monkeylizard

  FIFY!  :hiding:

Fly them enough and you start to hear the same lines from different crews. I've long suspected that SW provides a list of approved jokes like that. My favorite that I heard over 15 years ago now was a song that a crew out of Austin did on occasion on a Nashville to Baltimore leg that I used to fly a lot.   To the tune of the Oscar Mayer weiner song:   Oh I wish I were a honey roasted peanut That's what I think I'd really like to be For if I were a honey roasted peanut Then I could fly on Southwest Air for free.

  This. I still say WestEnd/Vandy is a much better location. Opryland is a restaurant and activity wasteland. Besides the mall, the Opry, and the gardens inside the hotel, there's not much there.   $126/night at the Opryland hotel is a good rate. Pack some Pop-Tarts or you'll be right back to your original price once you pay for breakfast in that place.

I've made the grass smoke a little at Gallatin gun club when I hit an unseen rock that was hiding out at one of the berms. It's very possible, especially in dry conditions. If it had been a really dry time with some wind, I could see that having  gotten out of hand in a hurry.

$550 OTD is a fair price. I consider any more to be overpriced and any less to be a good deal.

  Yeah, this is what I was wondering too. Can't the officers search his locked case without a warrant if they have probable cause? Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines that as a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. I'd say the po-po had a reasonable amount of suspicion based on location, manner of dress (body armor), rifle-shaped case, and recent mass-shooting events. I suspect that most prudent and cautious people in this situation would believe that he's carrying a loaded rifle and is about to unleash a world of hurt on a group of people, creating probable cause to search the locked case.   Since one or more of them knew who they were dealing with, it might have been a bit more prudent to detain him while waiting on a warrant before searching it to save themselves some hassle from him later, but ISTM that they did have PC in this instance.

  I don't disagree with what he's questioning about our laws. I really don't think very many of us do. How he does it is critically important.   Let's take Belle Meade for example. No, he didn't break a law. Yes, it resulted in an outdated law being officially stricken from the books. So what?   Real world impact: It was an unenforced law* so getting it removed from the books was just clerical work. It's not like he suddenly instituted Constitutional Carry in Belle Meade. What's worse is that it gives fodder to the local news. During this latest dust-up, WKRN wheeled out the old footage of his Belle Meade stop and said something to the effect of "Embody was arrested in 200X in Belle Meade for walking down the street with a gun in his hand." No mention of what the law was at the time, nor that his actions were perfectly legal. They don't need facts. They have a person they can paint as a lunatic gun owner. Three guesses what they might do with that.   He possibly could have accomplished the exact same thing by setting up a meeting with a BM councilmember and pointing out the antiquated law and asking them to bring it up in the next city council session to have it removed. You know....the normal way of having laws changed. But whether that particular law was removed or not is totally irrelevant because nobody does that except for him trying to prove his point. Keep that law, remove that law...it makes no difference to anyone.   *I've long heard that some TN towns have a law on their books stating that if a woman is driving a car, a man must walk in front of the car waving 2 red or orange flags to warn pedestrians and other motorists. It's like the BM law in that it's really old, it's unenforced, and nobody cares. I suppose some women's lib group could protest that law by doing exactly that and holding up traffic (follow the letter of the law) but it serves no purpose. Nobody does that and women aren't being cited for not having their "warning man" in front of them. So who cares? All it would do is make the women's lib group look like a bunch of crazy people if the media were so inclined to paint them that way. Guess who they like to paint as crazy people...Only one guess this time and it's not women's lib groups.

