monkeylizard

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.

I think any response you get here will be very skewed. By virtue of it being a gun board, pretty much every LEO member here is by definition a gun enthusiast. You might be surprised at how few LEOs fit that category. Lots of cadets have never fired a weapon before they get to their police academy training and don't get bit by the gun bug. Their duty weapon is all they own and they only shoot enough to qualify.   ETA: cross-post

2 words: ninja stars

Besides the tactical issues, don't forget that if you are involved in an SD shoot, no matter how clean you think it is, you could face charges if the DA thinks otherwise, even if it's in your own home. Consider how the weapon used by you will play before a jury of non-gun-lovin' people.   Whatever you decide, create a plan and practice it.

You're good to go for an in-person buy of long guns in TN from an FFL. No special TN state restrictions.

Now's a good time to be looking. From now through November, you'll start seeing things go on sale as the 2014 models come out.   +1 to a real bike shop.

He forgot his green sock that day.

I know, right? So how many TGO'ers think it would be cool to build a machete slingshot after seeing that picture? I'm guessing "more than half." I love this place.