btq96r

The whole discuss it or not was for EssOne, ref. post #56. We've railed against our states screwed up perception that gun owners are criminals until proven innocent, but I really don't see why an officer has to disarm a citizen absent a cause. If I can produce a valid HCP, that should be enough to prove I've been vetted through the system. At least that's the BS they feed us while we fork over cash. Absent an HCP, or making threats by all means, disarm and arrest someone. But you're right, that's a legislative issue. Stopping someone is fine with probable cause, and in the case the positioning of the bikes plates would justify it, which could then lead to questioning about the guys actions in the store. But if the officer was truly concerned for his safety, why wasn't his weapon drawn from the outset? Why no commands to place the weapon on the ground while the officer used the cruiser as cover? From getting out of the cruiser at the 1:50 mark, and disarming the biker at the 2:15 mark, all he did was talk to the guy, including the line at the 2:00 mark, where the officer tells the biker he saw him come out of the store "with a gun on your side and a helmet on. That looked suspicious." So the officer knew this guy had a weapon before he even got out of the cruiser, and for 25 seconds, the officer didn't give any commands regarding the weapon, but then decides he needs to disarm the biker once he is is distracted by taking off his gloves to retrieve his drivers license so the officer can check it. Given that, I'm having trouble understanding when exactly the officer developed a (to paraphrase TCA 39-17-1351) reasonable belief that the bikers gun posed a threat to him, the biker, or anyone else. Absent that I come to the conclusion that taking the bikers gun wasn't about safety, it was about either being afraid of an armed citizen, or he just feels like an LEO should be the only one armed regardless.

  That in itself is a big part of my issue.  It shouldn't be that way, not if we're going to preserve the intent of the 2nd Amendment.    Now if there is belligerence, or an apparent safety issue, by all means, disarm someone.  But don't do it because you want to be the only one with a gun.

  If you don't want to discuss it, fine.  I'm not being emotional, just calling it as I see it.  Even the slightest impairment is still an impairment, it's not a matter of degrees.   I'm just surprised that on a website that is in no small measure inspired by the 2nd Amendment, that people are okay with a citizen who has a carry permit being disarmed absent any evidence.

  What danger did he reasonably believe/perceive during the stop.  I'm not buying it in that video, because the guy didn't show any hostile actions.  Did you see anything suspicious from the biker?    License plate not mounted right on a bike, common enough and good reason for a stop.  But the justification end's there, IMO.  Open carry alone isn't cause for suspicion, he could ask to check the permit, and that's quite alright, but to go straight to disarming someone shows me contempt for the right to carry.    Sorry if I came across as only implying it, I absolutely think police officers are required to submit themselves to higher degree of dangers because of their job.  They're professionals, and professionals should be held to higher standards.  The LEO had his hand on his service pistol, the biker wasn't acting unreasonable in any way, so I think the LEO had control of the situation.  What was running around in his mind may have been a different story, and then we have an issue of police who are afraid of armed citizens, or the public at large.  Which is an entirely different problem set.         I can see the bikers reasons for open carry.  If he was wearing enough safety gear, it may not be the easiest to CC a gun in.  Regardless, the point is the fact that open carry, a perfectly legal option in Tennessee and it was at least partly the cause for an LEO to disarm a citizen absent any other evidence.  Very uncool in my book.       I cannot say how much I completely disagree with that.  Justifying a loss of rights, even temporally, is a dangerous precedent to set.  Don't police officers take an oath to support Constitution?  How do you reconcile that oath with taking away someones rights absent a trial?

  The day I had Morton's Steakhouse outside mess up my order, I knew it was best to just leave making steak to myself. 

The Scorpion has been on my want list for a bit now.  Only thing stopping me is the cost.  I wouldn't SBR it, just keep it as a pistol for versatility purposes.  For a 9mm, I could only see using it at 50yds max, more realistically 25 and in .  Why waste the time and money to SBR something I can shoot without a stock to shoulder well enough at that range?  There is also the wait you need to do for the 922r compliance kit before it's legal.   Put a decent red dot on top, load a full mag with JHP's and I think it's a great home defense weapon.

  I'm the same way, I only order steaks on a rare occasion, and only from a top notch steak joint.   I'm not a fan of rare or medium rare, instead I enjoy medium well or well done.  Good luck getting that from a franchise steak place without having the outside covered in black burn.  But at home with my grill or in my kitchen with a pan and some olive oil, I can do it just right by my tastes. 

  I get all that, I really do.  I don't disagree that officers have the potential to be shot at at any point in the performance of their duties.  But as I'm a big fan of saying, their safety isn't supposed to supersede citizens rights.  I'd submit that's means increased risk is assumed by virtue of the job itself   To me, disarming someone without cause runs counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm supposed to be able to be keep and bear arms to protect myself against government tyranny.  Kind of hard to do so if said government can disarm me at will and without justification.    I really wish there was a standard to allow it or not and the officers had to explain and justify any disarmament of a citizen carrying in accordance with the law.  Might help put the issue in perspective.

