Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Ask the Lawyers / Carrying in a no gun posted business, store, etc.
« Last post by Randy on October 28, 2017, 02:23:19 PM »
This may be an ignorant question,,,So,,if I conceal carry in a business, bank, anywhere it is posted with a lined out circle and a gun in the middle at the entrance of the facility (I am obviously not educated on the correct term for the posting) , and I find myself in a defensive situation inside that facility and my life or someone else's life is in eminent danger, and I use my concealed weapon to ward off the bad guy, then will I still be able to use the services which I have paid for with US Law Shield to be defended in court of law?
General Firearms Law Discussion / Re: Gun Control in the UK - Post Your Ideas
« Last post by JasperN on October 28, 2017, 03:08:08 AM »
This sounds reasonable at a first glance. Maybe I would make it a bit easier to get a permit for protection.
General Firearms Law Discussion / Can I join US Law Shield in Missouri?
« Last post by Randy on October 27, 2017, 09:14:01 PM »
I just signed up for US Law Shield last night. I didn't think to ask, but I have a friend I am going to let know about US Law Shield and he lives in MO. Can he join in MO?
Ask the Lawyers / Legal Aliens Concealed Carry
« Last post by leeoconnor2522 on October 26, 2017, 07:23:52 PM »
So this is more of a FYI to be discussed than that of a question.

I am a Legal Alien with the right to work in the USA and Live and currently waiting for my interview for my Green card, So I only possess a I-766 authorization to work. I recently spoke to a Lawyer after I had already made my application for my CHL whom informed me I would not be eligible for my Concealed carry as I was not a Legal Permanent resident nor was I a citizen.

My Concealed Carry License arrived today...... 21 days after applying I was accepted and I now have my license in hand.

To be clear when I applied i submitted, I94 which was expired, my driving license, my passport, my certificate from the instructor, my I-766 and a letter from the Boarder patrol saying that I could not renew my I-94 as the USCIS would have issued me new evidence of my legal presence in the form of a I-766 (work visa) or I-551 (Green Card) and after many phone calls and explaining it to them they accepted it. But it was accepted.
Halftime Oracle,

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1325(a) says "A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person's, business's, or other entity's failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39-17-1359."

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359(d) goes on to say "Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property."

Tennessee has neither adopted such a policy increasing a business's liability for prohibiting weapons on its property, nor do I expect TN will because it is detrimental to the business environment TN is attempting to create.

Additionally, I could not find a bill proposed by the legislature that would create such a policy.

General Firearms Law Discussion / Gun Control in the UK - Post Your Ideas
« Last post by pom007 on October 23, 2017, 06:33:01 AM »
Post your ideas for gun control in the UK.
Personally, I think there should be 3 FAC types:


For sports (eg. Target Shooting, weaponry study), people should be allowed to own whatever guns they like (within reason - why someone would need a minigun or target shooting is a little sketchy), BUT be restricted to both usage and storage at an approved range/club, ie. not being allowed to take a weapon out of a range. This way, one doesn't run the risk of people being able to take their AR15 out for a shooting spree in the shopping centre, but still lets them enjoy shooting them casually and competitively, in a secure area.

For hunting I think the current legislation in terms of an FAC is pretty solid, but would perhaps benefit from the American-style magazine capacity limits, and allow semi-autos (personally, I don't agree with hunting, but I certainly don't want someone to take a bad shot and injure the target, but by the time they've rechambered, it's out of shot and left to suffer). So I would perhaps allow semi-automatic weapons with a capacity of up to 5 rounds. However, a Hunting FAC would consist of a tighter security check prior to issue. One way I might suggest is that one MUST be issues a sports certificate, and demonstrate a competent and responsible manner of shooting with a particular firearm on the range, under supervision, before being issued with a Hunting certificate. In fact, this could negate the need for semi-automatic weapons, if one would have to first demonstrate their abilities and show that they were competent enough not to require such a weapon.

