RobertNashville

I hope mine will work well for me...I don't know that I'll ever do any serious hunting with my A-Bolt...I bought it mostly for the joy of owning it and shooting it.

Funny you should ask...I just ordered (as in minutes ago) a Leupold Riflemen 4-12X40mm rifle scope that's going to go on a Browning A-bold White Gold Medallion (300 Win Mag) - it took me a while to decide on it but for my use, it seemed like the best for the $. ($260 and free shipping). I don't know if it will suite your purposes or not but it might be worth looking at!

I wouldn't be surprised...I read recently (from USCCA I believe) that in the U.K.; now that they've banned all guns and people are still killing each other knives are now being sought (any sort of sharp scissors is probably next).

Very sad news and a huge loss to Dickson County and to Tennessee as well as to family and friends. Prayers for all.

I suspect that if a landlord put that stipulation in a leas and it was voluntarily entered into by the tenant; the tenant would have a problem trying to then claim that the restriction was unconstitutional. Then again, I think there could be some valid argument offered that such a restriction in a lease might be "unconstitutional"...could a landlord "ban" you from writing a book he didn't agree with and put such a stipulation in a lease? Could a landlord demand that you be of a certain religion? I'm thinking not or that it would at least be a pretty difficult position to hold. As to the legislation; other than weak-kneed Republicans wanting campaign contributions from the likes of UPS and FedEx and such, I see no reason whey they can't pass it just like other states have done (meaning, I don't see why they would need to change the state's current position on the right to bear arms; especially since this particular legislation limited it to HCP holders who can legally carry loaded firearms in their vehicles under current state law).

Probably true although I'm sure that there are landlords out there who haven't figured that out yet and may need some convincing by court action. Yes, that's true. I think some other states specifically allow firearms to be carried in vehicles as freely as in/on a person's home and property without any "special permission" needed (although still a permit to carry "on your person" once you are out of your vehicle...I wouldn't mind seeing Tennessee follow that example.

Not strange if the "liability" concern is, as I suspect, just an excuse. That does beg the question of what the real reason(s) is/are.

As I said above, I think the "liability" issue is really more of an excuse than an actual issue but also something easily taken care of in a decent piece of legislation. Realistically, as it stands right now, if some nutcase (be that nutcase just someone off the street, a current employee or a former employee) walks into a place of business and starts shooting people, I don't believe the business is going to escape what will likely be multiple civil lawsuits (justified or not and whether it does or doesn't "ban" firearms)...a good "parking lot bill" could actually be a windfall to businesses in that regard if it actually contained language that would protect it from all liability (save of course, their own negligence - I don't think legislation ever protects someone or some business from its own stupidity!).

Is civil liability the real issue here? Are you saying that you believe that if, by virtue of a "parking lot bill" businesses are required to allow firearms in personal vehicles parked in their parking lots that they would then be held any more or less liable than they already are? Is there anything currently in the Tennessee code that provides an escape from civil liability for an employer/business if they ban firearms from their property? Perhaps there is but as far as I know, there isn't. EDIT: I suspect this whole "liability" issue is just an excuse being used by the lobbyists for the FedExs and UPSs and Dells in order to justify their opposition to such legislation. That said, there probably are some corporate lawyers out there who either believe (or hope) that if the businesses they represent ban firearms from their property that the business will be "less liable" should something happen. However, I suspect that it is much more of a "hope" it is a reality. Further, any legitimate "liability" concerns could easily be taken care of in a decent bill.

As a matter of fact, I'm on a military base at least once a month for drill. However, we aren't talking about nor does any proposed/pending legislation have anything at all to do with "military bases" - why you would use that as an example is rather odd. Second of all, why did you only quote a piece of a sentence and completely change the meaning and purpose that sentence? Yes...I KNOW an employer doesn't need "probable cause" and I never said or implied otherwise. In fact, that they don't need probable cause and can, through coercion (i.e as a condition of employment/continued employment) compel the search of an employee's private vehicle is precisely the problem and is why I said that, in my opinion, a good bill should contain language that takes away that coercive ability.

Why open that can or worms again? If you believe that a commercial business has "rights" (I have a different "take" on that particular question than some; maybe even different than many) then there really can be no question that government requirements or restrictions of any kind on a business impacts those "rights". Moreover, the simple fact that there are already requirement and restrictions on businesses is not a reason to have yet one more. The only relevant issue I see in this argument is whether or not the justifications supporting the infringement is substantial enough to put the infringement in place. With regards to a "parking lot bill"; I happen to think that when one compares the extremely minor infringement to what I believe is an overwhelmingly positive impact on society; then the infringement is much more than warranted and should be enacted by the legislature. However, some don't see it that way...not to put words into anyone's mouth but I would characterize their position as one that sees "private property rights" as trumping most if not all other considerations. With regards to this particular piece of legislation (and unfortunately with just about all other "firearms" legislation and a lot of other pieces of legislation that most conservatives believe are important); we, have a governor, a speaker of the house and a lieutenant governor (and a few others thrown into the mix) who would rather have campaign contributions to further their political ambitions than they would listen to and act on what logic and reason say is in the public good...so much are they unwilling to miss out on those contributions that they aren't even willing to let this and similar legislation reach the floor of the house or the senate for a vote. Overall, this legislature is a huge disappointment and not just on "firearms" related issues. EDIT: My only solace in this bill not passing is that I don't believe it was a very good bill to start with for several reasons, not the least of which is that it only applied to HCP holders - I see no compelling reason to lave out everyone else. I would rather see both a simpler and more comprehensive bill that says, something to the effect that with any "parking lot" open to "the public" ("public" including customers and employees of the business, etc) no one has the right to control the contents of a vehicle parked on that lot provided that the contents are otherwise legal to be there - further, that NO ONE can compel the search of a vehicle or demand an employee allow a search of a vehicle as a condition of employment (in other words, the only justification for searching a vehicle would be suspected criminal activity and would have to be conducted by law enforcement).

