GKar

Had a brief but interesting conversation with a TN legislator today. He believes there is quite enough support to fix this in the next session - that shouldn't be a problem. Under current consideration appears to be a blanket carry allowance for HCP holders in all eating establishments whether they serve alcohol or not, with no provision for a posting to disallow. This solves a myriad of issues brought up in the lawsuit: Vagueness - there is no longer a need to know whether it is a bar or a restaurant (addressing the specific objection in the judges opinion), and it heads off another point of "vagueness" that could be ripe for challenge: knowing whether an establishment serves alcohol or not, which is not always immediately discernable from the exterior. Posting-related hostility - since restaurant owners do not want to be held accountable for their own decision whether to allow carry or not, and would prefer to pass the buck/blame the law for the current state of affairs, this change accomplishes exactly that. Liability - if a legal review of the proposed legislation and applicable case law suggests liability concerns are still a valid concern, there would be legislative support for inclusion of specific liability exclusion language. So, as many have suggested, this development may indeed turn out to be a good thing. But it is important to communicate with our legislators, letting them know that their electorate supports their efforts to remedy this. Boycotts et al will accomplish very little...continuing to work with and support the first TN 2A-friendlier legislative body in decades will accomplish much more.

I've been real pleased with the SA Micro-Compact . Better than 500 rounds through it so far, and only a couple misfeeds back in the first 20 or so. Haven't found an ammo it doesn't like so far: WWB 230 FMJ, Blazer 230 FMJ, Ranger 230 SXT, Federal AE. Recoil really isn't bad at all. Several friends have tried it out, and it seems to be pretty popular.

As of 2pm (1pm Central) at the Tennesseean: "Nashville judge finds new state law allowing guns in bars unconstitutional due to vagueness." Details to follow. I surely hope the paper got it wrong...again...

Been working with a new-to-me 336 (with a 4-10x40 scope) lately, too. Like somebody above suggested, I first worked from a bench rest at 50, 100 and 200 using Federal Power-Shok 170gr softtips. When zeroed at 100, needed to shoot about 4-5" high at 200 to find the mark. Then I switched to offfhand, leaning against a post for some support. Certainly more scatter, but within a few rounds got to where I could put them on a 6" circle reliably at 100, most of the time at 200. Switched to Hornady 160gr LE's...at 100, shot about 3" high, and spot on at 200 while never moving scope adjustments.

Have an SA Micro-Compact - it just fit my hand better than the Kimber Ultra CDP version. Put several hundred rounds through it without any problems. Also, looked at several Kimber full-size versions before deciding on a Colt Combat Elite...again, the Colt just felt better in my hand.

Interesting thing popped into my head as I read this: <<Sure, innocent people get arrested, searches are made that are questionable, and cops make mistakes. But that is what the Court, Judges and Juries are for. >> While it is a good and necessary thing that these are in place, should not the real goal be to improve the system so that these "fixes" are eventually not needed - or at least, are needed less and less frequently? Yeah, I know that sounds like applying Quality Process Improvement theory...I guess it is. But it does seem to apply here. One important question, then: in instances where Court, Judges and Juries end up being a "remedy" for a mistake, are there feedback mechanisms in place to disseminate that learningto a broad audience so that future "mistakes" can be avoided? And is there a way (some sort of specfic performance measure, maybe) to see if that method of dissemination is effective? From comments RE smaller departments, it sounds as if any learning that may occur during the process may not get outside of the silo in which it originally occured..

I've had similar conversations with one or two Reps in this area. They both indicated that the parking lot bill will almost assuredly come up, and will require a lot of work a la the restaurants bill to gain passage. Outside of that, they seemed to think that other efforts would largely consist of tweaking/correcting flaws discovered in existing legislation. Small steps. Thats how many of the overarching situations arose, and unfortunately is how most of them will have to be resolved.

I have the .357 Big Boy - love the way it shoots! Dead-on accurate out of the box, and an incredibly smooth action. Mostly shoot 158gr semi-jacket soft points and they run flawless, but HPs do OK as well. It's not real fond of feeding .38 Spl, though (shorter case, I think).

Just received my Dakota Defender. Very pleased. Nice home for an SA Micro-Compact.

Hmmm...guess the Norwegians were still having their "obasm"...

Same process in Bristol. And the "mayorship" has been passed around like a...well, you fill in the blank...amongst the habitual politicians for what seems like eons. We did manage once to recall (kick to the curb) one of the gang just a few years back...and coincidentally, the city charter was amended to remove that ability this year at behest of the gang because the previous episode was "so disruptive".

Can we trade AGs? Maybe sweeten the deal by throwing in our governor, too?

Fincher talked several times about striking a balance - and his point seems bouyed by the fact that few, if any, of the firms so posted actually enforce their policy unless an employee actually brandishes a firearm in some manner - which is also an outright violation of the proposed law. As several folks in the House Cmte meeting pointed out, this law would not change (nor necessitate any change) in the way firms are actually operating, in the way they are presently enforcing their policy, nor in the manpower/equipment/procedures necessary to do so.

