they are murderers just so they can "feel safe" is not about safety at all... it's about power and control. [/quote]Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it.

Good story. I can't say that the homeowner following the guy out of the house was a smart move...pretty dumb actually when you consider all the possible consequences, but I'm glad they caught the guy. Thank God for stupid criminals!

I suspect some type of written agreement is a good idea just to be clear....since it's a firearm we are talking about there is always the opportunity for bad things to happen even with the best of intentions.

I think the issue is not whether it's a crime, I believe that in most states, including Tennessee, it is. The problem, as is often the case, is proving the threat happened. If it was verbal (rather than written) and there are no witnesses what can law enforcement do? Even if it can be proven, I suspect the ability to carry out the threat also plays a part....a 30 year old man who is known to have firearms and has been violent in the past is one thing; an 80 year old woman in poor health and not weapons who makes such a threat is probably not a big threat.

I did just find this...[quote]Under Federal law, an individual may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he/she does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. source: http://www.knesekguns.com/blog/can-you-lend-a-firearm-to-another-person-under-federal-law/ [/quote] So maybe I'm in the clear with doing this. That said, while I'm sure he'll use it for "sporting purposes" (recreational shooting, etc.) that isn't the primary motivation. As you said, maroon; probably a "grey" area.

Hello, all! I’m not sure what sub forum was best for this question but I could use some “legal” advice. I have a good friend who I believe is a legal resident of Tennessee - he is a First Sgt, Army and currently stationed out of state. I don’t have even the slightest concern about his legal ability to own weapons or his ability to pass a background check, in fact, he has a TN HCP and I think a KY permit as well (he was stationed at Fort Campbell for quite a while). He and his wife had their first baby just a few weeks ago. Due to financial concerns, he sold his last personal weapon a while ago and really doesn’t have the spare cash to buy another right now but I know he and his wife are both concerned about not having a good weapon in the house. Anyway, I also know he has never owned but really likes 1911s – he’s shot several of mine. I’m thinking about loaning one to him until he can afford to buy something for himself and it would truly be a loan, not a transfer. My question is, can I do this legally? I’ll be seeing him and his wife here in Nashville as they are traveling over Christmas and want to loan him the weapon then; I just can’t figure out if this is “legal” or not? Most of what I've found so far seems to deal with true transfers but I'm not sure if that applies; to me, a transfer means I'm selling or giving him the firearm and that is not what I'm doing. I know, as a practical matter, no one is likely every going to know but I would still not want to break the law if I can avoid it. If anyone can tell me for certain I’d appreciate it!!!

So....the OP posts about a GOOD experience where the LEO acted within his discretion and within the law but people still find reason to complain??? I guess there just aren't enough examples where LEO's didn't act responsibly and appropriately for people to complain about.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who don't know James, hasn't trained with James or even met him know SO much about him. Funny how that works.

I tend to judge people on two things... 1. What they've done (not rumors about what they've done but what is actually known as fact), and 2. Who they hang around with (and by default who is willing to hang around them) I've read the official published report on the "incident" James mentioned, and the only people who seem to have a problem with James weren't there, don't know him and haven't trained with him. Further, when people like Tom Givens chooses to train with James and James has been invited to teach at Range Masters and at Thunder Ranch (with Clint Smith) (at least if I remember correctly) I'd say he is in pretty good company. Folks like Tom Givens and Clint Smith don't invite cowards to train at their facilities.

If an IQ test were required for voting eligibility a large percentage of the population would be ruled ineligible. But even more dangerous than those who don't possess basic intelligence skills or who don't understand economics are those who remain purposely uninformed but vote anyway. My suggestion would be that unless you can prove you actually pay more Federal income tax into the system than you get out in benefits you should not be allowed to vote regardless of how intelligent you are or how many economics courses you've had.

To be honest I have some mixed feelings about this. While she is not a veteran, the situation I've experienced with my aging mother gives me something to contemplate about this issue. My mother is clearly mentally "impaired" due to progressing illness and it started to first become evident in how she handled her finances. That's saying something considering that in her career, she was the head accountant for a large General Electric plant. My point being that while her lack of critical/logical thought regarding her finances didn't give me concern about her owning a firearm she most certainly did reach the point where her thought processes were clearly to the point that understanding how to use a firearm or when, had been compromised...she was simply no long safe to have a gun available to her. I don't have an answer here...but I can see two sides to this...this whole subject is pretty sad to contemplate.

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354743593' post='855392'] Nonetheless, they are being "diluted" by the GOP, and have less decision making power. Committees are "where it's at" in all legislatures. Anything that doesn't get out of committee can't affect change. And of course, the real power is wielded during elections, so the "naughty" list will get no GOP support, and indeed likely will be sabotaged behind the scenes every two years. I've maintained since its inception that the Tea "Party" will have to become an [i]actual[/i] third Party to affect real change. The GOP, even if it becomes only the "loyal opposition" for the next 20 years or more, will not be changed by true conservatives. - OS [/quote]I've been consistently opposed to the Tea Party becoming another actual political party but I am starting to think that doing so may be the only way to effect real change and save the country. That's assuming, of course, there is anything left to save...with the country's present spending and debt I don't think we have a lot of time left.