btq96r

I can sort of understand the Mayor's decision in this one.  Letting the rage burn itself out is a technique.  I'm not saying it's the right one, but I'm also not saying it's the wrong one.     I'm sure the Baltimore PD and other agencies are being stretched thin with the situation, and I wouldn't be surprised for them to conclude that they simply don't have the numbers to secure every place, and instead need to focus on key infrastructure in the city.  They may also want to keep LEO's from being spread out too much number wise, in light of the current threats being discussed.   I know we see these types of actions and think in terms of action/re-action, but you have to look at the whole board, including how much manpower you have available to meet the threat in the days to come events.       Doubt it.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that police don't have a Constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm, so I'm fairly sure property or business won't be able to carve out a case.

I'm  putting together a cheap man's SPR build, and I've been considering using an A2 stock on it, instead of the standard six position w/SOPMOD buttstock.    Your experiences are making me like the idea more and more.

If I had a bigger truck, I probably would have. But in my Ranger, my leg would have been brushing up against it on my side, and likewise if I have a passenger and it was mounted on their side.

It's his choice, personal freedom works like that.  It only has a direct impact on his family, friends, and of course E! Entertainment. 

  Things like that are the inherent danger when an agency with a wide ranging mandate like ATF is stood up.  Since power is never relinquished, only compounded, it adds up fast.  I really think there is a chance with a Republican Congress to knock some of the power they took, by putting clarifications or definitions into the USC and CFR here and there, tucking it into legislation the President has to have. 

This one is a tad interesting.  I doubt it goes through the process as a stand-alone bill, but it can be merged into any BAFTE related legislation easy enough.  Whether or not Republican leadership will push it forward is a different question.    I'm hoping the regulatory stuff can be rolled back in bits and pieces with ideas like Rep. Black has.  The President needs a budget passed, and Congress can attach checks to executive authority and agency overreach on "smaller items" such as this without giving the President an issue worth vetoing a budget he can live with otherwise. 

Calling it 95% done. The current rig holds up suprisingly nice with just one bolt. I still want to find a 2nd bolt with a head that sits lower on the inside of the holster, since the ones I got rub up against the side of the gun in that position. I can also take the entire ash tray in and out with the holster in there. I'm very pleased with the progress so far.

I'm fine with it being so open since my main concern is reaction time in a crunch. My oversize ass, sitting in the confines of a Ford Ranger, makes reaching the holster on my body, or having to get inside the center console a complication. I'll transition the gun to my OWB or IWB holster if I'm carrying it outside the vehicle, or lock it into the glove compartment if I'm going somewhere I can't take it with. Haha, go for it man. This is a DIY project, not something I'm about to patent. We're of the same mind on the visibility being a non-issue. Thanks for the inspiration. I found a simple way to get it out by holding down on the top part and pulling it right out. Kind of embarrassed I didn't find it sooner. Now I'm going to see if I can get some screws/bolts with fasteners and washers that will marry flush to the two holes in the left hand side of the holster where it attaches to the paddle, to the plastic frame of the ash tray holder. Hopefully it will be strong enough to hold during a draw, which I will test about 100 times before I trust my life to it. Here's where I'm at now with this project.

So, I've been toying with this idea for a nice way to have my handgun accessible in my 2002 Ford Ranger- I want to mount a holster inside the ash tray that I never use. Problem is, I need to figure out how to, 1) get the ash tray out, 2) get the holster bolted, screwed, whatever in place, and 3), putting the whole rig back in. Not being a car guy at all, I'm hoping you guys can troubleshoot my concept, and let me know just how must trouble it will be, or if it isn't even feasible. Any and all questions, comments, & concerns welcome. Here are some pics so you can see the concept I'm thinking of.

  Society has a way of dealing with people who don't submit to police authority.  If someone is resisting arrest, there's a tack on charge for that called...wait for it...resisting arrest.  I'd say there is a chance this guy could have been charged with it given the circumstances, but since he's dead, it's a moot point.

There are two threads in this sub-forum alone already discussing the topic.

  The guy was handcuffed and in leg irons for his transportation.  What level of threat does he represent that can't be handled by trained officers at that point?  Walk me from him being restrained in cuffs and leg irons to an 80% severed spine and explain why him running factors into it.

