RobertNashville

Regardless of what does or does not happen with this current "restaurant bill" I suggest that what the pro-Second Amendment folks ought to be asking the next legislature to focus on is the following... 1. Legislation that would mean a return to the concept that anyone who may legally possess a firearm may also legally "go armed" at any place and at any time EXCEPT that businesses and/or property owners may exclude firearms at their sole discretion by proper posting/signage. In other words, the state could no longer require anyone to have a HCP. That said, firearm owners could still obtain a HCP if desired so as to take advantage of the benefits of having one (namely, reciprocity with other states). 2. Legislation that would allow effectively eliminate the ability of an employer to force its employees, who may otherwise legally go armed, to drive to/from their employment unarmed. In other words, regardless of where you worked, you could carry while commuting and leave your firearm in your locked vehicle during the workday (assuming that the employer did not allow you to carry within their facility which should still be their right). 3. HCP data should be PRIVATE/PRIVILEGED information and not available to anyone without a court order/search warrant. 4. Legislation that would require the State to issue HCP holders to qualified applicants unless the TBI could prove that the applicant was not eligible to own a firearm/was not qualified. In other words, the burden of proof to show a person to be ineligible to receive a HCP would be on the State (currently, if the state finds ANYTHING on a person's record the burden in currently on the applicant to show they are eligible). I found myself in this situation due to an "arrest" from 20 years ago with no subsequent "disposition" shown (in my case, it shouldn't be on my record at all or should at least show that the trumped up charge was dropped). This required me to go back to the original court and get certified court documents from that long ago just to show TBI what happened. This change/concept is consistent with the the state being required to show a person is ineligible to purchase a firearm. If, due to a background check run by your FFL dealer, you are denied the purchase and appeal, the state MUST, within 15 days, PROVE you are ineligible or allow the purchase to proceed...I think this same concept should be applied to HCP applications. Ok...those are my thoughts!

I very much respect the wishes of private property owners (I have posts in this thread that ought to make that very clear). However, if specific signage specifications aren't important; why have them specified at all? I'm suggesting that if a HCP holder is expected to comply with a business owner's wishes, it seems to me that there should be some reasonable, minimal requirements for what the signage should look like/how big it should be and where the signage should be placed so that those of use who are carrying don't have to spend 15 minutes looking for a sign and/or guess whether the property is posted or not. Ultimately, the property owner always has the final say, posted or not and/or properly posted or not; which is as it should be! We had that situation happen here not that long ago when a HCP holder openly carried into a Carmike theater which apparently wasn't posted at all; was subsequently asked to leave by the manager and had to comply because once asked, he either had to leave or he would be subject to arrest for trespassing.

I'm curious as to your definition of "gung ho"??? Does wanting to ability to protect ourselves wherever we happen to be at any given moment, provided we are acting responsibly, make us "gung ho"? I am the first to say that being armed while drinking alcohol (or being impaired in any other way) is irresponsible and dangerous...that said, the fact that I may be sitting in an O'Charley's but not drinking should not be grounds for restricting my right to be able to protect myself (unless the owner's of O'Charley's don't want me to have weapons in their restaurant)...same with an actual "bar"...if I'm not drinking and am not acting irresponsibly then what exactly is the factual basis for saying I have no right to be armed? I say there is no factual basis...in my always humble opinion, all this is that all the talk about "guns in bars" is political hogwash being dispensed by those who hate guns simply because they hate guns (along with certain restaurateurs who are too spineless to take a stand, post properties and, perhaps, lose some business) and supported by legislators who are only concerned about not offending their political base/paying off a $$$ contributor. Such as these don't care about facts; they simply have a political agenda.

We have as much "say" as we want...the only person really stopping you or me or anyone else from doing something about a law or regulation we don't like is the person we see in the mirror when we shave in the morning. Yes, actually, I've owned a couple of businesses in my life and I'm very aware of all the laws and requirements burdening our businesses today. That said, you might want to take another look at the post you are quoting...I didn't say what the government is or isn't doing, I said "shouldn't".

