RobertNashville

I see...said the blind man.

Actually, ...I hold a Master's in IT so I do know one or two things about this stuff (at least I did yesterday) and besides, David, I WAS MAKING A JOKE!

You are arguing a point that I'm not disagreeing with or at least wasn't trying to discuss (I also don't really need you to explain the obvious to me; at least not this time ). Several here, and think that includes you, have either stated directly or at least alluded to the "HCP" process not being "constitutional". I'm simply trying to point out, perhaps poorly, that restricting gun possession to those who aren't convicted felons, etc. isn't in the Constitution (Federal or state) either but we have those restrictions just the same and think most of us probably think that at least some of those restrictions are a good idea. All I'm suggesting here is that the HCP process is simply a logical extension of the process that gave us restrictions on who can't legally possess a firearm. I'm not saying that I like the HCP process; I'm not even saying that I think it's a good idea nor do I think it really does what the politicians want everyone to think it does. I'd like to see us have "constitutional carry" BUT, I think we need the HCP process right now if only for reciprocity purposes. I'm only saying that I don't see a lot of difference between the HCP process/requirements and any other, perhaps more widely accepted (even among the firearm enthusiast community) restrictions that have existed for years. I also simply wanted to make the point that the fact that TN has an HCP process doesn't render us a non-friendly state to firearms as the OP's first post seemed to be implying or at least questioning.

It doesn't but I didn't say it did nor was that my point. All I was trying (apparently poorly) to point out was that we as a society have decided that certain restrictions CAN be place on certain rights. As a society, we've decided that felons, for example,should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm but that restriction isn't in the Constitution, state or federal. The "permit" process isn't much more than an extension of that is it? Whether felons should be restricted or whether we should or shouldn't have a permit process is somewhat of a different argument and in any case, to get back to the OP's original question; I don't think that the fact that we have a permit process means that we aren't a "pro carry" state.

Do you believe that anyone should be able to possess and carry a weapon anytime...anywhere...with no restrictions and no requirements on them (convicted violent felons, wife-beaters, etc. etc)? I could be wrong but I suspect you don't. I suspect that most people agree that people with a violent history or under a certain age can have their right restricted. While I agree in principle that we should all be free to go armed without a "permit", society has decided that, at least after proper adjudication, a person can have their rights suspended either temporarily or permanently; even the right to "life".

Not according to Kim Komando and wile you may or may not be as knowledgeable as her you'll never be that good looking so all things considered, I'll trust her advice

I surely wish that were true...the last speeding ticket I received was in Indiana just before I hit the KY border and the speed limit dropped from 70 down to 55 and I didn't notice...to make matters worse, the cop was a real a**h**e.

As I stated earlier, I think the current law is too harsh and should be altered. For that matter, I certainly wouldn’t object to the type of change where there was nothing “illegal†about carrying past a sign and moving this into a simple trespass situation. However, as a philosophical issue, I don’t see a problem with it being “against the law†to walk past a “no guns†sign when you are carrying; at least not if the punishment fits the crime. I don’t know…maybe I’m just a little “too†on the side of personal property rights for my own good??? Government (whether it be local, state or federal) has always retained the power to decided what can and can’t happen on “public propertyâ€; that doesn’t just apply to firearms. Things may change for such places as parks and recreation areas if we elect the right people into office but I expect that no matter who is in office we’ll never be allowed to carry a firearm in a post office or a federal office building or a courtroom.

Don't mean to state the obvious here (well...actually I do ) but why not avoid the "weapon's charge" but not carrying in a business that doesn't wand you (with your gun) in that business? Maybe the better question is why does anyone want to spend a single penny in any business that doesn't want it's customers to be able to defend themselves?

What's the point of telling business/property owners that have a "right" to restrict firearms on their property if there is no force of law to enforce it? That's akin to setting a speed limit but telling people they if they do happen to get caught speeding all that will happen is that they'll be asked nicely not to speed anymore. Do we believe in ALL rights, including those of property owners, or do we just believe in the rights that are important to us and are willing to tell everyone else that their rights are not really rights at all; at least not if I want to walk into their store.

