RobertNashville

No, you didn't misunderstand.   Now, I don't think our or any law can or will protect you from having a suite filed against you, hence, be prepared to spend some money, but if the shooting has been ruled to have been justified (not just not prosecuted) then no civil suit by the thug's family can win under current TN law.   This is one instance where Tennessee has one of the best legal protections of any state for those who use deadly force to defend themselves.

I'm afraid (well actually I'm very glad) that you are quite wrong on this issue. Since I'm sure you won't believe me then perhaps one of our fine attorneys will come in and explain why.   It will not protect you from, for example, a stray shot that hits some innocent bystander but the thug's family get jack squat.

Probably the very same thing that happens when Congress passes laws that are clearly unconstitutional.   We have at least arguably unconstitutional laws regarding free speech right now...we know we have unconstitutional laws infringing on the second amendment.   The country has an obligation to live up to any treaty it promises to live up to; if we don't then why should any other country expect us to ever live up to any promise we make and if we don't then why should they???

What was (and I think still is) the largest Amish community in the country is in North/central Ohio around Berlin...when I lived in Ohio I made a trip up at least a couple of times per year to shop.   You could usually tell the which shops were FOR the Amish community (with real Amish goods) vs those that were mostly there for the tourists.   Real Amish goods is GOOD STUFF!

Just my $0.02 but unless a person can only afford to properly maintain one or the other (by maintain I mean buy ammo for, etc.) then I think both the .223 and 308 have a role in a person's firearm collection.   If I had to chose only one it would probably be the .223 as I think it's a better all-around caliber, especially for HD purposes.  That said, it would be a difficult choice.

You might want to check out Able Ammo...I think they have better prices and more to chose from.

Let's see...this is the same senate that want's to give amnesty to about 20Mllion criminals...is about to reauthorize billions of dollars for food stamps after being unable to cut ever one half of one percent from projected growth in the program (after food stamps doubled under Bush2 and then doubled again under Obummer)...this is the same senate that couldn't produce a budget for four plus years...   Tell me again why this senate won't ratify this treaty and why this is all posturing???

I purchased a motorcycle through eBay for around $4K.   I didn't have a problem at all but as has been said, the seller had great ratings and I used PayPal for the protection they offer...the transfer went off without a hitch; the only problem was that he lived in Chicago which meant I had to enter communist territory. ;)   I sold my 2004 350Z through eBay as well and that was a $16K transaction; again...no problems.   It's pretty much like anything else, whether you are buying or selling look at the person's ratings and other sales/buys...if you get a "funny feeling" then back off.

They will work with you regardless of any physical limitations. I'm overweight and have a bad right knee and there are simply some things I could not do. DON'T LET NOT BEING IN PERFECT SHAPE stop you from getting the training.   In fact, I would argue that those of us with physical limitations (whether from weight, ailments, age or all the above) need to know how to fight with our firearms even more than someone who is young and healthy.   Make sure you weapon(s) are in good shape and clean...have plenty of ammo (although I never really used as much as they said to bring)...have an open mind.  Every trainer there is for real and not just some mall ninja bad-ass-want-a-be.   You will get tired...thirsty...may need a snack so plan accordingly!   I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the class when you are done...I've taken the two day Fighting Rifle but not the Way of the Rifle and I'd like to know what you thought of it.

I agree with Massad Ayoob in that the armed citizen has a duty to avoid confrontation whenever possible.   Sometimes that means taking insults, being called names, etc but better that than letting some sort of argument or disagreement get to the point that words become fists and fists become a shooting; "justified" or not.

I absolutely agree...you have to follow the law FOPA before it can be relied on; it's jut too bad that in some socialist states like NY and NJ they just ignore it.   I too am especially bothered by the problem that can arise when flying and traveling with a firearm and, for example, your plane gets diverted to NYC or some equally draconian place...that's one of the reasons I avoid flying commercial whenever possible.

I guess you "can" if  you want to but I wouldn't.   I'm not going to inform them of anything...I'm going to try and disengage and if I can't disengage and I'm being threatened I'll have to make the decision to draw or not.

As a theoretical issue I fully agree with you...as a practical matter, the people of a state can pretty much vote/pass for any law they want.   The only protection against unconstitutional laws is for someone with standing to sue and get a high enough court to agree with the plaintiff...I guess that's one of the reasons I have some trouble feeling sympathy for folks who live in states like NY or IL or NJ...while I know there are good, decent, Constitution-loving people in those states; the laws they have to live under are pretty much what they (as a whole) have voted for.   There comes a time when each person has to decide if they'll put up with the status quo, do something about it, or perhaps move to a state that still has some (or at least more) respect for individual rights/liberty. That's one of the reasons why, over 16 years ago, I decided to move to Tennessee with no job and knowing virtually no one who lived here!

