RobertNashville

Absolutes are always dangerous to use and I probably should not have use one in this case. Nevertheless, no, it isn't just a "scary story" and while "you will be sued" may not be 100% accurate, it is no less accurate to say "you will be sued" than it is to try and discount the probable results of a justified shooting just a "scary story". I've been around long enough and I've talked with enough attorneys and read enough accounts of shootings to have very good reason to say that discounting the negative emotional and financial results of a shooting (even if one isn't sued and even if not charged with a crime) as just a "scary story" is disingenuous at best. As far as a lack of facts, you are right, I have presented any but then, neither have you. You've offered opinion as have I...claiming you know some people who have been involved in self defense shooting and none of them have been sued are also not facts nor is it a convincing argument anymore than the experiences I've had or that people I know have had...anecdotal evidence is not sufficient evidence upon which to draw substantive conclusions. Now, since this thread is hopelessly off topic...I'm done with it (as in unsubscribing from it). If anyone want's to offer help or suggestions concerning the original subject; please feel free to PM me. Thanks.

No misconception. I'm not sure why you think people don't get sued when a shooter; including a justified shooter and even with the castle doctrine in place as it is in Tennessee won't get sued...when you shoot someone it's almost a certainty that you will get sued. As I recall, you made similar statements in the thread where this is the closing post... Perhaps you think I'm implying that getting sued is interchangeable with losing a lawsuit and that it not what I'm saying. While we may have statutes (such as the castle doctrine) on our side in a justifiable shooting; that doesn't mean there can't or won't be devastating; including financially devastating consequences. Certainly; you are free to disagree with me but I don't understand why you apparently believe that a person who shoots/kills another won't or can't be sued even when the shooting is 100%. I'm not an attorney but I suspect most attorney's familiar with this issue will back me up on this.

I too first became really familiar with 1911s because that's what I carried in the Navy. I have quite a few .45 ACPs (most are 1911s) including a 1975 Colt 70 Series Gold Cup National Match, a Kimber Custom Pro CDPII (which is what I carry most of the time), a Nighthawk Custom Talon and a Les Bare Thunder Ranch (I also have a Sig P220 and a HK45)...I have a favorite (it's my Gold Cup) but I'd be hard pressed to say that "this" 1911 is "better" than that one...these things are like children; I love them all! $1,000 will buy you a nice 1911 but which one is best for you??? Best advice I can give is to take the opportunity to spend some time shooting any you are thinking of and then make your best pick. One thing about buying a good firearm is that if you decide you want something different it usually isn't difficult to get you money out of it so you can use the money to buy something else!

I don't think it matters...if you and I were doing a transfer between us within TN we could chose to both go to a local FFL and let him handle the paperwork and do a background check. In other words, I don't think how it arrives at the FFL is material. Bottom line is, the FFL on his end that agrees to handle the transaction should be able to tell you everything you need to do - if he has a problem with you hand carrying the weapon to him he will tell you. I was assuming you had to ship it either to him or to the dealer - that you weren't planning to do the transfer in person (due to distance).

Yes I know, other places aside from restaurants can post but this is primarily a counter to the "gun free dining Tennessee" site. Maybe this is a bad idea...maybe it's in bad taste...I don't know; I suppose that's why I'm looking for feedback. I reserved the domain names because I liked the phrase because it makes a valid point (I think). Yes I know I could be sued...then again, I could be sued for breathing...lawsuits don't really scare me that much (not that I want to have to fight them) and if they did scare me I wouldn't ever carry a weapon because I guarantee you, if I or you ever shoot somebody no matter how justified in doing so, I/you WILL get sued. As long as anything posted on the site is the truth I really don't care if it hurts the anti-gun group's feelings or makes them feel uncomfortable. Also, I've farted in church before (and I suspect everyone who has ever gone to church more than a few times has too)...last time I checked, everybody survived it.

