RobertNashville

Obviously, the God-given right of men to keep and bear arms and to exercise self-defense doesn't also mean that the man has also had the intelligence and wisdom necessary to know when/how to employ such has been imparted to him. That said, I can't help but think of some members here who have, by their statements, given reason to think that they don't grasp the difference between shooting to stop the threat and shooting to kill or the understanding that they have the right to do one but not the other. ;

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354031539' post='851318']...So is using a choke hold considered using deadly force?[/quote] If the choke hold caused or contributed to the man's death then I'd say you would have to consider it "deadly force" but I'm not sure that even matters. When one person's actions causes or contributes to the death of another then I think generally, someone is going to be charged with some sort of crime unless they can make a rational claim of self-defense.

At least at the moment that would work for me. I assume this is a weather permitting event? I'm not all that into shooting in freezing rain, etc.

I would assume, however, than when a private citizen makes or attempts to make an arrest he/she takes on the same fiduciary responsibility for the accused's safety as does a police officer??? If so, and you "arrest someone" and he dies while in your care I think you are going to have a major problem (or at least a lot of explaining to do).

I'm going to be there; at least for most of them. Please note, however, that the TFA (Tennessee Firearms Association) monthly meeting in Nashville is the third Tuesday of each month so some are going to have a conflict (not that any night wouldn't have that possibly).

Ah but Obummer is SOOOOOOOOO much better than that gun-hating Romney.

[quote name='Lumber_Jack' timestamp='1353956210' post='850871'] Making an assumption; I don't believe it was the guards intent to kill the guy. We don't know what aggression the thief showed. Best way to end a fight is to choke out the opponent. Death is always a possible outcome in any fight. I feel the store or its employees has a right to confront the thief. If a fight escalates, then it becomes more than just shoplifting. [/quote]I wasn't ascribing intent one way or the other, in fact I assumed it wasn't the intent of the guard to kill the man. Bottom line is that dead is still dead; intent will only impact the severity of the charge and how many years this guard spends in jail.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1353954981' post='850860'] We may wanna slow down a little until the medical examiner's report comes out. That's what law enforcement is doing. The guy was middle aged. Bacon could have killed him. [/quote]Bacon or a dozen other things may have played a part but I am pretty sure bacon alone didn't do the guy in. Regardless of contributing medical factors, I don't think (and most state laws agree) that a thief should die simply because someone is protecting property.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353954639' post='850858']We are a weak people when we have to stand by and watch thieves walk away.... [/quote]That doesn't mean the thief needs to die. No one is saying the thief shouldn't be punished.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353954013' post='850854'] Robert, when a majority can change the rules to limit the use of something like the filibuster to their liking, what is the use of that body? Funding bills(?) take 51 votes. All other take that plus the possibility of the filibuster, the act of filibuster requires a 60 vote majority to allow minority representation in that body for the prevention of tyranny. In other words, to block a piece of bad legislation. When you change long standing rules to suit one party of the moment, it is called tyranny and will allow all kinds of mischief in the senate. The house only requires a simple majority for passage of any legislation. The senate has a higher threshold to prevent it. I think it's a big deal. [/quote]I don't really disagree...my point is that the politicians in this Senate and House are too weak and too self-absorbed with their own greatness and furthering their political careers that the ultimate outcome will not change.

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1353952716' post='850838'] He wasn't executed. He triggered a response and he played the game. Can't complain when it doesn't go your way. Why do we hold responders to a higher responsibility than the criminal? The criminal went in knowing what he was doing, the reponders did simply that - respond. I give them a whole lot more latitutde. This attitude is why recidivism is a given, not an anomaly. [/quote] Yeah...he only killed the thief by choking him to death - does changing the word "executed" to "murdered" or "killed" make the man less dead or the act more reasonable? Seems like a difference without a distinction to me. We hold responders to a higher responsibility because they are [u][i]supposed[/i][/u][i] [/i]to know the law and the consequences of their actions (whether they do or not) plus the law places a high fiduciary responsibility for the safety of anyone they have restrained/incarcerated. This rent-a-cop killed a man to protect "stuff"; stuff that wasn't even his stuff and did so contrary to the policies of his employer...he will almost certainly be charged with manslaughter and rightfully so, just as any private citizen would be as well; no one deserves that much latitude.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353952389' post='850836'] Never said this. Please quote where I said knife to the throat.[/quote] You are right, I embellished...you only said "holding a knife" although I'm not sure that "holding a knife" or "holding a knife to the throat" really changes the picture that much and the point, even less so.