Let me clarify my position; what I'm saying is that I'm NOT opposed to it being illegal/criminal for a person to carry a firearm past a legally posted sign that says that business doesn't allow firearms on/within its property. However, I do think the current law/punishment is more onerous and burdensome than it should be. I think perhaps a simple, minor misdemeanor that does NOT affect your HCP would be more than sufficient punishment for breaking that "law".

While I do think the current law/punishment is overly burdensome, I can see a logical argument for the punishment being more than, say, just a simple trespassing charge...HCP holders are supposed to know the law and I would submit, take on added responsibility when we carry.

I would suggest that the right of an individual to own property and control it is even more basic than freedom of religion or speech and the concept of personal property is what gives a business owner the right to post. Unfortunately, like many other rights, property rights have been trampled on as well but nevertheless, your right to self-defense, speech, religion don't trump my rights and if they did then I would really not have any real rights at all. For this very reason, I struggle a bit with the concept of a "parking lot" law which would supersede the right of a business/facility/employer to restrict HCP owners from even being able to leave their weapons in their locked vehicles while, for example, visiting a shopping mall where the mall (and formerly the parking lot itself) would be posted against carry. However, I think in that instance, the right of the public to its own self defense trumps the right of a property owner to restrict firearms even from its parking lot.

I may be wrong about this as I wasn't paying much attention at the time (because I was just moving to the state when our current HCP process was being debated) but if memory serves, I've been told that the state being able to make some money on the HCP process was one of the selling points/one of the reasons it got through the legislature and the governor. I admit our process is pretty expensive but thank god we at lest have it! Moving one, the easy answer to this is for Tennessee to institute constitutional carry...were we to do that, no one would be required to go through the HCP process and only those who wanted a TN permit for reciprocity purposes would actually need to get a permit.

I'd say any safe is better than no safe. Then again, my uncle who had some VERY nice guns had them so well hidden that sometimes even he couldn't find them (so the risk that someone was going to just walk in and steel them was pretty minimal). I would suggest that it mostly comes down to why you are buying a safe. A box with a lock may keep firearms out of a child's hands when mom/pop isn't around but if you have a fire, your gun collection will likely be gone. If you are concerned about theft and/or fire then a low-cost safe is probably not worth what you'll pay even if you pay little.

I'll come down if it's a date I am free (weekend)...Chattanooga isn't that far away from me!

I've bought and sold many guns in private sales and never had a problem. The advice already given is great advice. Mostly, just trust your instincts...if you feel uncomfortable selling to someone privately then just don't do it. Personally, I like to sell only to those who have HCPs because it indicates that they person is qualified to own a firearm (at least as of the time time the permit was issued). Sometimes, especially if it's a large $$$ sale I use the generic Firearms Transfer Form that you can download from many internet sites (they are NOT required but not a bad idea to provide some paperwork). Of course, if you are really not sure about someone but you still would like to sell the weapon if he's "okay" you can always still do the transaction through an FFL and pay the fee but I guess if I really was that uncomfortable with selling the gun to the person I probably just wouldn't do it at all. Hope that helps some!

Actually, I'm not really a religious man and this isn't about religion; it's much more a matter of whether a person believes that man exists on purpose or is just an accident; a convergence of time and circumstance...if we exist by accident rather than by design, the whole issue of "rights" is rather meaningless. Perhaps Judge Napolitano said it far better than I can...

