Marswolf

Thanc yoo fer yore expirience.

As someone once said about my older brother who couldn't spell worth a damn, "His spelling doesn't matter. He's so smart that he'll have a secretary."

Well this topic has been a surprise so far. Normally I'm the only one out on the end of the plank supporting the way NRA supports gun rights. I dropped membership in the GOA years ago because I considered them off-the-wall. That was before I discovered the nature of their bigot executive director. But that's an ad hominem. If nothing else, the GOA is just ineffective while the NRA actually is able to get some things done. I think they (NRA) are right in this particular legislation. I don't want loonies to be able to legally obtain a gun. And in the current atmosphere after Virginia Tech, there IS going to be a change in the law. The NRA actually has gotten some significant concessions in this matter.

I think this should give a good indication of how our members feel and think about transfer costs. It should be useful information to people in the gun selling business. Why chase your customers to other dealers? Yes...I know...you don't want customers who want to buy this way. But they will probably feel the same way about you. I don't know what the deal is on the free guy. Maybe he's just doing it a a favor to other gun buyers. He really didn't sound like a dealer. Probably someone grandfathered in who is just a gun enthusiast. I've wondered why some gun club doesn't set up a store open to the public at the club building and not charge members anything but the state fee. All they would have to do is break even and the overhead would probably be negligible. That should increase membership too. If you buy a few guns each year, the club membership would essentially become free.

I just started a poll on this at http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1499.

This is an offshoot of another thread. How much are you willing to pay for a firearm transfer? A quick check ranges from free up.

Veering off topic for a moment.... Tower, the Best Man in my wedding was a buddy who is currently a Captain in Iraq. Back then, he was a sergeant. The minister was also a friend. He happens to be Black.

Hyaloid, I'll have to remember that tinfoil hat comment in regard to the NRA. Everyone gives them hell for not "standing firm" against the anti-gunners, but never are able to give them credit when they do things like help save the Tiahrt Amendment protecting our privacy from people like Bloomberg. Here are a couple of links that masquerade as pro-LE pages against the amendment, including one TV ad. Google "tiahrt ad" for more nonsense. NRA helped get the "public service ad" pulled from a number of stations. Be sure to note who placed the ad at the end. Ad Gun Guys The NRA doesn't joust at windmills as some people want them to do but instead picks fights they can win. I think that's pretty smart. Tower, I agree with you on the civil disobedience angle, but less on the basis of principle in this case than practicality. I just can't protect myself if my gun is in the car rather than at the dinner table with me.

Unfortunately, I interact with LEOs all the time who misunderstand or just don't know state code. It's part of our job to help educate them.

First, we need to keep this place friendly. This isn't a pissing contest. The issues raised here are I think valid about the level of training required for obtaining a carry permit. I also think the matter of rights versus privileges is valid. My conclusions (I seldom give "opinions")? You are born with rights, such as the right to protect yourself. No document bestows rights and no government may legitimately take away a right. So, in this country, regrettably, there is no legally recognized right to have a gun, regardless of what the US and Tennessee Constitution say. The right actually exists, but that right is trampled on by government. I think the minimum requirements for obtaining a carry permit are fine or perhaps excessive. It gives a bit of legal background about when you may legally carry and when you may not. That's useful and every citizen should know the law. The actual gun handling qualification part is a joke. You could be blind and spun around three times and still pass. In my view, just handing out a publication telling you the law would be adequate. And I see no need for a permit. It's an expensive good citizenship certificate, not an indication of ability to properly handle a handgun, especially in a bad situation. And in case anyone is wondering, yes I have been in a bad situation involving guns and bad people many times in my life. I will claim real-world experience in that area. What I will tell you is that if you visualize a situation and train for it, when the time comes you will probably be able to act. But you don't know until you get there.

It's pretty well know around here that i don't like Glocks. But the reason is not accuracy. They can be very accurate in the right hands. The biggest problem in accuracy is almost never the gun itself.