I divorced in 1984 after a 10 year marriage...I was the one who left and it still wasn't an easy thing to go through even though I was the one who made the choice to end the marriage. It does get better, although it doesn't always feel that way.

I can't help but wonder what someone like this guy is thinking to come out gun blazing shooting at the police...did he just want to end it all...did he really think he might actually win the shootout and get away? Very true, these sorts of people are around us all the time and you never know when they are going to go crazy on "you".

I believe there are several reasons why firearm enthusiasts aren't going to see any significant (and maybe not anything at all) in terms of favorable legislation this year. Among those reasons is that we have a governor, a speaker of the house and for that matter, most if not all of the Republican leadership who don't care about or don't want to deal with firearm legislation. Between promises of campaign contribution from major businesses and pressure from college campuses; they aren't going to act on much of anything this year because there are "more pressing issues to deal with". TFA doesn't have enough PAC money to compare to the pockets of businesses like UPS, FedEx, Dell and others who don't want guns in parking lots and I don't think there is any real support among most Republicans and especially among the Republican leadership to go up against the college dictators who hate guns and everything about them. The NRA also seems to be especially anemic in Tennessee - bottom line is, Republicans take the firearm community in Tennessee for granted - they'll throw us a bone every now and then but don't expect much more. However, much of the blame rests on us...until significant numbers of firearm enthusiasts not only join organizations like the TFA and NRA but ACTUALLY GET INVOLVED (donations to legislative action committees of TFA/NRA, phone calls, emails, going to capitol hill when important legislation is on the docket, etc.); we aren't likely going to see much happen. Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect we have a lot more people on internet forums complaining about these issues than we do anyone actually doing anything about it (not to mention the "enthusiasts" who don't even participate in forums or in any other way)!

Aside from Jeff Cooper's book (which is excellent) I'd also pick up "In The Gravest Extreme"). There are plenty of good books out here but Jeff Cooper's book and this one ^ are probably two that should not only be in every library of anyone who carries or is thinking of carrying a weapon on them for self defense but should be read again and again.

Gosh I wish I could do this...I enjoy serving in the State Guard but it sure does play hell with my "shooting" life!

I don't think a 1,000 yard shot is ever "easy" no matter how familiar a shooter is with a particular rifle. Plus I think they were dealing with a very significant cross-wind too. All but "Joe" made the shot eventually but you have to give some credit to George for getting in in one shot (even though he wasn't the fastest to hit the target).

Did I wink??? You start talking like that and this will turn into another open vs concealed carry debate. I agree that proper concealment avoids a lot of potential trouble but I still don't give my money to any business that isn't as equally welcoming of my firearm as they are of my money; at leat not if I canhelp it.

Come on...seriously? HCP holders are supposed to be law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens don't break the law (that's why we call them law-abiding)...if your knowingly carry a firearm on a property where you know the owners have posted against firearm carry then you are breaking the law whether you are "discovered" or not. All that aside, why would anyone ever carry into a place of business where their firearms aren't welcome and actually give such a business ANY of your money whether anyone "knows you are armed" or not?

I believe you are missing something. Someone (person/business, etc) owns the parking lot and has the right to post their "property" against firearms being on their property. Of course, they are supposed to be subject to the rules regarding what constitutes a proper posting. You probably see inconsistent/sparse signage because these shopping center parking lot owners don't really care about firearms on their property nearly as much as they want to escape liability if someone has a firearm and something bad happens - they can just "point their sign" and say "not our fault".

I'm glad for all the malls that are posted against HCP holders...I suspect that entices the crooks to ply their trade where they are most welcome and keeps them away from the businesses I frequent! More seriously, I agree, unfortunately, that this kind of stuff can happen anywhere at any time; after all, isn't that why we went to the trouble of getting our HCP and even more trouble of actually carrying??? It's the world we live in now - the law enforcement/justice system/prison system can't protect us because there aren't enough cops or enough courts or enough prisons to capture, prosecute and then keep the scum locked up.

I think there is a good bit of truth in what you say but not completely. Whether it's scripted or not or how much it might be scripted there is no way to know without actually having been a contestant on the show. I also think that these people are not slouches when it comes to various shooting disciplines but being an IDPA hot-shot or a champion sporting clays shooter is far different than the sorts of events these shooters have to compete in on the show which is why the winner has tended to be someone who is the most well-rounded and not necessarily a champion in one particular shooting sport. Bottom line for me is that I've found both seasons to be enjoyable with some incredible marksmanship displayed.

Don't get too upset...I don't think he meant anything by it. It does seem that some put a bit too much emphasis on "when" someone joined here...I joined when I found the forum; if I had found it two or three or whatever years before I'd have joined it then!

That's a very good question! I would certainly hope that simply being armed, in view or not, would not automatically "up" a charge...if so then anyone who routinely open carries would really have a potential problem. I'm assuming/hoping that there was a bit more going one that just the fact that his weapon was "visible".

So very sorry...it had been many, many years without a dog when I found an eight week old basset hound puppy - she is now nearing 7 years and I can't imagine a day without coming home and seeing her there waiting for me. I've heard it said that God created the dog so that man would know what unconditional love is...I think that may be true. "The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us, may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings, and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth, an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by the graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death." - George Graham Vest - c. 1855