monkeylizard

AIUI, over the years some of the Metro PD Academy bosses have tried to save some of them. They retain them as "training aids" to teach new recruits how to properly secure obscure firearms. Sometimes that's legitimate like an AK or a top break revolver. They're not the most common thing the average patrol officer will come across, but some will certainly have to handle one at some point in an arrest. Other times I think someone simply recognizes a valuable, significant, or rare firearm and can't stand to let it rot away or be destroyed like maybe a rare Colt or a Garand. I think they have a Thompson there too. If Metro PD won't/can't return them to their rightful owners, at least someone's getting something useful out of them.

IBTL!

Nah, they're just using S&W's Quality Control team for this one.

That's some pretty funny photoshopping right there.

<<double post>>

That's generally how rumors start . . . e.g. I heard that a famous person in Hollywood went to the hospital with gerbils in his anus. I'm not naming names, but does anyone know if that's true?

Just because you didn't name a manufacturer doesn't mean you didn't post a rumor that one may in fact be lobbying for a ban.

Taco Bell was funny, but Little Caesar's killed it! Cracker Barrel was too close to home . . . I've been searching for a specific Colt for months now and "leaving you standing out in the lobby FOREVER while you’re trying to eat there" kind of hurts . . .

Smith & Wesson is the company you're thinking of who's in the process of relocating here but isn't operational yet. Barrett is also here down in Christiana, but I doubt there are many home-brewed .50 BMGs out there eating into their business. Plus their typical customer isn't one who needs to roll-their-own to save a buck.

I remember thinking the plastic ring 6-shooter caps were for the rich kids. $/cap ratio was way worse. Paper rolls were all I ever had.

She is afraid of the dark, the light, and hair.

https://regulations.atf.gov/479-62/2019-06264#479-62-b-2 Section C at the bottom of that page: In the city it's the chief of police. In the county it's the sheriff. The unofficial way to determine it is to ask yourself "If I dialed 911, who would respond?" That's the police agency serving your location and your CLEO is the head of that agency.

Thanks Chip. That's what I was trying to say above. You said it better.

I think threats of the ban hammer, or at least public shaming, have been threatened to anyone reposting K.C.

Is @Chucktshoes actually the Kentucky Conan, all grown up now?

Agreed. Fear is the wrong word. Belief is the right word.

Either way you slice it, the mindset of the defender is always what's in question. At the moment the trigger was pulled, did the defender have reasonable fear of imminent death/serious bodily harm to themselves or others?

Wrong. Use of lethal force always 100% hinges on whether or not you, the defender, had a reasonable belief that death or serious bodily harm is imminent. If someone breaks into your house with you inside, it's presumed they're there to do you harm and it's presumed that's the mindset you're in. It does not guarantee they're there to do you harm or that you think they're there to do you harm. The facts can support or refute the assumption afforded to us in the law. Again, away from home in a place you're legally allowed to be, you have to prove points A, B, and C below. In your residence.dwelling/business/vehicle, those are presumed to exist and the prosecutor has to prove they're not true.

Again, it's important to point out that Castle Doctrine "presumes" a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily harm. The facts can refute that. Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill. In a nutshell: If you were not in your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle you have to prove you were in fear of your life/serious bodily harm. In your residence/dwelling/business/vehicle, under Castle Doctrine the law presumes you were in that state of fear and the prosecutor has to prove you weren't.

But Overhaulin' doesn't have sad guitar music . . .

For the OP, that's terrible advice. Any decent investigator would find this thread and be able to easily show the actual intent of a straw purchase. For anyone else reading this, the advice is still promoting an illegal act. It's only going to work if you and your parents are all going to hold up to police questioning and are all willing to lie under oath and commit perjury to protect you and themselves from a felony strawman gun charge, albeit in the very unlikely chance it would come to that. Or take the much BETTER advice above and be fully legal in one of 3 ways: Wait until you're 21 Buy a handgun from a private party Your parents buy it with THEIR money (not a dime comes from you) and they either gift it to you or allow you to borrow THEIR gun.

No lowballers! I know what I have!

I had the one on the right back in high school and college. I have no idea what happened to it. It was either lost in a move or it's in a box in my storage room waiting to be rediscovered.

Jack's is good. It's not the best in the city (Peg Leg Porker has the best pork and Tex's has the best brisket) but it's a solid choice.

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't hold up to real scrutiny. First, if we're going to say that statues and monuments are about education then for every Columbus Square and statue we'd need something to show the devastation to the locals that European colonization brought to the New World. For every Washington and Jefferson, we need a Crown Loyalist to show we were NOT a united country at the time. For every symbol of westward expansion we'll need to reconcile the near-genocide that came along with it. For every Lee, NBF, and Stonewall statue we need Lincoln, Grant, Harriett Tubman, MLK, and enslaved people monuments. Then we go to meddling . . . for every Vietnam War memorial, we need a peace and anti-war sign and statues of protestors. But let's keep on meddling . . . For every 9/11 memorial we need a plaque saying that America deserved it for our oil-grabbing Imperialism policies, or because we're infidels, or whatever reason anyone might think. Or let's get some feathers REALLY ruffled . . . For every fallen officer memorial we need a Defund The Police/BLM marker. That's what it would mean to teach EVERY perspective through our statues and monuments. Not only is it not practical, it's not good public policy. Second, the statues aren't creating dialogue. All I hear is shouting and it's impossible to have dialogue when everyone's shouting. The folks who think the statues are about history and are filled with pride by the legacy they symbolize can't hear their neighbors who feel like second-class citizens every time they pass by those same statues. Likewise, the ones shouting that everyone who likes the statues are a bunch of white supremacists can't hear that many of the supporters see them as representative of less government not slavery. If the statues of the Confederacy need to remain so that dialogue will continue, maybe we need to think hard about exactly where those statues should be so the shouting can become dialogue. By its nature, our public spaces, particularly government buildings and their environs reflect who we are and the ideals we seek as a people. But all humans are flawed. We seek to showcase the finest qualities of humanity like courage, loyalty, and the desire for freedom even when it's a misguided vision of freedom framed by the times. Or in some cases like NBF, the people memorialized in our public spaces can represent our ability to grow and change to such an extreme that we can be unrecognizable as who we were before. We need to ask ourselves - When we see that the men and women we've held up as examples of those ideals are flawed in such ways that they no longer inspire us as a community to achieve those ideals for ourselves, do they still deserve a place of prominence in our public spaces? Are we better served by studying them in a more reflective and contemplative location like a museum or a battlefield instead of idealizing them? Having a divisive monument without proper context (like the NBF on I-65) doesn't create dialogue, it only deepens divides. Our unique-in-the-world 1st Amendment has allowed us to create a unique situation with these statues. Nowhere else in the world do they have a plethora of monuments to the losers of a war. Outside museums and memorials to the fallen soldiers (usually within cemeteries), you don't see Hirohito or Yamamoto statues in Japan or Mussolini statues in Italy or Batista in Cuba, especially not erected AFTER the war. That would be crazy, right? Italy actually took an interesting approach. Much of the fascist propaganda and statues/carvings were destroyed, but what's left now remains as a reminder. Not to support a fascist past, but to avoid a fascist future. Maybe we could learn from that. How can we as all Americans use our Civil War monuments from both the blue and the gray to help us remember the terrible cost of letting our divisions grow so much that we start shooting each other?