The manner in which it is written is really confusing (not that a lawyer would ever write anything confusing, huh?). I would totally agree with your explanation if the next paragraph didn't begin by stating that the cited Brooks case was on point...but I just don't know. To me, even the possibility that the failure of a municipality to properly post is irrelevant to the ability to be convicted is a strong signal that the law needs immediate revision to close that loophole: if municipalities choose to opt out, they must be forced to properly notify the citizenry. Of course, the best way to remove the loophole is to remove their ability to opt out (or hide behind some archaic pre-Neanderthal statute)...I'm just not sure our legislators have the belly to revisit it now.

Not so sure about #6. The way I read the AG's analysis, he is saying that the failure of a municipality to properly post is not a related element to the crime of carrying in a posted area (perhaps, due to the whole "It's illegal to carry a firearm in TN, and these situations are permissible defenses" thing): "Applying the reasoning in Brooks to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, as amended by Chapter 428, the posting of signs in parks where the carrying of firearms is prohibited is not an element of a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-1311. A handgun carry permit holder could therefore be convicted of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311 for carrying a firearm into a county or municipal park, where such carrying is prohibited, even if such county or municipality failed to post the required signs."

Just another thought: that area of the DBNF hosts some prime marijuana growing, and those folks play for keeps. Likley they wouldn't differentiate between DEA and Census, much less care.

Actually, if the legislature would fully recognize and grant private property rights concerning vehicles, that might solve several issues... To a previous question: my employer has an employee policy barring us from possessing a firearm on "company property". The facility I work at has two parking lots - one immediately adjacent to the facility, and one across the street. The only signage to be found anywhere is on the entrance to the lot across the street, and is not specific to employees. There is no "active" enforcement of the policy - in fact, one of the major players in HR mgmt indicated to me (with a wink) that he locks his carry piece in his car every day in that lot...kinda like the stuation Mr. Cooper described in yesterday's House session with the FedEx facility.

Interesting debate today - watched the 90 minute video. Stewart, Sontenay and Coleman...well, 'nuff said. Fincher was a strong proponent and made a point that many just don't seem to get - a sign is not going to stop bad things. Watson was trying to see both sides, and Dennis was really struggling with the property rights angle (he had some other good ideas RE liability immunity, the ridiculousness of some of the Chamber guy's statements, etc). The presenter from Chamber of Commerce vastly overstated some of the employer actions that he said would be required (more guards, cameras, gates). FedEx wanted to use the shock-n-awe approach with their video of the plane hijack (which, BTW, did not involve a firearm, and was clearly premeditated), but failed to demonstrate how the proposed legislature would reasonably be expected to facilitate such happenings (again, the sign thing). Every one of the opponents all lumped possession in a locked vehicle to possession within their facilities. The comments from the FedEx employee (Cooper) were spot on...wonder if he still has a job tomorrow after basically calling the PR dude on the carpet.... Evans finished the session by ripping the industry speakers for bringing info he characterized as blatantly incorrect, and as just putting on a show...but, he then said he does not plan to move this bill in the next session All that said, it will be thorny as the legislature finds itself struggling to strike a balance between 2nd amendment rights and property rights...Mr. Fincher's comments about protecting RTKBA between your front door and the parking lot hopefully will be heeded. Interesting too was Fincher's statement that Tenn was the third most violent state in the US...

I had some correspondence concerning HB1793 with Jon Lundberg, vice-chair of the Judiciary committee summer study. He seems a strong supporter of this bill, and indicates he will be making every effort to ensure its return for consideration in the next session.

It's cyclic - those in control wil oft favor some form/fashion of gun control, just as they will certain forms of economic maneuvering, as long as it serves to concentrate or solidify the postion of "those in power". And, just as cyclically, those seeking power will oppose gun control, as to do so resists those efforts to centralize and maintain the status quo. As previously socialist regimes found themselves elevated to positions of power, the shoe quickly moved to the other foot, and that for which they so idyllically fought became a threat. That is what makes the Constitutional declaration rather unique: it seeks to establish and ratify RKBA from a position of power, rather than from one of wanting to overturn that power. And also explains why that same right is so oft squarely in the crosshairs of those who thrive on an ever-increasing government role in our lives.

Wilson's statement also seems bouyed by the prior defeat (not once, but twice, I believe) of efforts to place language that would have explicitly excluded illegal aliens. Why resist such language if your real intent is to prohibit, eh?

I've got the Big Boy in .357 mag, and it is every bit as much fun to shoot as it is to look at. You will not be disappointed...couple of friends have various Henry .22 models, and they wouldn't trade them for anything.

Will probably be there...wife and son wanting to go.

LOL - we've had to explain geocaching to a few up here. Helped to show em the GPS (showing the cache location marked) and cache page. Maybe he thought the GPS was advanced electronic waterfowl attractor/locator?!?

Fallguy, I hope your luck with an email response is better than mine. I've tried 3 times over the last year about a couple of different issues, and have yet to get the first reply from that addy. I did receive, however, a call from a CNF LEO returning a voice messsage I'd left her office, and was assured that their prohibition was solely due to the TWRA regs, and that their enforcement policies would mirror those of the TWRA.