Makiaveli

Some of these laws seem foolish when looking at one individual, or in a specific circumstance. Add in some are poorly conceived or executed. However, the idea is to prevent crimes by locking people up who seem incapable of obeying the laws BEFORE they kill someone. Sure the guy may have had a small drug problem and kicked it, and then decided to carry a gun for legit reasons, but that is also the actions of a drug dealer, correct? It's a good idea to arrest the latter prior to a shootout, and the former should be seeking an expungement and not violating the law.

Thanks for my new FB status update. Straight up stolen

Pretty much answers the question. I think the issue here is some of the law is being taken out of context. As I said a while back, many laws have provisions for not stepping on other laws. I suspect the HCP law is one of those.

I think you have it backwards. If he isn't arrested, but he is a threat to others, then what? That "pesky AND word" means both conditions aren't met therefore..... @TMF 18B I wasn't trying to imply it did. I was saying I think JayC is wrong in his interpretation that not being arrested would prevent disarming/confiscation/whatever.

As I quoted above the language doesn't say unless you are arrested. That is ONE of the conditions. Given that you just shot someone an argument could be made that the officer thought you were a danger to others. Thus he would be legally allowed to keep your weapon as long as he could articulate a valid reason for believing this was the case.

I'm not disputing the fact that the HCP law says they have to return it etc. I am saying that it is my belief that one or both of the following is true, that it was never meant to interpreted as applying to anything other than a cop disarming you for his protection while he verifies your permit and this is what would hold in court, and/or there is language in another part of the statute that limits this law if it conflicts with another existing statute. **edit** Assuming the following is accurate, then I believe the part that says once the officer has determined the permit holder is not a threat would allow the officer to confiscate the weapon until someone made such a determination. Given that the permit holder had just shot someone, I would think that would constitute justification to believe you could be a threat. T.C.A. 39-17-1351(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer’s lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

I think apples are getting mixed into the pear basket. It seems clear that the HCP law are intended to cover only incidents that involve the HCP. Not to overwrite the laws pertaining to other issues. The bit about showing your permit after a shoot seems disingenuous. You would have to show it if asked if you were simply reporting someone stealing your newspaper from your porch. Or if you bumped into the cop at the corner store.

Look at it from the cop's point of view. Someone was shot, and the admitted shooter SAYS it was self-defense. Should they just pack up and go home? I mean you don't have a record, etc so there is obviously zero chance you are lying right? Add in the fallout if it turns out you were lying, and go on to shoot someone else with that gun since they didn't do a decent job investigating. As to the car bit, you didn't kill someone with the car, it was the stolen property. And let's say the cops did want to take it, how exactly would you resist said impounding without risking being impounded yourself?

Well less mass and higher speed might balance each other out, but a smaller bullet is more likely to not survive the trip through the target I would think..... Or am I completely in left field?

Wait, you actually want the consumer to do something and not rely on the govt!?!? What kind of drugs are you on??? I kid, nice to see someone who is at least partially Libertarian in their views

Well duh, obviously they need a bigger sign!!

We agree, I was just not going to tacitly agree with that statement since I believe the SC was wrong. Probably shouldn't have said anything, but hearing that pisses me off since it seems asinine. Rule of thumb when reading my posts, I don't have issues. I have subscriptions

I have to disagree with this statement due to my interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

"Police said England had a previous criminal history and was on probation after receiving an eight-year sentence for carjacking in 2009." My favorite part. :eyeroll:

That was the only news story I could come up with, seriously expected to see more when I checked in today. The only personal experience I have with this is at a previous job we had a idiot fire a 20 gauge slug thru the floor of his apt. and it lodged in the kitchen counter of the apt below him.

Cost is now $100 but includes ammo and even gun rental if needed. No personal experience, but a co-worker highly recommends them.

Theoretically it wouldn't automatically hit bone, and unless you hit the center of "center mass" on someone built like me, I would think it could travel through some of my "thermal padding" and come out the other side. Then again, that isn't exactly scientific proof. Apparently it can happen.... Link

Since it says "property" as well as "building" it seems likely that if they only post at the doorways, you are allowed to carry in in the parking lot, but not the building. So if it is posted at the entrance to the actual property, then the intent would seem to be that you not carry at all and that would seem to be legal if the signage is properly displayed. I tend to agree with the "for the lawyers" argument. They don't want to lose customers, but want the discount from the insurance company at the same time.

On parts of it I guess Might have just been a misunderstanding on the details...I get a bit wound up at times

As a Libertarian I do think my rights should trump your rights on my property. The exceptions should be limited to your right to live etc. The rest should be up to me. If you disagree, then don't shop at my business. That is the root of what I see is the problem. You don't have a right to shop at Walmart. Just because it is "open to the public" doesn't mean it is public property like government property. So I think the laws should operate similar to trespassing does now. I have to be open about it, ie post, and if you leave when asked, no harm, no foul. FTR I have been called a Nazi and worse in the past for my beliefs on this subject. Basically I believe your property/business etc is YOURS. Do with it as you will. But I reserve the right to not do business with you if I disagree with your restrictions.

I was thinking along the lines of if I unlawfully detain you, that could be considered kidnapping. That does usually result in a trip downtown. @ArmaDeFuego So you are saying your 2nd amendment rights trump my rights to control what happens on my property? All I am saying is a property owner should have the right to control who and what comes on to his property. I am a Libertarian, so my views on how far that should go are not popular so I won't go any further on that.

Aren't there limits on citizen's arrests? As in you can't arrest some one for a misd unless it involves violence etc? Point being, just because I detain you, doesn't mean you are the one going to jail when the cops show up.

Valid points. I just hate the idea of passing laws to pass laws. Then some more laws to fix those laws. My point was and is, taking away one group's rights to preserve another's rights is as wrong as taking away a single group's rights. Never intended to imply I agreed with the current crop of laws. If I did, then I seriously misspoke.

The first part says "if a sign is used" or words to that effect. So if you put up a sign it has to include the TCA. IE a sign that says "No guns allowed" isn't valid. The second part quoted is there to allow the use of the "gunbuster" symbol and have it be legally binding. Or in other words, the first part specifies what must be included in a sign using words, the second codifies what symbols can be used legally. While I agree with the sentiment, you are arguing the state should take away the right of the property owner to prohibit guns on his property/within his place of business. In other words, they aren't granting/protecting your rights, they are taking away someone else's. Is that something we really want to encourage?

It does indeed, which is why the govt will never be able to pull it off.