Jamie, This isn't a matter of semantics and in any case words DO mean things. Yes...I understand that in our country, the "government" is made up of people...people who are elected to positions/offices by other people (and people appointed or hired directly or indirectly by those elected). In some countries, it might be a monarchy or a dictatorship...I use the word "government" for the sake of convenience, not because I don't understand that in our case the government is made up of "people" or "society". I'm also not purporting the some third party/supreme being is going to come swooping down to give or maintain our rights. What the founders believed (unless you think they were lying) is a matter of written history and they believed that ALL rights come from God...the Constitution is simply a recognition of those rights; not a granting of them. I also believe that. I would also submit that the fact that we are a creation of God and are endowed by God with certain rights is the ONLY thing that truly separates us from any other animal on Earth and apart from that, any talk about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is just that, talk...we would be free to do whatever we wanted to whoever we wanted and we shouldn't be punished for it since they are just animals anyway. You are free to believe otherwise but your belief or agreement with me or the lack thereof doesn't make my belief incorrect nor does it change what the founder's wrote. Yes...a "government/people/dictator/king" can restrict or take away rights but that's ALL they can do. But the fact that they can do that has nothing to do with where those rights come from in the first place.

Except their own words say exactly otherwise. They never said or indicated that rights come from anywhere other than from God...they also recognized that all a government can do is take a right away; a government never "gives" rights nor in fact can a government give anything they haven't taken from somewhere/someone else.

I could not possibly disagree with you more and while they aren't here to tell you themselves, I am certain, based on history, that our founders would disagree with you as well. No government or society in general or in particular can GIVE you your rights...only "nature's god", as the founders put it, can give you rights and we have them only by virtue of the fact that we are god's creation (I'm not going to get into an argument here about what god; that's simply isn't important for this discussion). I understand that you may not see it that way and that's fine but thank God our founder's DID see it that way or the likelihood that we could freely disagree would would probably be nil. The only thing a government or a society can do is take away or restrict rights - if we let them. That is why the many writers and contributors to the Constitution felt it necessary to explicitly detail some (but not all) of our rights in writing. On this we do agree. Ronald Reagan reminded us that freedom is never more than one generation away from being lost. Benjamin Franklin somewhat echoed the same thought when, outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked him , "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" and with no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." I'm still hopeful that we can find a way to keep it. Like Franklin, I tend to be pessimistic so that when the good thing happens I am pleasantly surprised! In this case I am a bit more pessimistic than usual based on some of the posts in this thread...it may be too late for this country...we may have come so far down the road of reliance on "government" that self-reliance is all but gone...that people are far, far too willing to accept bureaucracy rather than freedom. Only time will tell.

This is a review I happened to find and of special interest is the trigger modification discussed; it might be worth taking a look at. (LINK: FNH FS2000 Review and Operation - Zombie Survival & Defense Wiki ) If any of you who are more knowledgable about this weapon and/or these types of modifications have any insight I'd appreciate hearing it...were I to do this mod I'd almost certainly have a gunsmith do it for me!

That's not being a jerk and if it is, I am the same way; perhaps even more so because I demand not only the specific rights spelled out in the Constitution but also the rights that were deemed so basic to human existence that the founders didn't see the need to spell them out.

I am in Ohio regularly (most of my family lives there) and to the best of my knowledge (and I do check now and then for changes) the worst that could have happened to you would be that you would have been required to leave had the hospital found out you were carrying. My one and only time (so far anyway) when I though I might have to actually draw a weapon happened in the parking lot of my house in downtown Columbus (it was a rehabilitated house build in 1865 and was just three blocks from the Capital building...I worked in downtown Columbus for over 15 years). Anyway, point being is that if I were in a place where where I really felt I should carry then no sign is going to stop me; either that or I wouldn't be there (I understand that in your case not being there wasn't an option!).

Why would you use an outdated encryption like WEP? There are better levels of encryption than WEP which are much more difficult to hack. In any case, any cameras I mount will likely be weatherproof IR mounted outside (Front door, front yard, back door, ect) so even if someone were to hack one or more of my cameras they aren't going to see anything they can't already see when parked in front of my house. I can be a bit paranoid but I'm not that paranoid...I just don't think most criminals are sophisticated enough to be that sort of a threat (and if they are they could probably make better money in a real job!).