Security guard or simply private citizen, except in significantly extenuating circumstances, no one should be killed to protect property; most especially property that the one doing the killing doesn't even own. This thief deserved to be stopped and arrested and tried and, if found guilty he deserved to be punished but he didn't deserve to be executed.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353946592' post='850801']...I think for justice to prevail, there has to be correct punishment, and it has to have a finite term. If that is for one's lifetime, it has to be correct. If not, restore their rights. If they are released from their punishment and no parole, they should be citizens again. After all, their record lives with them, for the rest of their lives. If, somehow we ended up in a war on our own soil, would we let those same people defend themselves in that situation? Just saying. [/quote]Considering some recent stories like that 60 year old man who shot two intruders and was then arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm from decades before or the 80 year old in Chicago arrested in a very similar situation; I guess if we had a "Red Dawn" event they would simply be SOL! If you punch a stranger in the nose you'll probably get your firearm rights back (assuming they were taken in the first place); if you slap your domestic partner on the cheek, you'll never get them back; at least that's how it is now. As for the knife to the throat abuser it should be obvious that such threatening is NOT the threatening I'm talking about but even including that, with the exception of Domestic Violence, I still know of no crime that, with conviction, prevents the restoration of 2A rights [i][u]forever[/u][/i].

I think it's much ado about nothing as there simply aren't enough senators or congressmen of either party with the background to hold anyone accountable for anything. At the end of the day the the legislature, lead by the Republicans, will cave which is about the only thing they do consistently.

Or if [u]you[/u] thought a slap [b][i][u]might[/u][/i][/b] happen and you call law enforcement, it's likely that someone is going to go to jail and possibly charged and lose their 2A rights forever. What some are ignoring here is that "Domestic Violence" doesn't require that there actually be any physical violence; the threat of it or even if a responding officer thinks there might be some later it enough to cause someone to be arrested. Perhaps there is one but I know of no other crime in Tennessee where a "violent" crime, when there is only a threat made, is sufficient for the person making the threat to lose his/her 2A rights forever. [b][i]EDIT[/i][/b]: I've never been a big fan of "absolutes" when it comes to punishment for crimes. Real "justice" is difficult enough to obtain in our overburdened and often politically driven judicial system - absolutes tend to take away what is left of the slim change we currently have left to obtain justice. I personally know a man who served almost two decades in jail for passing three bad checks that, in total, was less than $300 while murderers and rapists served less time. He had to be sentenced to the term due to the "three strikes" law in place at the time. Likewise, anyone losing any basic, God-given right forever with no chance of ever getting the right back is, in my opinion, a recipe for extreme injustice.

Other than political pressure/political correctness and special interests groups, there is no reason why Domestic Violence should be treated any differently than any other similar crime. If a person walks up to a stranger and threatens physical violence but doesn't act on the threat that person is not going to lose his right to possess a firearm [u][i]forever[/i][/u] just because he "threatened" violence or, for that matter, even if he followed through with the threat. How then can there be any logic whatsoever in that same person losing his right to possess a firearm forever if the conditions are exactly the same but the "stranger" is a spouse or a lover or even just a roommate? I believe that the only reasonable answer is that there is no logic in it; only emotion based arguments and emotion based arguments are generally provide a really bad basis for passing laws. As for the "payment"; no one was suggesting all-encompassing definition and/or dollar value to "payment"; just a simple way to describe the condition where someone has served the sentence imposed.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']And if a person looses their firearm ownership rights they also loose the right to vote.[/quote] I don't believe that's true in all circumstances and/or all states. Maybe it is but I don't believe it is. I do know that it is quite possible to have the right to vote restored but still be barred from firearm possession. [quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']But if they [u][b]plead[/b][/u] guilty to a violent crime, misdemeanor or felony, they loose the right to vote as well as their firearm rights. When someone pleads guilty they are doing that of their own free will.[/quote] I don't see any logic in putting a higher penalty on someone who pleads guilty as opposed to someone who goes through a jury trial or a trial with only a judge presiding and is found guilty...guilty is guilty; how the ultimate conviction came about seems like a distinction without a difference to me. I also don't see how a misdemeanor, "violent" or otherwise should ever strip someone of his rights; at lest not forever (especially since some "violent misdemeanors" don't even necessarily mean that ANY violence was ever actually committed...it any case, it seems to me that if a crime is so serious that a person should lose their right to own a firearm. perhaps forever, it's more than serious enough to be a felony and the punishment should be at the same level as any similar felony. [quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353881985' post='850552']What about those people who have a mental condition that have never been convicted of a crime? They should also be allowed to own firearms as well I guess. They have never shown a propensity for violence yet they are not allowed to legally own a firearm. Or lets let all the illegal aliens have firearms and the right to vote. They are not felons.[/quote] People who are a danger to themselves or to others due to mental illness should be in a care facility so having a firearm is moot...for those whose mental instability controlled by medication I think caution should still prevail when it comes to firearms since they may chose to stop medicating. As for the illegal aliens, by definition, they don't or at least shouldn't have the same rights as legal citizens; you can't "restore" a right they were never entitled to in the first place. If they eventually become legal citizens then fine.

