RobertNashville

We most certainly are talking about the rights of businesses...a business has no right to "own" anything, including property, except the that state allows them to do so.

"Businesses" are not "persons" and never will be no matter how much some want to argue that they are...as such, a "business" does not have any "rights"; "private property" or otherwise...they exist at all only because the state allows them to (generally only because the state gives them formal permission to exist) and the state does so only because it's in the best interest of society. A person has rights simply because he/she is a person; businesses only have rights granted to them by the state. Whether or not businesses should or should not be allowed to "opt out" should not be based on the non-existent "rights" of the business but rather, based on what is in the public interest. Most people who have bothered to educate themselves on the facts knows that law-abiding citizens going armed is in the best interest of the public and that benefit far outweighs any minor inconvenience that may be caused to a "business" by the state declaring that they cannot ban firearms within the business.

Just a month ago I was in a meeting with a 30+ year veteran of Nashville Metro; he's an avid gun enthusiast and much of his talk that evening concerned how younger officers, not raised with an understanding of firearms or people's rights were of the mindset that only LEOs should have firearms. Another Sgt of Metro and a fellow who just left the force after 15 or so years echoed the same thoughts to me just last week so NO...I'm not impressed with nor do I want to leave things up to an officer's discretion, at least not when it comes to things that can cause me to lose an expensive firearm or wind up a resident in one of Tennessee's fine prisons.

As a general rule, I like to have such things well defined - ambiguity in the law has a way of biting you in the ass when it's least convenient - when things aren't defined they tend to be up to the opinion of district attorneys, police officers, etc., etc.; I'd rather have it in black and white.

I may be operating under a false assumption but since the ranger was found to have acted properly in seizing his weapon I guess I assumed that the weapon was seized??? The story said "A federal judge has ruled in favor of a park ranger in Nashville who seized a firearm being carried by a man at a state park in 2009".

I never said he wasn't a nut job or that his actions weren't stupid so please don't insinuate that I was but Leonard was never the point of my comment anyway; I don't really give a s**t about Mr. Leonard; my point...my concern is that a firearm that is, apparently, legal to carry was confiscated from a HCP holder and this judge apparently said that was okay. I find that troubling.

I'd sure like to know more about this...although I find Leonard's antics stupid and perhaps even dangerous, it seems to me that law enforcement went overboard here.

Cedar City Gun Club (Lebanon) and Nashville Gun Club (Tennessee Clay Target Complex) both have sporting clays if I'm not mistaken (haven't shot sporting clays myself).

I've had it happen to me...went years buying under the various "background check" systems with no problem then had one denied just a couple of days after having purchased a gun with no problem whatsoever. Our "background system" is a joke - it depends on the half-assed record keeping of thousands of court systems covering decades of adjudication and the number of things that can cause an inappropriate denial are many. Your friend does need to be pro-active in addressing this...he needs to find out exactly what popped up and then take care of whatever it is.

In defensive shooting, you shoot to stop the threat - to me; a part of that is to continue to shoot until your attacker...your "threat" has either retreated or succored to his wounds and is no longer advancing on you. In other words, I'm not going to shoot twice and then stop; I'm going to keep shooting until there is no doubt in my mind that I'm no longer being threatened or until my magazine is empty. As Col Cooper used to say, you are only outgunned if you miss and that statement has a lot of truth in in but at the end of the day, when choosing a weapon/round to carry, the lager/more powerful round you can carry the better...a .380 or a .38 can do the job under the right conditions but I'd still rather have a 9MM, .40 S&W or .45 ACP, 357 sig, etc. Of course, Jeff Cooper also used to say that the first rule of gun fighting is to bring a gun - in other words, any gun of any caliber is far superior to no gun at all!

It really depends on your body type...if you buy a waist size that is typically close to your actual waist size then you would need another inch or two to accommodate an IWB holster; if you already have an inch or two so spare then you should be good to go!

I have custom made lettering on both my vehicles that reads "My Basset Hound is Smarter Than Your Honor Student and Barack Obama"...most people find it funny; some DO find it offensive (which just bothers me to no end of course ). I suspect that any day now, they'll be telling me what posters/art work I can hang on the walls inside of my own home on the theory that a bugler may be "offended" if he sees it while he's inside of my house steeling my stuff.