Zimmerman's case will be very interesting to follow once it actually gets going...there has been at least some evidence that the thug-want-a-be was going for Zimmerman's gun and also evidence that Zimmerman had disengaged (was heading back to his vehicle) when he was jumped by Martin. I just hope, whether Zimmerman is found guilty or innocent, that they find a way to provide a fair trial and that all the facts come out.

In Tennessee being sued by the "family", while always a concern, is almost (note the emphasis on almost) a non-issue.   The key is not just to not be prosecuted for the shooting but to have it adjudicated as a justified shooting - once that's happened you have what I believe in Tennessee is an iron-clad affirmative defense to any lawsuit.   What you MUST be prepared for anytime you discharge a weapon is a lot of attorney fees...I carry specific insurance to help cover that risk but bottom line is, if you shoot someone you should expect to need an attorney (and a good one).

There was a great article a few months ago on the issue of disparity of force and the simple answer is no, you don't have to be within seconds of death from a beating before you can respond with deadly force.  The problem is that many DAs and juries don't always understand the concept of disparity of force and/or don't care and will prosecute anyway and juries may convict anyway.   Remember, that in most states the standard is a "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury"...but it might fall on you and your attorney to educate a DA and/or a jury about why the 200lb 60 year old was in reasonable fear for his life or injury from a beating he was getting from some unarmed 180lb 16 year old thug-want-a-be (especially when the thug-want-a-be's pictures on Facebook are all replaced with pics showing how cute he was when he was 12. ;)

State vs Federal is always going to be a balancing act....transporting firearms (or anything else for that matter) across state lines seems to me to be an appropriate use of federal power to ensure that everyone is treated fairly although, of course, you always run the risk of really bad federal law.   While I don't "like" the firearm laws in many states, if the people of that state have chosen to dictate how/when/if a firearm can be carried in public I think they have a right to do that...it's up to the residents of those states to change their own laws if the laws are unfair or violate the 2A.  But, no state should be able to bar the possession of arms at all or have such draconian laws that people effectively can't have them and I'm ever more convinced that state law should not trump federal law when it comes to transporting across state lines/through those states.

 Agreed, five years just for possessing the firearms (assuming he was not otherwise restricted from owning them) is awfully steep although it looks as if he bears a good bit of the responsibility for what happened!

This yet again raises the question of how these states get away with completely ignoring federal law (much less the U.S. Constitution).   I don't understand it...I'm not sure I want to.

Yet another example of a government agency that exists and since it exists, it must DO something and in typical government fashion, they address a problem with half-assed measures that really do nothing worthwhile at all.   I don't drink anything and drive...period; I don't need some government bureaucrat telling me how much I'm "allowed" to have.

 Now Mike, I hope you have better plans for the Zombie Apocalypse  than that!  :) After all, the average sheeple family doesn't have enough of or the right kind of food in their pantry to last out a one-day snow storm; liberal sheeple have even less because they KNOW that the government will ALWAYS step in and save their sorry buts.  Didn't we see exactly that play out in New Orleans after Katrina???     P.S. Awfully funny post though. ;)

:blah: Yeah...well you claimed about 3 pages ago and a couple of times in the intervening pages between then and this post that it was your last post and you were leaving the thread.   But yeah...leaving is best when you don't have the facts or the law on your side. :hat:       

No one has said you can't ask...what YOU refuse to understand (your references to not being a stranger to Ohio law notwithstanding), is that the citizen has ZERO OBLIGATION to answer you question or provide his name at which point, the investigating officer has ZERO AUTHORITY to keep investigating without reasonable suspicion of a crime.   Your "can of worms" comment is exactly the kind of attitude that has no place in the mind of someone who wears a badge.

Others here have been kind enough to specifically cite Ohio law, Ohio State Supreme Court decisions and Federal Appeals court decisions to support what I and others are saying and absolutely disagree with your opinion.   As such, it seems pretty obvious that you put your opinion not just above the law but above the constitution...that's troubling enough when a citizen does it but at least an individual citizen has little power to screw with other people's lives.   It's beyond disturbing when someone who, if memory serves, has claimed to be a LEO does so; it reflects an attitude, in fact a very dangerous attitude, that has no place in a law enforcement officer.

I never said "you said it"; I was extrapolating based on your statements about "how do I know he is legal to carry a gun"..you have no more reason to investigate if he is legal to carry a gun than you do to stop a car just to see if the driver has a license.   And yes, I know you've said it over and over; it doesn't matter...a LEO can ask and a citizen has NO OBLIGATION to answer and that, per Ohio law, is where the "investigation" should end.