molonlabetn

A business with restricted access is not 'open to the public', though... by defenition. It is essentially a 'club'. Business owners are certainly able to open a club, and restrict access however they so choose.

I'll have to go look it up, but this was the reason for Wal-Mart backing out of their restriction on carry in their stores. An elderly lady with a permit was forced to leave her weapon in her car, and she was robbed while leaving the store... she sued Wal-mart BIG time.

Exactly! She had no more right to be there than any other paying customer... but she had no LESS right to be there either. The measure for eliminating discrimination even in this cases of choosing to sit in a particular place in a particular bus were evenually won! And, I don't think anyone can refute that she was right to stand up (or, sit-down, as it were) for herself.

That's actually how I see it as different, compared to smoking... The act of smoking indoors is continually and detrimentally affecting the health of everyone around them (this does not mean I support the restriction, mind you). But, noone has the 'right' to smoke in such a way that it affects other peoples' health. Bearing arms is a right, one which is protected by the Constitutions of the US and TN. As long as I'm not infringing on the right of those around me to life, etc... they hold no sway over me.

Did Rosa Parks have a right to ride in the bus?

No. Of course not. But, doing so should not require other rights to be stripped from us, or those who choose not to, to be effectively discriminated against. Resturaunts invite the general public to come to them. If they want patronage to be exclusive, then, make everyone they serve fill out an application for membership... otherwise, mind their own business.

I think it goes back to the question of whether a Business or Government actually has rights... or whether just the individual people who coexist within them do. I don't think that a 'business' has any authority to infringe mine, any more than a government does. But I do think that the owner/employees/customers within the business have the right to their (false) security. There is a difference. It is not acceptable to implement broad restrictions which discriminate based on individual choices of people to exercise certain rights. Allow each airline to decide... hell, allow each pilot/crew to decide. What if Applebees decided to only allow (or specifically dis-allow) Honda owners in their parking-lot and restaurant? Somebody would sue them, and win. Some say "just go to another restaurant"... well, I can't do that if they are all off-limits! Perhaps alcohol should be banned, so that no resturaunt could serve it and thus prohibit me? Of course not! That would be 'unfair' to people who wanted a drink... Well the same logic applies to my access to self-protection.

What if there was a law against free speech in restaurants or commercial aircraft? Should the majority of consumers be allowed to dictate how and where I exercise my rights? Collective rights are what the left would have us believe are all we have. Not so. The Bill of Rights applies to individuals.

It is immoral to allow a scumbag to rape and murder my family just because of a wrong law.

While that is certainly true, even Christ himself would not stop doing what he was sent for... the truth that was within himself. He did indeed stand up to the authorities' will. He only submitted in the form of accepting his punishment. And he did that for all of our eternity, not for respect of the law. The law was merely the mechanism which he used to bridge the rift between God and man through sacrifice.

Well, to look at it another way... Rights are more often given up voluntarily than infringed. No-one else is responsible for preserving my rights, but me. I will exercise them, and do whatever is necessary to retain them. There is no God-given or documented promise that exercising ones' rights would be easy or cheap. The struggle for them is only undertaken by those who can and will. Those who cannot stand up for their own rights individually should find strength in numbers... But those who will not, have no right to expect others to fight for them. As it stands now, no individual could stand up to the resistance to our liberty posed by the elements currently aligned against them. So, regardless of whether or not some of you intend to exercise certain freedoms which the rest of us do, it is in the best interests of all to uniformly stand against any and all imposition. Whether it is against restriction on specific areas we can carry (regardless if you individually intend to do so) Whether it is against restriction on specific methods of carry (regardless if you individually intend to do so) Whether it is against restriction on what, specifically, we can carry (regardless if you individually intend to do so) The right of self-preservation is essential, I don't want to be around people who wish to restrict that, even in their own domain... but if I am invited to be around them, they should hold no sway over my life. If that is unacceptable, let them rescind the invitation. Doing so should be viewed as being 'closed to the public', since, any business/property which can pick and choose who to allow does not cater to the whole public... only eligible members. If a bar is off-limits to certain people whose rights are intact, they remove the element of personal responsibility from those who do enter. Free-will (even to do something inadvisable), is an irrevocable part of the human psyche. Punishment for causing harm through irresponsible actions should be the only social control.

Laws don't prevent crime... they define crime. Enforcement doesn't prevent crime... it punishes crime. Fostering and empowering personal responsibility among good people prevents crime... but even then, there will always be evil people. That's why I carry a gun.

My hotel room isn't 'open to the public' after I've paid for it. As to the lobby... That sounds like a grey area, I would guess that it may depend somewhat on whether the hotel itself has the liquor license, or the restaurant which uses a dedicated portion of their space... Since, you aren't supposed to leave the licensed premises carrying an open container. You can't walk out of a liquor-serving restaurant into the adjoining mall carrying a drink either. So, I would presume that they are looked upon as separate entities. IANAL.. perhaps there is one who can clarify?

I've heard good things about Midway USA... They have a good selection.

If that is the case, then I shouldn't have to pay tax on used firearms.

It helped that I only lived in NY until I was 2 y/o... I grew up in Arizona and TN... I am not 'of' the south, but I love it just the same.

Welcome! I was born a yankee, myself...

Obviously this is not something which they actively enforce... From what I gather, this effectively would make any private transaction, even in-state, taxable... This could shut down yard-sales and flea-markets across the state!

This one belongs to my wife, RedHead_1911: RIA Loaded Tactical 1911.

That's a good one... I'd forgotten about the M&P! You can adjust the grip size using inserts with those.

Seems to me they are simply trying to get as much 'bang for their buck' as possible... Same as you or any dealer does, only from the other side of the equation. Either party has the right to say 'no' to transactions in which they cannot see any personal benefit. There is always someone who will fill a perceived demand in the marketplace, either as a buyer or seller... Sometimes that forces one or the other to adapt in order to survive, or take advantage of evolving opportunities. Most people spend money with specific businesses for one of two main reasons: 1. The prices were lower/have greater availability... or 2. The products/services received were exceptional.

True, from the short barrel you're only losing 100-150fps using hot 9mm over low-end .357sig. The difference will probably not be a deal-breaker. The grip on the XD service isn't much bigger than the grip on a millenium... but it is noticable. I can conceal mine without issue.

At least the full-auto issue is most likely to be a poorly done trigger job... Since, I believe anyways, most Kimbers are series-80 mechanisms. That would mean that the firing-pin safety had been deactivated.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1459 I'm asking $500. That's easily what these are going for on gunbroker.com & such... It's a bi-tone (stainless slide), in great shape, and I've got a nice leather Don Hume 721OT and belt to go with it (saddle brown). Comes with 3 factory mags, Hogue grips, and recently tuned up (all new springs in the gun and mags, new grip screws... factory Sig parts). It's a shooter, too... Very fun. If you're already into the .357sig caliber, it's worthwhile to experience it out of a real Sig