Shelby County Meeting Aug 20th- not good

[Menzoberranzan]

Having a speaker that doesn't know the law, whether pro-gun or anti-gun, is unfortunate. Having a speaker that refuses to be corrected on the law is inexcuseable.

I don't know if this guy is going to be trying to speak for the TFA in an official capacity or not, but I will not support any organization that derides or ridicules those that choose any legal method of carry in the state of Tennessee.

[C. Richard Archie]

Menzoberranzan,

In none of the replies to the OP, has anyone tried to suggest that the Speakers position is the "Stance" of the TFA. I can promise, that when Sen. Kyle comes before our Chapter, (if he responds to our invite and decides to speak) there will be many in disagreement with his stances, and during the "question and answer" session, there will be discussion. In no way, would allowing him to speak designate his philosophy as that of the TFA, merely giving each candidate the chance to espouse their platform would not place the stamp of approval on their beliefs, rather, it gives our membership the opportunity to see what the choices for Governor are.

I can promise, had I been in the audience that night, I would have challenged the incorrect information put forth by the speaker. I have done so on several instances where public officials were the featured guest on local radio shows. Our County Sheriff was under the impression that the Restaurant Bill passed with the "Age Restriction" still attached as an Amendment, (that through his conversation with Rep. Shaw, who gave him bad information). I was able to correct him without coming off as a Smart A**, or embarrassing the Sheriff. If our Chief Law Enforcement Officer can be mislead by others, then any private citizen can as well.

Stay vigilant, stay involved!

[Menzoberranzan]

[Kenny Crenshaw]

As far as additional training goes, my position is that it is always good to have more training and knowlege. I will continue to take several gun magazines each month, be a member of a gun club, be active in NRA, GOA, and TFA, etc.

I am going to ask Mike Roberts whay he said what he did about not taking gun magazines etc.

I think what needs to be addressed is that there needs to be an affirmative defense in case any of us have to use our weapons in a defensive situation. Maybe Mr. Roberts is not comfortable defending a person like us. If that is the case we should find someone who is.

Those of us involved in TFA leadership are discussing the possibility of having a ready list of attorneys in case one of us needs it.

We need more folks rowing the boat at TFA. We are starting new chapters and making preparations for a productive 2009 and 2010.

Kenny

[David Lewis]

[Pat McGarrity]

First, let me apologize for being so late to join this string. As I replied to Mike directly when I saw his first e-mail, I absolutely was not ignoring his correspondence. My late reply was only a matter of being very busy with my job, small business and other TFA projects. We have since had a very positive exchange and I will reiterate here that I appreciate his contributions to the chapter. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and feedback on the meeting.

The concept I am working on with Mike Roberts is a TFA membership drive project aimed at groups outside of who we traditionally reach. Kenny has articulated all of this very well, as usual, as he was key in the post meeting feedback we discussed afterwards. Mike Roberts was very receptive to the feedback and wants to improve the speech.

In the draft of the speech I reviewed with Mike Roberts, it did not refer to a "concealed" carry permit using that term. It was the Shelby County Sheriff’s Dept. “SWAT” team that Mike Roberts referred to.

The point of view he expressed regarding subscriptions to gun magazines, the description of classes with terms such as “Tactical”, “Combat”, etc; was how a prosecutor and/or attorney in a civil case against someone forced to defend themselves would use such information against them. I thought that was made clear and thanks for bringing it to my attention that the context must not have been clear to everyone. I have a wall full of certificates from classes I have taken with valuable training that has such terms. Mike Roberts did not mean to imply that training was negative, just that it would be beneficial, legally, if the classes used terms that were titled “defensive” in nature, even if the course was the same.

I’m meeting with Mike Roberts as soon as our schedules permit to work on the terminology and will point out areas that I disagree with too, such as carrying a backup gun. Tactically good, but potentially legally bad, according to Mike. He has years of criminal trial experience, thankfully I do not, and again, that was the point of view in that portion of the speech where he expressed the things mentioned above that a potential legal opponent could use against us.

As I have expressed to Mike Stansbury in a direct e-mail, I had no intention anyone making his choice of open carry personally critical and even intervened and spoke in his favor at the meeting to the concealed carry advocates. I encourage the free exchange of ideas at our meetings and no one expects there never to be a disagreement.

This membership project with Mike Roberts will often be presented to groups that will not ask the same questions that a group of our peers did. This feedback is very constructive and again, Mike Roberts is open to improving the speech and the revision will be sent to John before being presented anywhere.

In Liberty,

Pat