I may be mistaken but I believe you'll have to ship (or carry) the weapon to the FFL who will handle the legal part of the transaction; they'll take possession of the firearm and not release it to the recipient until the normal paperwork/background check has been done and they have the Ok to complete the transfer.

I believe the proper way to do it is to ship the gun to the recipient's FFL; after, of course, arranging everything in advance with the FFL who will handle the actual transaction. As far as I know, you don't need an FFL on each end; only on the recipient's end. Then again; I've never done this before (private party, anyway) so what do I know!

It' not a matter of "wanting to"...I'm working on another Master's degree; I don't exactly have a lot of time to devote to developing a website. I can put something together myself and if I'm lucky, I might even be able to do it in conjunction with one of my classes but I know there are far more talented people out there for that kind of work than I; frankly, I think my efforts would be better directed to providing content. My vision for this would almost be a satirical version of the "Gun Free Dining" website...as they highlight restaurants that post, we also highlight them along with stats, if we can find them, regarding crime in the are immediately surrounding the restaurant or in the business itself while concurrently try to educate people with the simple truth that less guns equal more crime, not less. There is nothing better for beating back a lie than the truth and the truth and that's what I want to do; hopefully in an entertaining way (and perhaps at the same time, heap some red hot coals on the heads of those who like nothing better than overturning the recently enacted law that allows us to finally be able to protect ourselves in places that serve alcohol).

Saturday the 9th might be a good option!

And who gave you permission to look at my underlying code??? Anyway, I see now. When typing a sentence or two, like I am here, using the forum window only is fine but when writing a long post or one with multiple quotes and/or one that I'm spending considerable time on it makes fare more sense to do it in Word and then when I'm ready, post it in the forum. The keystrokes necessary to copy and past from Word into the forum pane takes a bout a half-second.

Okay but then, who/what were you referring to???

mikegideon/Daniel; If you are referring to the separation of sentences (and if you are not then I don't know what you are referring to), it has nothing to do with word wrap or using Word. I separated the two sentences you quoted purposely because the second sentence is not a continuation or an elaboration of the thought in the first. That is the reason I separate most sentences. It also, I believe, makes a post much easier to read than having what winds up as one, huge paragraph.

If you were going to spending the time fixing it for me why didn't you go ahead and correct my spelling mistakes and words I unintentionally left out?

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Prisoners simply do not lose their Constitutional rights while they are in prison. They have certainly lost their freedom and they certainly have many restrictions to deal with but I’ve worked in jails as a volunteer (from country jails to full-fledged prisons) and what you imply is simply not true. There is a difference between “free will†and a constitutionally protected right although I’m not sure you truly understand what the difference is. There is no Constitutional right to start a radio show, whether one is in or out of prison. Nor is there a Constitutional right to build a church building, again, whether the religious leader/followers are in or out of prison. I would also suggest that if you believe that “religion†and/or practicing a religion is synonymous with building a “church building†or if that freedom of expression is synonymous with being on the radio (or any other platform, electronic or otherwise); you need to rethink that…really, you do. With regards to the rest of your post, I think it boils down to this…either you truly believe human beings have God given rights; recognized and protected by the Constitution or you don’t. if you believe that they don't then what we call "rights" are really nothing more than privileges dispensed through the good graces of politicians. However, if you believe that our rights are truly inalienable then those rights should and can only be restricted under very specific circumstances and only to the extent absolutely necessary. That thinking is what allows us to have some, but not many, restrictions on freedom of expression such as not inciting people to riot and not being able to yell “fire†in a crowded theater when there is no fire and not being able to publish pornographic pictures of children. That line of reasoning is what supports the idea that some people should lose their right to keep and bear arms under certain circumstances. However, if you believe that our rights are truly rights, then there no logic in saying that anyone convicted of a felony, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of any other consideration should lose a God given right forever. Nor is there any logic in singling out just one, specific right like the right to bear arms. If there is any logic for such a position; it would be equally logical to say that a convicted felon, regardless of the specifics and regardless of the circumstances or any other consideration should lose ALL his rights forever. Carried to the extreme, you could make the argument that a felon should lose even the most basic right of all, the right to life - at the very least, you could make good argument for making the penalty for any any felony crimes a life sentence in prison...I mean, why should society bother to draw any distinction between severity/type of felony at all; why not just lock them away forever! Obviously, you and I disagree here but I would encourage you to reexamine your opinion because some of what you are suggesting sounds a lot like punishing a person for what he might do - thankfully, our system of justice doesn't work that way and I hope it never does. And yes, I do think the states should decide almost everything for themselves. That is, in fact, why we have states in the first place! And just to make note of something; unless you are in the military no one is forced to move anywhere in this country.