They get away with it because the people let them. In this country...in a free market/capitalistic system, a "business" is a legal entity just like a person and has, in most respects, the same legal rights as a person. As such, the government shouldn't be telling a business how to run its business except in very rare circumstances. If I own a restaurant and I want my customers to be able to smoke, I ought to be allowed to do that...if I don't want them to smoke I should be allowed to tell them "no smoking". If I don't want them armed...or I don't want them wearing less than a suit/tie or I want to fry everything in bacon grease I should be allowed to do that...I decide how to run my business and the people can freely decide if they want to be customers or not. You have no more right to come into my business armed (if I don't want you there armed) than you do to come into my business and start yelling in a loud voice what you happen to think about the current president because while you have the "right" to "free speech" you do not have a right to force me or anyone else, to provide a platform from which to speak or an audience to hear you.

Personally, I've often wrestled with how to "define" a right. The best way I've ever heard to identify/define a true right from something that is not is that nothing can truly be a "right" if, by its existence/enforcement it infringes on the right of another or if IT can be infringed upon by the "right" of another. In other words, my right to go armed stops at the property line of another; if not, then I'm telling that other person that my right to go armed is more important than his right to use/enjoy his property the way he wants (effectively telling him that he doesn't have a right to enjoy his property the way he wants). I have no right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if, so you can exercise your right to freely practice your religion, you can sacrifice me on an alter of stone. Likewise, your right to free speech ends once you start writing or speaking untruths about me. As is was described to me, our "rights"; given by God and enumerated in the Constitution are all equally important and must be applied to all and at the same time but, as the old saying goes, your rights stop at then end of my nose (on in the case of this discussion, my property line). Further, in an age of the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, email/data mining, no-knock warrants, militarization of our law enforcement agencies and political correctness in and effort to not "offend" anyone/anytime/anywhere; our right to keep and bear arms is hardly the only right being trampled on and/or in danger these days.

I can't tell what you agree with and what you don't?

I would suggest that anyone stupid enough and reckless enough to drink while carrying a firearm (or drive a vehicle for that matter) is ALWAYS stupid and reckless and DANGEROUS to everyone around them whether they are sitting in a McDonalds, an O'Charly's that serves mixed drinks or a "bar". I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of laws created to accommodate the lowest common denominator! Responsible, law-abiding citizens not only should be allowed but by the Constitution have the right to carry firearms for personal protection; last time I looked, the Constitution didn't say "except for when they are in a bar" or "within 100yards of an establishment that serves alcohol. That said, my right to go armed does NOT supersede another legal entity's right to say "not on my property" but that is as it should be - you don't want me in your business on on your property armed, then just say so and I'll go somewhere else...why does it need to be any more complicated than that???

Firs of all, I am not and don't claim to be an expert. That said, I use the 223 Hornady TAP but there are others. As I understand it (and in some cases, observed) a handgun round, like a 9MM or 40S&W or 45ACP will go through two or three or more drywall walls of a home and can go right on out through the outside wall...ammo like the TAP round will fragment once it hits the first or second wall rather then just keep penetrating. It's also my understanding that it is for just this reason that law enforcement have switched to AR15 platforms and rounds like the Hornday TAP. A couple of months ago (or perhaps longer now) "Personal Defense TV" did an entire episode on this issue where they actually fired all the usual handgun rounds and then the 223 Remington through, first, multiple gallon jugs of water and then multiple walls of drywall to observer just how much each did penetrate/how each round reacted...there was little question that of all the various rounds tested, the 223 was the least likely to over penetrate. Of course, as I said above, we need to be accurate with anything we are shooting but I would suggest that in a life/death home defense situation, we may well "miss" no matter how much we train and try to prepare ourselves. As such, I think it makes sense to use a weapon with that gives the best chance of not over penetrating if we do miss. Again; I don't claim to be an expert and I'm not looking to start an argument with anyone...just posting my thoughts on the issue.