  Whether or not running from the police is a good idea or not shouldn't even enter into the equation, at all.  You keep bringing it up, and it has the "thug got what was coming" vibe to it.  It doesn't matter if he surrendered peacefully or resisted arrest with armed force, basic humane treatment of those in police custody has to be the same across the board, or it causes problems.       Neglect basic care for prisoners in your charge is a recipe for disaster within the community.    The criminal (read: accused) getting the benefit of the doubt is a legal protection....innocent until proven guilty and all that.

  No joke.  I'm considering a nice shoulder or tankers holster for bike riding along the Murfreesboro Greenway.  Would make it a lot more accessible than putting it into my CamelBaK for my ride.

  The "if he was not guilty of anything why was he running" line is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which are the conditions this man was treated to while in police custody.  Even his alleged crime doesn't factor into that.   From a Fox News link The Gray family's lawyer, Billy Murphy, said "his spine was 80 percent severed" while in custody. It's not clear whether he was injured by officers in the street or while being carried alone in the van's compartment.   I'm not medically smart enough to know the amount of trauma it takes to sever the human spine that much, but the fact that it happened to a man in police custody warrants an investigation.  If there is anybody found to be responsible for negligence, intentional or accidental, there needs to be consequences.  A community has the right to demand that.

  Yup.    Whel I ordered my EoTech, I took advantage of a Primary Arms promotion that added a maginifer and mount with it at a discount.  Was getting giddy over having it all set up, then I saw how huge the reticle was under a magnifier and lost my chub for it.  I ended up selling the magnifier and mount to a fellow TGO'er.

  Best two comments in the thread here, especially the 2nd part.  If you want to use a shotgun for home defense, you need to train as often- probably more- than you do with pistol and rifle.  I'm man enough to admit that I'm nowhere good enough on a shotgun to use it in a home invasion scenario.  So if I'm woken up in the middle of the night, I'm reaching for a pistol then and there, and my SBR if I exit the bedroom.   I'll just add that if you're of mind to confront the danger rather than wait it out, you need to practice your clearing techniques and movement plan just like you practice the trigger pulling.  If the first time you go through the motions of clearing your own home is during a home invasion, that's dumb on you.

  I've never been a fan of the exemption for dogs to make a sniff without probable cause or a warrant.  It's a search, plain and simple in my mind, and one that is grossly misused via the war on drugs culture.    SCOTUSblog is theorizing the court may be chipping away at it, and I'm all for it if true.       I'm not at all surprised at Justice Thomas being in the minority on this.  He's consistently voted in favor of law enforcement with regards to 4th Amendment cases that come before the court.

Rob, that is a true work of art.  You are rightly proud of that beauty.

  I don't think the word means what you think it does.  But please, don't stop trying to denograde me with a catchy word for having a different belief.             The 2nd Amendment, as originally drafted, was only a matter between the federal government and the states. 

There are already a bit of changes from the books, most minor ones with a few major ones.  So far, they all seem okay, but I'm withholding final judgement till I see how the changes play out with the stuff they kept.

Sorry to bring this back so many days after, but I had a weekend mostly away from a keyboard.       I don't see the law as unconstitutional, thus it's two wrongs in my mind.  I get that we disagree on that however, and I'm not trying to convert your thought on it.       In his A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1825), William Rawls wrote this:   A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.   I consider background checks in line with the the state adopting the regulations he was talking about.  After all, if the person in question isn't qualified to serve as militia, why should they have a weapon to begin with?       I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I not going to push for it.  Consider me neutral on the subject.  Though I can see the benefit of using a registry to trace a gun to determine if someone is buying guns for criminals once a registry has been in place for a while. 

  I get that this Sheriff's jurisdiction has a lot more important things listed on their priorities of work and can't go out solely to deal with this issue, but law is still law, and if a violation of such is in front of you, they you enforce the law.       Two wrongs don't make a right.  As mentioned earlier, I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think background check laws are unconstitutional as long as a background check can be run in what I'd call a "time now" fashion.   If you want to become a criminal should something like this ever come to pass, that's on you.         Going to a local gun shop, or any other FFL with access to TICS and the process is easy enough.  Doesn't add a step that isn't already there for a LGS, or internet purchase.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of this becoming a standard, but I'm not opposed to it either.   My "Statism stops" when the government wants a quantitative edge over the population with regards to arms, because I think that's what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was about.  If there are weapons banned for civilian use, they need to be banned for law enforcement/military use as well.  If cops and troops have them, civilians should be able to get them on the open market and own them.

For a handgun permit?