Biker should have shown us how his plate looked from a few yards away to give us perspective on the stop. That would have helped a bit.   I get that the police have the legal authority to disarm someone for officer safety with no reason needed, but nothing in that video justified it for me.  The bike rider wasn't combative, belligerent, or anything that would indicate danger.  Also, you can make out that the officer has his hand on his weapon from stepping out of the cruiser, so he already has the advantage on the draw.   It's my right to be armed.  I even had to meet a series of standards to prove to the state that I'm deserving of that right.  Seems the biker did so as well.  For a police officer to casually dismiss someone of that right "just because" gives me concern. 

  Same here.  I've come to think of TGO as a community as much as an online forum. 

  Concur.  Imagine how upset he's going to be if he ever gets to the White House, and then has to deal with an uncooperative Congress.   One thing to remember is that his company, The Trump Organization, isn't a publicly traded company, it's structured as an LLC.  So Trump doesn't have a board of directors or shareholders to worry about or keep him in check.  That gives him a lot of latitude in how he runs things and has to have fed into his personality.  He won't get the same operating standards with Congress.

Wrong button... :drunk:

San Fran is on my personal list, for all the reasons you mention, plus I want to sit out on a boat in McCovey Cove, listen to a Giants game on the radio, and hope to see some home run balls come into the water. I'd also take in a game inside the stadium, as they have a great beer selection from what I hear.

  I know I'm not too keen to get sent there.

  While it would be awesome to get everybody together for a draft, it wasn't really practical last year.  So what we set up was an online draft where you simply logged into ESPN's fantasy site, and a "draft room" was set up for us.  You just clicked to make your pics.  It only took about 30 min if memory serves. 

https://www.airbnb.com/ Pick a place on the bucket list and see what's available.

  I'm sure the APR makes it an attractive option...compared to a loan shark. 

  I was in a keeper league one year, but we had an offline draft so it was easy enough to claim your guy from last year.  For our league, we would basically have to call draft your keeper in the 1st round.  If others want to go that route, we can take a look at it.

  Still cheaper than paying for both sides of the automatic appeals.    He'll die alone, forgotten, and irrelevant.  That's not nothing. 

For all the guys who were in it last year, I reactivated our fantasy league.  Please let me know if you want to play this year or not.  Our league was set up as a 12 team league, but I can expand it to 16 teams if anybody else wants to play.  We had a lot of fun with it, and the competition was pretty good.     We also need to chat about how much each owner is willing and able to chip into a pot.  I'm thinking $50 max, and would like to hit that to make it a great prize.  I dropped the ball on this and want to do it right this year, so I have a few questions that I'll post in the open to see if maybe our resident lawyers and sponsors want to help...   1)  Is it legal we pool money to pay for a firearm where the winner of the league is the one who gets to take possession of it?  If the winner is in the area of the vendor, they could come pick it up, and if not, it could ship FFL to FFL.  Either way a 4473 would be completed by the winner.   2)  Is there a sponsor willing to be awesome and sell us a firearm at dealer cost, or at a decent enough discount to where 12 guys kicking in, say $40-50 each could pay for a Glock 19 or VP9 maybe?  Those are just off the top of my head. 

Trump:  No shock moment, which was the shock.  I pissed myself laughing at the Rosie O'Donnell comment, but he blew the bankruptcy question.  He should have compared his bad investments with bad government programs saying we need to cut our losses and walk away from them like he did the bankrupt businesses he has on his record.    Bush:  Playing for time...he knows he has the money to outlast most of that stage, so he's not going to go strong in the 1st debate.   Walker:  Wasn't as aggressive as I thought he would be, kind of a meh night for him.   Huckabee:  Not bad, but not good. I don't see staying power from him, however.   Rubio:  Great job making the most of his time; probably what he and his team drilled on based on what I saw.   Carson:  Had good answers, but needs to be more assertive to get that "strong leader" aspect.   Cruz:  Came across as a weasel to me; I really think he should have stayed on the legal side of politics- he could have been a future Republican SCOTUS nominee instead of getting into the legislature and running for President with his pedigree.   Paul:  Getting lost in the crowd, and isn't pushing the libertarian message that brought him to the dance well enough.   Christie:  Needs to drop out riki tik; did nothing for himself tonight.   Kasich:  Fairly good, you can tell he's been in a debate before.  He's hoping all the God talk will resonate with the base that might be seeing him for the first time.

  Sooner or later one of those zip-ties will snap and whoever is next to or behind that car will be dodging engine parts.   Thanks for showing us the pics.  Now that I can recognize it, I make sure I'm not anywhere near that thing on the road.

  How is that thing road legal?

  Colorado also has a very large military population in a small area between Denver and the Colorado Springs area.  Fort Carson, a few Air Force bases, the HQ for U.S. Northern Command, the Air Force Academy...a lot of military population for someone to target.  Just something to keep in mind for trend tracking if this heads further south in the area.

My AT&T service is working.  All the spam callers are making my mobile ring just fine.