I used to hold the same opinion but no longer. Wile I have tactical shotguns (one of which I'm selling, actually), I've recently come to conclude that the overall best choice for home defense is a carbine (I have a SCAR but an AR15 platform is just as good)...shotguns are certainly lethal but they have an overpenetration risk. Handguns have an even greater overpenetration risk, even the lowly 38 special, but even the biggest handgun caliber is no guarantee of real stopping power/lethality without accurate shot placement (primarily meaning a vital organ or an ocular/cranial shot)...I do understand that accuracy is important no matter what you are shooting (including a shotgun) but my point is that a handgun round simply is not a good round for stopping a bad gun. We have and carry handguns because they CAN be carried and/or concealed...all things being equal who among us wouldn't prefer a shotgun or a rifle for personal protection??? A rifle with the proper ammunition not only has far greater lethality but also offers the least risk of overpenetration. At least, that's what I've come to conclude.

I think, perhaps, some people haven't read the OP's actual needs...he is looking for a home defense weapons for he and his wife that they can also use for concealed carry...I don't think a shotgun fits that bill very well.

I don't disagree with the sentiments above but I have a question... What have YOU done about it? By "you" I referring to anyone and everyone reading this post because WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for what our politicians and lobbying groups do or don't do...we are responsible for who we vote for and what organizations we belong to...we are responsible for not running for office ourselves if we don't see candidates running with a brain and a spine. I belong to many forums; some "gun related" and some not and I read post after post of people complaining about this or that...this gun law or that posted property which is all well and good but complaining doesn't do a damn thing to change anything. How many of us have ever actually involved ourselves in the political process...how many of us belong to any "gun rights" organization (NRA or otherwise)...how many of us have ever picked up a phone and called our state or federal elected officials or written an email or donated a few dollars to the cause?????? I would suggest that we all need to look in the mirror and ask some of those questions and answer them honestly. None of us can change things by ourselves but we also won't change anything by waiting for someone else to do it either.

I've spoken with Mark and if I buy that is almost certainly where I'll buy from.

Granted but if, say, half of my gun collection isn't in the safe (because I don't want them there for specific reasons); is having a safe for the other half really worth it??? That's some of the questions I'm asking myself.

How do you decide when you need a gun safe? Background: (1)No children in the home (2)I have a fairly small collection of firearms although what I do have is fairly “high-end”. (3)My home has a monitored alarm system – all windows, doors, open areas (including the garage) is monitored with various types of sensors this includes…this includes a monitored smoke/fire detector. The monitoring is done primarily by land-line but has a cell phone backup. Knowing all the above, I’ve been wrestling with whether I “need” or “should have” a good gun safe (both to protect from fire and from theft). To some extent, I feel that a responsible gun owner has a duty to do all he/she can to prevent his firearms from being stolen but is my alarm system sufficient for that? Would a gun safe really make enough difference to justify the expense? My other thought is that at any given time, about half of my collection is scattered around the house because while I don’t have my weapons only for home defense, I do want them always available for that task if needed; to that end, I always have one of my tactical shotguns in the living room area; my “office” has one of my 1911s in a “display case on my desk (fully loaded with spare magazines and ammunition) and beside my bed is another tactical shotgun and the 1911 I most often carry …the remainder of my collection is kept in the closet off my master bedroom. If I has a collection two or three times what I have now (and or if I was planning on acquiring many more guns) I don’t think I would need to think twice about having a safe but with the size of my current collection, I would probably only ever have a half-dozen or so handguns in the safe along with two or three long guns. I may buy more firearms in the future but I'm not a "collector" - I have what I have for specific reasons so if I buy more it probably won't be very many more and/or I'll be selling one to purchase another. So; after this long post; I’m seeking opinions both from those who did decide to have a gun safe as well as those who have specifically decided not to have a gun safe… How did you decide? What factors did you take into consideration? What do you think people should consider when making this decision? Is an inexpensive better than no safe or would you suggest to only buy a really good one or not at all? Thanks in advance for your insight! EDIT: I thought I should also add that I have a dog in the hose most of the time (although not 100%)...she is a basset hound (in case anyone hadn't figured that out!) and while she is not a "mean" dog by anyone's standards, to someone attempting to break in she sounds VERY mean and quite large. Again, she isn't going to stop anyone physically but I would suggest that she is at least a deterrent.