Yeah, welcome Mugster. Somewhere around here is a thread about where members are from. I'm a native Tennessean, but I think we are in the minority.

Well Kingfish, thanks for doing your part. I think a lot of people are surprised when they find out that representatives actually listen to them. Politicians like the PAC special interest money, but they are more interested in actual votes to keep them in power. But people have to learn that if you don't contact your representative, they can't listen to you.

A couple of points here. If you carry unlawfully in a place that serves alcohol and are caught, you can be charged. But, if you have to use that unlawfully carried gun to protect yourself in justifiable self defense of a crime against themselves or others, you will not be charged: 39-17-1322. Defenses A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim. [Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.] Second point - if you want to change these bad gun laws, you have to work at the grassroots to elect people who will support and vote for such change. Ranting here won't fix it.

It was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hey, I;m old enough to actually remember these things. From the above referenced AG decision, page 3: Further, the State of Tennessee is immune from suits unless the General Assembly has specifically waived the state’s sovereign immunity. See Tenn. Const. Art. 1, § 17, 1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a). The General Assembly has waived the state’s sovereign immunity through the Claims Commission in certain circumstances. Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307. If a claim against the State does not fall under one of these categories enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1),2 then the State is not amenable to the claim. No category under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1) appears to apply to an injury to a permit holder as a result of the holder’s being denied the ability to carry a firearm. As a result, the Claims Commission would not have jurisdiction to hear such a matter

I think this will answer several of the questions posed in this thread. http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2004/OP/OP20.pdf

Well, I don't know of any cases, but Tennessee does have the right to bear arms in its Constitution as well as that Federal 2A thingy. A case certainly could be brought based on that. All things considered, I'd think it was a waste of time and money though.

I have a friend who is in law enforcement. He uses a "Tupperwear" compact Glock 23 and can do smilies with it on a target at 100 yards. Compact plastic guns are as accurate as the shooter wants to practice to make them.

I think this is a major reason the Tennessee Restaurant Association (TRA) opposed a change in the law. This way they have less liability whether you pack and shoot someone or get shot by someone in a restaurant. The matter is out of their control. The decision is that of the legislature. If they have an option, they incur significant additional liability whichever way they go in permitting or forbidding carry. Of course the legislature could relieve them of that civil liability if they chose to do so.

You know, I've always been a supporter of the civil rights movement, but I'm not a supporter of a lot of civil rights laws. While I have no use for bigots, I can't see that it is a right of society to make their bigoted actions illegal in regard to their privately owned property. If I own a restaurant and only want to serve minimum six foot height male Hispanic cigarette smoking gnomes to the exclusion of everyone else, I should be able to do so. The pertinent question for me is whether it is private or publicly owned, or operated, property. If private, I think the owner has a right to set any standards and requirements he wishes, no matter how irrational or foolish.

Not if the bus was privately owned.

The way I see it, you shouldn't have to give up rights in order to do something that sustains life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You don't give up free speech or gun rights in order to breath or eat, but telling a business they have to allow any given amount of free free speech or gun carry or other right in order to be in business seems an infringement on the rights of the individuals who own the business. This is one reason I oppose smoking restrictions forced on private businesses. The businesses and customers can decide if they want to be around the smoke. It's none of the government's, or busybody citizens', legitimate area to dictate such a rule. That's how I see the guns in restaurants matter. The government may not legitimately ban guns in a restaurant, but the restaurants have a legitimate right to ban them as a condition of serving you. I won't eat there if they do, but I'll defend their right to do it. And I will respect their wishes by dining where I can protect myself and my family.

We have a right to eat at restaurants?

Could we move this out of the realm of religion and the absurd and back to practical considerations?

I agree totally with you Hyaloid. Unfortunately I don't think most of the American people agree with us. They want some restrictions on citizens possession and use of weapons. The reality is that we are going to have some restrictions. I just want those restrictions to be as few as possible.