molonlabetn

Here's the thing though, if he has no reason to arrest me before he requests me to disarm, and I non-violently refuse, he still has no lawful reason to arrest me. If he chooses to arrest me, unlawfully, then he will unquestionably be compelled to use greater force than necessary to do so, since I have passively resisted thus far. Either way, the law is in my favor. I would not break the law to remain out of custody, but I wouldn't need to if the arrest was unlawful, to begin with. As I've stated before, most cases will not be worth taking 'all the way' right there on the street, but my case would be solid for legal action afterwards. I'm not looking for this to happen, but I'm confident that a firm, lawful, response must be upheld once that line is breached by the officer.

I'll second that... If it ain't true, then it must be a vast right-wing conspiracy.

My wife and I had some errands to run, last stop was Hastings to exchange a DVD rental... I was openly carrying my XD. We spent about 30 minutes trying to decide on what to get, had a nice discussion with another woman who had the same dilemma of what to pick. No concern at all about the gun on my hip... we were all friendly and polite. I had noticed one of the employees following me around, but avoiding eye-contact... he eventually disappeared, but saw him again running the check-out. As soon as my wife and I queued into the line, with 2 customers ahead of us, he glared at me and loudly announced "If you're not an off-duty cop, you have to conceal that" I was taken aback at the rudeness of his demeanor... but I calmly replied to him. "I'm just a guy. By what law do I have to conceal?" "I... I just thought you had to conceal..." I took out my permit, looked apologetically at the other people in line ahead of me, and showed him that it is a 'Handgun Carry Permit', and the law makes no mention of a requirement to conceal. After explaining this, I asked him: "Is it store policy to request customers to conceal?" "No, no, and I don't have any signs posted that would let me enforce it" "Because, if it is store policy, I would be more than happy to never return" At this point everyone in line, who he is holding up to have this conversation is looking at him, and he's getting red in the face... "I didn't think you were a threat or anything." "That's okay" I smiled "I'm harmless". He didn't say another word or make eye-contact with anybody as he checked everyone out, in (the now very long) line. I didn't intend to embarrass the guy, he brought it on himself... It was pretty obvious that everyone else in the store, within ear-shot, thought he was out of line. My wife went ballistic as soon as we left the store ... "Did you see how he was talking to you!!!?"... "I should call Hastings Corporate right now and let them know how they treated you!"... I Love My Wife ... She spent the next hour telling me that she wants to get her permit now, because of one Hastings' clerk's ignorance and impertinence. "Next time I'll be right next to you with a gun on my hip, so you won't be alone..." I wish that was a more common mentality.

Very true... for all but the most basic, or dedicated failure training specific to one's firearm, it would even make alot more sense to invest in .22lr conversions for the pistols and ARs when shooting in such high volumes. Just my take though.

When it finally arrives, mine will be $.14 a squeeze...

Best News I've Heard All Week!

It's always a trade-off... Is the hardest part of your Sigma to conceal not the grip? Reducing the grip size and weight means sacrificing capacity. Most pocket 9mms hold 6-8rd, but you will be more apt to carry it with you, instead of leaving it at home. Carry a spare magazine, and you will still have more than a dozen cartridges at your disposal. Another option might be Smart Carry

Having your gun with you is the most important thing at this point... And although carrying off-body is not ideal for many reasons, it would certainly be better than nothing. I have no experience carrying off-body, so I really have no suggestions in that department... I do encourage you to carry in the manner which is most effective and secure for you. Another alternative would be to get a handgun which is lighter and more compact than your SW9VE, which is a bulky pistol. Perhaps a Kel-Tec or Kahr would suit your specific needs better? Best of luck!

I made no claim of 'equivalence'... by saying that Jews killed 'their fair share' it was meant that there were Christian missionaries killed in noteable numbers by mobs and put to death by the Sanhedrin during the first several centuries. After that, the persecution of Christian was overwhelmingly carried out by other groups. Perhaps my choice of words was misleading, I can swallow that, but it is impossible to deny that it happened at all, or even insignificantly.

There are TN AG opinions on most, if not all of these questions... if you care to look. You might be surprised.