I'm a regular in the TripAdvisor Nashville forum and this question comes up quite a bit over there. None of the hotels downtown (west of the river) are dumps. Even the downtown Best Western is clean and neat, but not fancy. Priceline's "downtown" zone includes MetroCenter, so be mindful of that. You're taking a risk that you could end up out there if you use Priceline for a downtown room. Most people that use Priceline seem to get some good rates in the Vanderbilt/WestEnd area. I've seen recent reports of the Courtyard going for about $75, but that will vary by time of year and what events are going on in Nashville. Many of the hotels in the Vandy area have both free parking and free shuttles to downtown. Call a few and ask. With only a couple of exceptions, all of the hotels in the West End/Vandy area are good.   The Opryland Hotel is fun for tourists to walk around the big gardens, but the rooms are bog-standard convention hotel rooms. I personally wouldn't spend more than $100/night for one. If I was looking at a $150+ budget, I'd look at the Hampton Inn downtown and Hotel Indigo on Union. The Holiday Inn Express on Broadway is a good choice too if you can get a good rate. It's about 4 blocks from there to the neon zone that begins at 6th Ave.

He was taken to St Bernard's hospital? Surely this is a joke.

First, if you have collision coverage on your policy, call the insurance company back. It should be covered. Second, get a new insurance company. Third, i don't know if they handle much in the way of classics, but Tom Bannen in Madison has a really good body shop. They work on non-GM stuff too.

I'm pretty sure distributions from a memorial fund count as a gift to the surviving heirs and is not taxable income to them. Donations to the fund are not tax-deductible for the giver since it's not an official non-profit organization. Your bank that set it up should be able to tell you that.

  Yeah, I see what you mean. a-1 says it applies to everyone, and a-2 expressly includes HCPers. I'd ammend my earlier post then to remove the HCP requirement and say, yeah, it appears that by the letter of the law a posted property is off-limits to everyone.   There are a couple of exemptions that 39-17-1359 includes, but none of that would exclude either the person who posted the meeting or property, or LEO. I don't see anything in 39-17-1315 (the LEO stuff) that expressly overrides 39-17-1359. I'm not suggesting a LEO would be charged, or a shopkeeper in their own shop, but as a purely cerebral exercise in how the laws are written, yeah, it looks like 1359 applies in both cases. Yet another example of how screwed up our gun laws are.  

  Right, but that exemption for the person at their place of business is in 39-17-1308 which provides defenses to 39-17-1307. The question in the OP is if it's also an exemption to 39-17-1359, which is a separate offense from 39-17-1307. Nothing in 39-17-1359 says the person posting/business owner is exempt from 39-17-1359.

  My response to that was "why do you need two, three, four...of the same Vera Bradley purse"?   And that boys and girls, is why Mrs. 'lizard and I do NOT question what the other spends their budgeted mad money on. It's better for everyone that way.  :)

<<as Oh Shoot points out later, 39-17-1359 applies to everyone, not just HCP holders. I'm leaving my original post here as it was, but I'm wrong in this post about it only applying to HCP holders>>       Here's the way I see it.   If the shopkeeper is not an HCP holder, then no, they are not prevented. 39-17-1359 only applies to HCP holders.   If they're an HCP holder, then it gets sticky. 39-17-1308 is where we derive the defenses to a loaded weapons charge under 39-17-1307. Among them are 39-17-1351 (HCP) and a person's place of business. Note that it also lists 39-17-1315 which is where LEOs derive their legal defense to carry loaded. So this question equally applies to any LEO who also has an HCP, not just a business owner.   39-17-1359 simply says it applies to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351. AFAIK, an HCP holder is authorized under 1351 so long as the HCP is valid. You don't cease to be 1351 (HCP) authorized when also being authorized by 1315 (LEO, etc) or another 1308 (place of business plus more defenses) authorization or vice-versa. You just have more than one defense to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1359 doesn't make any reference to 39-17-1307 and creates its own misdemeanor charge totally separate from 39-17-1307. If I'm right then anyone with an HCP would violate 39-17-1359 if the location is posted and they carry, regardless of what other 39-17-1307 defense they have.   That bold part above doesn't say "who is carrying pursuant to 1351". It just says "who is authorized". I wouldn't think that HCPs jump in and out of validity based on someone having more than one 1307 defense.     Here's an idea... If you know the shop keeper also has an HCP, call in a complaint and be an eye-witness of the misdemeanor. Maybe this can be a way to get a different kind of 1359 test case.  :popcorn:     *Does "the person's place of business" extend to employees too, or just the owner?     Edit: To add disclaimer at the top

Another in the "I don't" camp.   We budget ourselves mad-money each month as part of our household budget. We don't question what the other spends their mad money on. If I haven't saved enough in my own mad money fund to pay for it, I don't buy it.