This was an awesome meting last night. I don't much care for McWherter (don't much care for Haslam either) but I will give Mike McWherter credit for at least having the guts to stand up in front of a crowd I'm sure he knew weren't exactly supporters and speak...any politician can go to a rally populated by supporters but it takes a bit of spine to go to a potentially unfriendly room. That said, I don't think his explanation of his views on the Second Amendment or especially the recently enacted bill that lest HCP holders carry in places where alcohol is served won him any support last night.

Hello everyone! I'm sure by now most of you are aware of the website called "Gun Free Dining Tennessee ". While this purports to be a "grass roots" effort it appears to many that our old friend Randy Rayburn and his money is actually behind it. Anyway, someone else (not me) came up with the phrase "Please Rob My Restaurant" which I've seized upon...last night, I registered the domain name "PleaseRobMyRestaurant" under .com, .org, .net and .info. My hope would be to turn this into a website dedicated not only to identifying which restaurants/bars/businesses "post or don't post" but to also be a means to support and encourage those businesses who show that they want OUR business by being friendly to our right to carry. Conversely, this would be a way to get the message across that those businesses who don't allow carry in their places of business are making themselves potential targets for the violence and lack of "peace" that the website "Gun Free Dining" says it's in favor of. What I need from you... Frankly, I don't really know where to start...I have some website development training but I claim no particular expertise in it (and don't even really like it). So...let me know your thoughts...and if you have anything to offer in the way of expertise; let me know...I truly think this is something that could balloon into something wonderful if it's done right and people get behind it - a way for many people to get involved in encouraging places of business to respect our rights to carry.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> It simply isn’t accurate to say that a person’s rights are taken away in jail/prison; some are and some aren’t and others may be controlled to a degree. Obviously, their personal freedom has been taken away for a period of time and other rights are controlled/restricted but even a prisoner still retains most of his rights afforded by the Constitution. You are correct that they aren’t allowed to simply walk around the entire jail unrestricted but they absolutely have the right to practice their religion and to evangelize if they wish to do so. Further, the right to freedom of expression (thought, speech, etc) has never been about whether other people listen or not…the right to freedom of expression does NOT guarantee a platform from which to wax eloquently about something nor an audience to hear it (as many liberal radio talk-show hosts have found out the hard way). There are already restrictions on “freedom of speech” on everyone right now. No one has the right to incite others to riot nor to yell “fire” when there is no fire…no one has a right to speak/spread lies about another person and if people do these things they are charged with a crime and/or face civil lawsuits…that’s how you “restrict” someone’s right to free speech. Actually, that's the same method used to restrict a felon from possessing a firearm...there is no electronic device a felon wears that alerts authorities anytime they have a firearm in their possession...they are charged if they are caught with a firearm. Beyond being caught with a gun, there is no special enforcement involved to keep a felon from having one. So are you saying that the only reason we restrict a felon from possessing a firearm is because that one is easier to implement than taking away other rights? The Second Amendment doesn’t say we have the right to keep and bear arms, except for X, Y, and Z. We’ve allowed the Federal government to step in and seize control of something the Constitution expressly forbids them from taking control of. If there are going to be restrictions on who can possess a firearm, it should be up to each individual state, not a bureaucrat or lifelong politician in D.C. I’ve no problem with restricting firearm possession from someone who has committed a violent crime, especially with a weapon or for someone who has a long criminal history but if you believe that a person’s rights should be forever taken away and that the only reason we only take away the right to possess a firearm is because it’s easier to do so; then would not the logical thing for society to do be to to lock every criminal away FOREVER then we can have absolute control over everything they do, 24/7? I believe our way of life...the basic principles we say we believe in, compel us to not treat human beings as homogeneous units; rather, we should treat each other as unique individuals. To say that all felons/any felon should lose their right to bear arms forever; regardless of the circumstances of their crime, is an affront to basic human decency and fairness...it's a lazy, bureaucratic way of dealing with an issue. I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions (determined by the individual states) but I also believe that people who perhaps just made a mistake or who have truly, based on their actions since, changed their lives; ought to have the opportunity to be fully restored to society; including the restoration of all of their allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