And if this sheriff (or anyone else in a position of power to act and didn't act) really did ignore their responsibilities then I hope those with standing to sue do so.

None of the tests or conditions or background checks or any of the other "common sense gun control measures" are in the U.S. Constitution; since they aren't, I tend toward the side of what the Constitution has to say about such things. People who are truly incapable of handling a firearm safely because of their mental condition need to be inside a completely controlled environment (we used to do that)...those who have ever committed a violent felony ought to be in a prison for a long enough time that by the time they are released they are too old to be a danger to anyone, with or without a firearm. If we simply did those two things, we could live under an unfettered view of the 2nd Amendment.

Just a few weeks ago, there was a long thread on the forum regarding "background checks"; whether they do any good (i.d, do they keep guns out of the hands of criminals/those who would misuse them) and whether they are even constitutional; etc. As I recall, there was lot's of heated debate with about a 55/45 split between those who think background checks are nothing more than a government feel-good/revenue producing worthless exercise and those who was in favor of them. The problem is Laughner...the problem is not the gun and not that he wasn't on some list and not some lazy sheriff that didn't do his job (if that is actually the case). There is no law...no list...no background check...no "high capacity magazine ban" that will stop the Laughners of the world from obtaining a weapon or using something as a weapon to do what they intend to do.

What do we do when the AMA/APA "votes" to declare that simply wanting to own a firearm is a mental illness?

All of which looks pretty damning after the fact but; until someone invents a machine that can predict an individual's future actions with 100% accuracy and can monitor everyone 100% of the time, I'm not prepared to force a person to give up his rights because someone "thinks" he may be a danger or because someone is afraid of what he might do.

It's easy to say his problems were obvious after the fact; I don't know that is was all THAT obvious beforehand that law enforcement should stepped in. There is difference between someone taking random pot-shots at imaginary bad guys and someone who some "think" may be a danger to others....most of our laws are predicated on punishing people AFTER they actually do something and I think for good reason...I doubt that many of us would want to be judged based on something we haven't done and may never do.

With regards to Loughner and the Gifford's shooting in AZ, I can't help but wonder what kind of outcry would be heard about "overreaching/overreacting LE" and violation of constitutional rights, etc., etc. had the sheriff acted preemptively? What would be the reaction of gun owners (like those of us on TGO) if Loughner had been denied his Glock purchase because of "reports" the sheriff had received? I don't know what evidence the sheriff had in front of him nor how confirmed/legitimate it was; certainly it looks VERY legitimate AFTER Loughner's the shooting rampage - I'm not at all saying the sheriff was "right" here but I can see why the sheriff or any other LEO would be loath to act too quickly because of something someone "might" do.

+1

I do enjoy watching this video but what I take from all this is that caliber is FAR less important than hitting your target (if we are talking about a defensive shooting, anyway). One of my favorite Jeff Cooper witticisms is "you are only outgunned if you miss"!

Once you've taken a class with Tactical Response, you are eligible to come back for the annual alumni weekend - this year it's this upcoming weekend (the 16th/17th). They run a number of classes and seminars, some of which they don't do any other time and others are sort of abbreviated versions of they normal courses...Saturday is usually combined with the local "Friends of the NRA" dinner. Except for the NRA dinner, ammunition and lodging/transportation; it's all free.

It may well be that it simply took authorizations - if the DMV doesn't follow up with the actual charge then the authorizations should come off automatically. However, you may be able to make that happen more quickly by talking directly with your bank! I've had that sort of thing happen to me too...very frustrating and it tends to happen when it's the least convenient (such as traveling away from home!).

I have two crossbread suptetucks...they are my carry holsters about 85% of the time and I've not complaints with them. I'm also love Galco holsters and have several models (OWB) and I'm sure their Kingtuck model is great too.

I had similar experiences when I took "Fighting Pistol" at the end of March this year (I posted about it but nothing as detailed as yours which is great!. Will you be at the Alumni Weekend next weekend?