That's exactly the point, when the cops are 'doing their job' within the constraints of the law, there is no need or justification to resist. I have never tried to argue that there is any... Neither have I advocated 'killing a cop' over simple, temporary disarmament ... I advocate resisting unlawful arrest with equal force, as outlined in federal and state law. Hyaloid's response is parallel to my own thoughts on this. Where do you get that disarming a law-abiding citizen for no reason is not a civil-rights violation? Given the appropriate circumstances, when the police officer is doing his job and can articulate why that entails disarming me, I would comply without hesitation (and I've said that before several times). But, if I have broken no law, there is no requirement that I surrender my weapon. And, police may not arrest a person solely because they have a firearm (see TN AG opinion # 05-154) And, if I non-violently refuse to be disarmed, there is no cause to arrest me for 'resisting arrest' (see AG opinion # 00-147) Violence is only an option if undue force is used upon me. Be careful who you accuse of being 'clueless' on the law, sir.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. I'm glad that we can agree about that.

You obviously don't read all of my posts, or you would have followed a link that I posted earlier on to this: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm Here is the text: Additionally, from the most recent TN Castle Doctrine Law Summary: You are wrong, sir, and that is why I have responded yet again. Please check your facts before posting false information (which you accuse me of doing, though you have not cited your assertions towards the illegality of resisting un-lawful arrest... no surprise... you can't, because the truth is contrary to your assertion). Another thing. Having a permit (a 'priviledge', as you say), has nothing to do with the seperate issue of resisting false arrest.

You are correct... What I would be worried about though, is the clause which places a disclaimer on his exemption from liability if the shooter was engaged in any illegal activity at the time... I'm interested to see how deeply they dig after this little loop-hole...

So... you're expecting me to say that no Christians have been killed at the hands of Jews? Come on man... Here I am trying to simply point out that no religion is free from evil and corruption or victimization and oppression, and you want me to turn it into a body-count? If I wanted to do that, I would be citing all of the other death-tolls which are aplenty in the old-testament... which would be very similar (if not exactly) the same as the Torah. At least I am citing a source at all. To say that there is nothing remotely comparable to the persecution of the Jews is un-founded, at best. Truly horrible, in its own right, yes... but not especially unique.

Demon, How'd your 226 do? Ran like a top, I bet... Excellent reviews, guys!

This'll be the first one I'm aware of under the new Castle Doctrine legislation... let's hope that Mr. Gouge doesn't have any un-paid parking tickets...

I challenged you on this one and you have dithered and obfuscated. I have mentioned the first two Christians murdered by order of Jews, which were relevant to the point I made... and Nate followed up with the admission of Saul/Paul, which is accounted several times as one who put many Christians to death before his conversion. I'm not sure what more you want...? A 'death-toll' contest is pretty morbid. That's not the direction I intend to take this.

I suppose it is arguable, but without getting into a theological debate, I would submit that the true 'calling' or purpose of a Christian is to be 'Christ-like'... So, that would make a true Christian a copy of whatever you choose to call Christ, minus the deity-factor. In all actuality, Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, modeled after the teachings of Christ, which is rejected by most Jews themselves. If a group of people persecutes many of a different belief, or just a few, does that change the wrongness of it? Or just the scale?

I suppose it could be a cap & ball blackpowder revolver in a large caliber... many people who cannot legally own 'firearms' can own those. Though, there is no reason to believe that is the case.

I was referring to Christ himself. Sentenced effectively by the Sanhedrin, the execution carried out by Romans. The first 'martyr' Stephen, was also sentenced by the Sanhedrin and stoned. I don't think anyone could come up with statistics to prove which race/sect/religion has been the 'most' persecuted or most oppressive, in history... I don't have the insolence or gall to make that accusation.

Derived from English Common Law which specifies one's dwelling as their 'castle'... but as it pertains specifically to TN, it defines any place where one has a legal right to be as defensible, without duty to retreat. Perhaps "Stand Your Ground" is more befitting, and easier to understand.

This is how I feel, as well.

Disingenuous? The question was: "Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?" That can happen anywhere. I concede that the primary concern is when a LEO observes handgun carry... but the subsequent mention of no-knock entry is a true and valid point which broadens the scope of where these situations might be encountered. What is the point of Castle Doctrine, if we cannot defend ourselves equally wherever we have the right to be?

I think everybody gets the point that people of differing religions have been killing each other, more or less, for millenia... I mean, Jews have killed their fair share of Christians too... including the first one... I don't think there's any good argument for saying that a religion makes any given person better or worse, morally. At best, it is a type of education in virtue and principle, which might be argued in favor of some more than others.