[quote name='Commando68' timestamp='1353872135' post='850503'] When convicted of a felony you serve your time and hopefully get released. Then, guess what? If you are ever re-arrested you have the following: The right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to not have troops quarter in your home, the right to a speedy and fair trial, protection from unreasonable searches w/out warrant or probable cause, the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually, the right to assemble, speak freely and practice religion as you wish. However, the one right in the "bill of rights" or bill of limitations on the fedgov that gives you the right to defend yourself with a firearm is taken away forever? Why the prejudice? Why is the 2nd amendment taken away but these other "rights" are restored? Because spineless gun fearing, freedom fearing, hoplophobic slaves of the nanny state allow it to happen. Sick. Pitiful and Sick. [/quote]Very good points. There is little if any reason why a person who commits a crime should either have never lost or have all his "rights" returned after his conviction sentence except for one. The restriction on firearms ownership is, I believe, largely driven by politics and an irrational loathing of firearms. Despite the obvious and often significant shortcomings of our society and our judicial system; we do at least attempt to be a nation where the rule of law and justice is appreciated and sought; were that not the case then there would be no reason why we shouldn't just execute everyone who commits even the smallest offense and save society the gross expense of a penal system (as well as most of the court system)...not be unlike the "justice" administered by the Street Judges in the Judge Dread movie (I guess it would just suck to be innocent). Put another way, I don't believe a young man who committed a robbery when he was 18, served his time and lived the rest of his life on the right side of the law should go to jail when he is 70 for possessing a handgun - a handgun he used to protect his own live when his home was broken into in the middle of the night. There is no justice or fairness in such a situation (a situation which just happened recently although I may not have precisely the right ages listed).

I've seen many of the same rules and issues noted (by the OP) at private, for profit ranges with much less safety and yet those ranges manage to stay in business so I'm not sure where he is coming from. I guess I'm also unsure of the purpose for the thread in the first place????

[quote name='Rowdy' timestamp='1353856947' post='850418'] Businesses are property owners and they exercise their rights everyday. If a business states "no large bags or purses allowed" that's the way it is. [/quote]Actually, for pretty much our entire history as a country, the law has treated property used for business purposes differently than it treats property used for private purposes..."who" (and sometimes there are many, many of those) owns/controls the property is not as important as what it is used for. Even property used for totally private purposes (your home, for example), can and usually is subject to regulations (often dependent on how closely you live to other property owners. It is a basic principle, dating from almost as far back as one cares to look, that property owners have the right to use and enjoy their property but that right is not sacrosanct (and I would suggest, never has been and shouldn't be). That said, this really has nothing to do with whether politicians, who can't decided whether they like )votes or campaign contributions the most, shouldn't be removed from office at the first opportunity. ;0

If someone is truly violent and has committed a crime of violence they should be in jail...if I had my way they would never leave a jail cell but of course, that is not how our society works. Since violent criminals do walk among us it is reasonable that they should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm. However, how many of us have heard of rapists and murderers who have spent years or even decades behind bars (or perhaps even executed) for a crime they didn't even commit? That bothers me a great deal and one of the reasons I'm been changing my view on the death penalty; but that is getting off the subject I suppose. A "violent misdemeanor" seems an oxymoron to me; akin to "jumbo shrimp". Is there any good reason why a crime of violence is only a misdemeanor such as is the case with "Domestic Violence"? From the Domestic Abuse Hotline website: [quote][i]Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. [/i] [i]Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure or wound someone.[/i] [/quote] Note the phrase "threats of actions"...if I walk up to a stranger and threaten physical violence but don't act on the threat, am I going to be charged with a felony, locked away for a few years and lose my right to possess a firearm [u][i]forever[/i][/u] because I "threatened" violence without acting on the threat? Not likely; in most if not all states, just a "threat" is a misdemeanor and you don't lose your basic rights such as the right vote or to own a firearm - you certainly don't lose the right to possess a firearm automatically and irreversibly. If that "stranger" is not a stranger but a spouse or a lover or even just a roommate; should that truly change the outcome in terms of seriousness of the crime, the charge or the automatic and irreversible loss of rights? It doesn't seem to me that it should. I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the crime of Domestic Violence or any other crime here...but it does seem to me that our legal system has some very significant inconsistencies and I suspect that many of those inconsistencies are driven by politics and special interest groups which is something that should be resisted.

Welcome to the forum. Although I've lived in several states (and spend time oversees as well) I'm from Ohio and still go there to see family fairly often...moved here over 16 years ago and have never regretted it.

I've been there a couple of time and yes, it is VERY busy much of the times (weekends, etc). I am pretty sure I know the woman you are speaking of and I too think she is very helpful...really, I thinks most of the RSOs there do an excellent job. Personally, when it comes to outside ranges I like CHMR and love Montgomery County Shooting Complex (although both, for me, are a bit of a drive, especially MCSC).

[quote name='Mike' timestamp='1353830579' post='850369'] There's no option for my vote. Yes. If you are released from prison, you have paid your debt. All rights restored, regardless what you did. Mike [/quote]Sorry about that...I added that option