For protection, this is something that I think is handled pretty well at current - you need to apply to the home office for this and give a valid reason (eg. you work for a VIP close-protection firm). I don't see much need for this to change, and with my system, I doubt the number of issued permits would differ much - it certainly wouldn't make it any easier to obtain, just more clear on the rules, by giving it its own category instead of hiding it away and having to phone up the home secretary. Mostly, the people who get these kinds of permits already work for an official security body and protect diplomats and government officials on select few jobs.

Post your ideas - ideally, I'd like if we could get a few different opinions down before the discussions and debates start.
Ask the Lawyers / Re: Texas Stop and Frisk (Identify)
« Last post by TexasLawShield on October 20, 2017, 03:38:14 PM »
Halftime Oracle:

1:  Unfortunately, as independent program attorneys who do not make this determination, it would be difficult to say whether or not such an instance would be covered. The best way to procure an answer to this question would be to call Texas LawShield directly.

2 & 3:   While demand and request may have different dictionary definitions, in this case, the distinction is irrelevant. As stated in 411.205, upon demand you are required to show your ID, period. You stated an officer can’t “legally demand identification in Texas in the absence of an arrest (based on probable cause).  That’s the entire point of 38.02.” But that is not the point of 38.02. 38.02 criminalizes the conduct of a citizen, it does not prohibit officers from doing anything. In your original post you state there is no “obligation” to provide identification (unless the elements of 38.02 have been met). You even say “38.02 states quite clearly that Texas citizens have no obligation to identify themselves.” But it is not so clear. The penal code only enumerates and explains what is, and is not, a crime.  Just because it is not a crime does not mean you don’t have an obligation. 411.205 creates that obligation.

Standing alone, 38.02 might make you think this is the case, but don’t forget there are other parts of the law. 411.205 of the government code does not conflict with 38.02. Nothing in 38.02 says an officer can’t demand your ID and 411.205 creates an obligation to provide it. This is a subtle difference, I know, and one that has significant legal consequence.

4:   You are right to think that this gives police yet another way to abuse their power. The good news for the gun carrying citizenry is that the courts understand the rules better. Some Texas courts have ruled in favor of the citizenry on these issues. E.g. St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).

We know this is a confusing subject, so we encourage you to call TLS to speak with one of the independent program attorneys. You are right to be playing out these scenarios in your head to make sure you stay on the right side of the law. However, as a precaution, remember that police have broad discretion with arrests and reasonable suspicion is a very low bar. We advise members to save these battles for the courtroom rather than the street!
Ask the Lawyers / Re: UCW and 46.15 - NON-APPLICABILITY
« Last post by TexasLawShield on October 20, 2017, 03:29:19 PM »

Your interpretation of 46.15(b)(6) is correct. It excludes LTC holders who are carrying a handgun under the authority of their LTC from TPC 46.02.

There is a common misunderstanding that 46.15 allows an LTC holder who is also carrying a handgun to carry a club. Unfortunately, this is not the case. No person is legally permitted to carry a club unless his or her job is one that requires a club and is mentioned in 46.15 (e.g., commissioned security officers, military personnel, animal control officers who hold a special certificate, etc.).
- April 15, Mansfield, Texas-

A disabled veteran on a daily walk from his residence to a local park pulled a legally carried firearm to defend himself from a vicious dog attack on a public street. No shots were fired as the disabled veteran was able to reach safety without firing his weapon, as local residents were outside their homes raising safety concerns. Mansfield police responded to a 911 call and confiscated the veterans weapon, releasing him from the scene to return home. However, four days later he was arrested for display of a firearm calculated to cause alarm. The veteran awaits trial in Tarrant County Court number 9.
The dog owners were not cited and the dog remains at the residence.
Ask the Lawyers / Re: Negligent Discharge: Legal obligations
« Last post by Al on October 16, 2017, 06:50:43 AM »
You might also consider a DA/SA model with a decocker which lets you safely lower the hammer after racking your first round.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10