Maybe I missed it but I don't remember reading any post in this thread that said someone had to belong to the NRA. If it was said and I missed it then I could understand your prior statement; otherwise I 'm not quite sure that I do (not that it really matters all that much!). To be blunt, except when a politician is specifically addressing a firearm related issue, I don't think this forum is the proper place for comments, good or bad about those politicians - and same for politics/political comments in general...except for where politics specifically touch firearm issues I see no reason to bring political comments into this forum, whether one is talking for or against Sara Palin or for/against Democrats, Republicans, Pelosi, Obama, etc. The internet is replete with forums that are 100% geared to politics/political positions and that's probably where political comments belong...just my $0.02

While I very much disagree with the Sara Palin slight/put-down, I will concur that no one said anything about it being mandatory to belong to the NRA or any other organization. All of us can belong or not belong to any organization we chose to...if someone doesn't want to belong to the NRA that's fine; I happen to belong to it and several other organizations because I chose to do so and because I believe that each of the organizations I belong to, despite their faults, can do more to support and protect my/out gun rights than I or anyone else can do alone.

I disagree...while our nanny-state Federal government almost certainly thinks otherwise, an adult with even a moderate IQ is perfectly capable of taking such things as "places to shoot" into consideration when buying a firearm; it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to do that for him any more than it should be needed to tell people that hot coffer is hot. I mean no offense to the OP here...who among us has not done something only to later realize that we may have not thought through all the variables; I know I have (I've even spilled hot coffee on myself once or twidce)!

Nothing to forgive, really...it's all good. I don't know why things like this get under people's skin...it's like arguing about Camaros and Mustangs or Ford/Chevy trucks! People need to buy what they want and what they like - as I said a couple of pages back, I have a hand full of non-1911s but most of my handguns, especially my high-end ones are 1911s because that's what I like and what I've depended on for about 40 years now.

I don't think it's just "something that 1911 guys say" as was theorized above - I believe it's still true that current military users include, at minimum, Marine Force Recon and Delta Force. Beyond that, a lot of law enforcement agencies, including the F.B.I. HRT carry the 1911. The 1911 is a legend and for good reason...whether any one person likes it or doesn't like is really pretty immaterial; it earned its reputation from decades of successful carry and use and even many of the "new" and "modern" handguns incorporate may features from the 1911 because even with all the CAD and modern expertise, J.M. Browning created something both special and not easily improved upon.

At the end of the day, politicians are always going to be politicians. Not an excuse you understand, just an observation...the best we can do is keep pressure on and do our best to make "leaving the reservation" as costly for them as possible.

A reasonable analogy...I'd even suggest that more than politicians; the NRA is almost like a political party. Regardless of a person's political philosophy we are pretty much stuck with the two parties we have have - one will usually come closer to our personal position than the other one will yet even at that, they may be well off the mark for our tastes. However, we know that a third-party will usually only siphon votes from the party the is the next most compatible with our views and insure a win by someone who hods to virtually none of our views. I would suggest that our best chance for getting the "NRA" we want is to keep pressuring them to come around to our views; they've been around too long and hold too much power to simply ignore them and/or try to start over.

Yes; the change happened in 1986 if memory serves (thankfully, after I was out)...one of the very dumb mistakes our "modern" military has made in the past 25 years. The Beretta 9MM is a good gun to have...when you don't have a 45ACP handy.

You might want to check into this...I believe the firing range is closed during managed hunts and there is one this coming weekend (if I'm reading their website correctly).

This video doesn't surprise me at all. I carried a 1911 for eight years in the Navy using ball ammo and never felt like I was at a disadvantage should I ever have to use it. I generally (although not 100% of the time) carry a 1911 now. I own several 1911s; most now are "high-end" guns but not all and one is over 40 years old...I have no qualms about carrying and depending on any of them. I also own a Glock (31) and a Ruger LCR and a Sig P220...all good firearms. That said, I don't think anything on the market today can truly beat the design of the 1911. Besides, Dirk Pitt carries a basic 1911 and if it's good enough for Dirk it's certainly good enough for me!