  I disagree. The Kahr PM9 is smooth like butter and has no external safety. A little longer on the reset than a Glock, but a nice feel to it.

    Actually, that makes the G26 into a G19S (for Short)   Spiffy's method gives the longer barrel length of the G19 with the option of either G26 or G19 grip length. Yours gives the concealability of the shorter barrel (more comfortable IWB) with the same options of 2 grip lengths...and no need for a hacksaw :)   I've carried both the G26 and the G19 and I have a 92FS. I'd never carry my 92, but I know there are TGOers who do. It's too big and heavy to be comfortable to me. Between the G26 and the G19, I can't tell a whole lot of difference in weight with the right holster setup. The G26's grip being shorter helps it hide better under a shirt without printing too much. Either a G19 or a G26 is a great choice for OWB. For IWB, I'd take the G26 to have less barrel in the way when sitting. For IWB, I prefer a single stack and love my Kahr PM9.

  FIFY, but DaveS kinda beat me to it.   :)

If feature #3 (low recoil) is really important to you, a .308 bolt may not be a good choice. My wife will never shoot my .308 bolt because it would hurt her and she'd never trust me at the range again. She shoots .22LR rifles and .223 AR-15. I hear a .308 semi like an AR-10 is somewhere in between an AR-15 and a .308 bolt. I've never tried one, so I can't say for sure.

Not to mention used Doublestar ARs at close to a grand, and that was way before the panic set in.   Poor service, poor selection, high prices. Yep, not surprised.

No, you wouldn't be charged, well not for violating any part of 39-17-13xx. TCA is pretty clear on that.   TCA 39-17-1322 says:       "part" refers to 39-17-13, so it applies to any 13xx.

Carrabba's is owned by the same comapny that owns Outback, Fleming's, and Bonefish. They all have the same wishy-washy signage. My wife likes Carrabba's too much for me to make that a fight worth having.

  That would be incorrect. From TCA 39-17-1359       In the case of Thoroughbred, you could legally carry through the front doors, but not beyond the ticket booth, assuming the content of their posting would hold up under a 39-17-1359 challenge. If the content wouldn't hold up, the sign might as well say "have a nice day". We won't know until it hits a court case, and so far there haven't been any volunteers.

  Yep, that's what the man said. TCA 39-17-1352 requires that the HCP be suspended or revoked for a conviction of 39-17-1351 through 39-17-1360, which of course includes 39-17-1359, the statute on posting.   If I recall correctly, the wording in 39-17-1359 replaced an old statute that was more vague in its posting requirements. 39-17-1359 says the posting has to be plainly visible, located at every entrance used by the public, and must contain either the circle & slash "gunbuster", or language substantially similar to a phrase provided in 1359 that specifically cites TCA 39-17-1359. In other words, "no guns allowed" doesn't meet the content requirement of 39-17-1359.   When OS says that there's nothing that says you can't get popped for a 1359 violation even with an improper sign, it's because 1359 leaves out a clause that is found in the federal code. In 18 USC 930 it says at the end in section (h)       It's sort of a mixed bag. The USC doesn't have specific language requirements, but does say that if what posting requirements it does list aren't met, then no conviction. TCA has very specific requirements, but doesn't have the get out of jail free card. Without case law, we really don't know how a 39-17-1359 violation might go down if the sign in question didn't meet the content requirements, or what exactly "plainly visible" means.   A simple reading of the law would say that a normal person going about their normal behavior would see the sign and that it would be a gunbuster OR have the legalese language which also cites TCA 39-17-1359. i would expect a defense lawyer to use the fact that 39-17-1359 replaced the earlier vagueness to show that the legislature did very much intend to standardize how a public facility may properly post and that they should have to comply with the content and location requirements of the law. I would equally expect that a prosecutor would use the fact that "no guns allowed" is pretty dang self explanatory. Until we have an actual case, we won't know which side has the better lawyer.