So your point is that people lie??? Is that really something we didn't know? The point I tried to make (and which was made much more humorously and well by monkeylizard) is that a convicted felon does not lose all his/her rights which brings us back to why is one particular right singled out. I think discussing the reasons for that singling out is a worthwhile discussion to have (albeit a bit far afield of the OP's original question).

No...you don't lose all your rights which is my point...if you did, that would make more sense wouldn't it? A person convicted of a felony still has the right to free speech and freedom of religion and the rest of them; for the most part, only the right to keep and bear arms is singled out. Such a "forever" loss is understandable if the person committed a violent felony and especially if he used a firearm...such a loss is understandable if they have a history of felonies. But, losing the right, forever, for, say, embezzlement after the person has served his sentence and made full restitution really doesn't make a lot of sense to me and especially so when other rights in the Constitution are not lost.

"Zero Tolerance" is just a bureaucratic way of saying "I won't take the time/make the effort to make a rational, informed, reasonable decision based on the facts".

I would tend to think, based on the post above and your earlier post that you believe all convicted felons, regardless of the facts such as what the act was, how long ago, his/her record since, etc. should lose all rights of any kind forever, correct? I mean, why should a felon be allowed freedom of expression or freedom of religion or any other right guaranteed by the Constitution??? I believe those who commit crimes should be punished in an appropriate way based on the crime but it seems to me that singling out/losing the right to keep and bear arms because a person once made a mistake is just another way for the Nanny state to exert control...if it's all right for the federal gov. to take away the right to bear arms then it must be all right to take away all the others.

How you conceal the fact that you are carrying is a pretty personal choice. I've used and still do use a variety of methods depending on where I'm going/what I'm doing (sometimes I only carry a small revolver in my pants pocket; sometimes I carry off-body in my briefcase and sometimes in a "day planner" that isn't a day planner, and sometimes I carry in an OWB holster, etc.). When I carry in a holster I usually use a vest as a cover garment (and I think a vest is a great year-round option). Coats and other top layer garments are fine when the weather makes such garments not seem out of place but a vest can be worn just about anytime/any season (although you do need to buy the right "weight" for he season). I've purchased two different vests that are specifically designed for concealed carry purposes from Concealed Carry Clothiers - Providing quality: Concealed Carry Vests, Accessories, Concealment clothes, Gun Belts, Vest and have been very pleased with them. One of the things I like most about them is that they don't "look" like a tactical vest; they look like any other ordinary vest but yet are designed specifically for concealed carry purposes (they are also what I use for IDPA matches!).

As a practical matter, I really do not see how any government agency is going to know that you gave a gun you can legally possess to another person, relative or otherwise, who can also legally possess it whether that person is in another state or two houses down. Frankly, I doubt they would really care all that much. I'm not saying they couldn't track it back eventually if they worked at it long and hard enough by why would they? I'm also not suggestion you go out and blatantly violate the law; I'm just being realistic here.

Unfortunately I can't go the first weekend of October as I have drill that weekend (TN State Guard).

Funny you should mention the ACOG as I just (as in two days ago) sold the ACOG I bought for my SCAR as I decided it was simply more than I really needed.