RinTN

Maybe it's just me, but the only votes that concern me are those for the first "Yes". Those are the one's against us. The "I'll go regardless" are essentially saying that they are willing to trust HCP holders when businesses elect not to prohibit carry.

I don't agree with that either. But, that's not exactly what we need to be concerned with. Instead, it's a matter of what was said here... Now, realistically we should change "they know" to "they think", but in a sense what the public thinks is what matters. Those afraid of guns *think* that an officer knows more about guns, and is safer carrying one, than the average person. That public perception may be wrong, but it is what we have to contend with. It might be that we should be asking ourselves the question "how do we change public perception?"

I hope that you realize how important your ability to deal with these situations is. Some of the Anti-2A's may very well try to bait you - trying to get you angry, frustrated, to yell, etc. They would almost certainly love to be able to portray you in a negative light. It sounds like you handled this, and previous situations pretty darn well. Still, I'd encourage you to be on guard. Thanks for being willing to take up this battle. I'm sure that this has been hard for you in ways that most of us will never really comprehend. We do appreciate your efforts though.

Yup. I guess I need to check in more often!

I agree. Most, possibly all, of their "concerns" magically go away if they would just shut up and post their businesses. I wish that the court had just clearly stated that today and been done with them.

I had wondered about exactly that, but am not sure if these business have actually posted yet or not. Assuming that they hadn't, then their standing likely couldn't be questioned. Assuming that they do before tomorrow because they really don't want handguns brought in, there may be a chance that they would lose their standing for the suit.

It's now at 38% anti-2A and 61% pro-2A.

That sounds pretty much like me. I use a cheap IWB (Uncle Mike's) at 4 o'clock and tuck. With a small handgun, it's pretty much unnoticeable - though it may take a while for you to get past the feeling that everyone can tell.

IMO, if we can get just this much for HCP holders, that would be a huge win.

Yea gunner, go anyway. If there's no ammo, then you could take a look at stuff for grilling tomorrow.

FWIW, JC already has an ordinance prohibiting firearms in city parks. So, they really didn't do anything of note by making this statement.

I believe that would be: Yes, Yes, No. To carry a loaded gun in your car, you still need your HCP.

Yes, there's always going to be that chance. IMO, that chance is likely greatly reduced by taking the actions that you are though. With that said, even if you ended up without any charges being placed at all, the odds are very high that you would lose your job. So, I agree that it's not something that I would recommend to anyone.

I didn't intend to be discussing the issue of "operated" one way or the other when quoting the AG opinion. I was just pointing out that we do have at least some definition of "intent to go armed", which Falcon1 brought up. So, I think we would probably not be at great risk for the felony charge simply by having a handgun stored in a vehicle. My questions were asked with the thought that if an unloaded, inaccessible handgun doesn't meet the legal definition of "weapon" or "firearm", then the part about "operated by the adult" is immaterial.

So, just how private are the votes on these polls? ;-)

It would be nice if TCA gave a distinct definition. This is one of big reasons I would like to see the state's right to bare to include you vehicle as well as your home. With that said, there is an AG opinion that states, "... It prohibits the carrying of a firearm with the intent to go armed. Thus, the carrying of a firearm is prohibited only when it is carried in a manner so as to be "readily accessible and available for use in the carrying out of purposes either offensive or defensive. ..." So, related to the original question, do you think that an unloaded and/or inaccessible handgun would be acceptable under the law? Also, do you know if TCA defines "weapon" so that an unloaded handgun would be included or not?

I've got a Neos as well, and like it quite a bit. It was more affordable than most of the others being suggested, fires any ammo well, and - most importantly to me - is sized well for my wife's hands.

That's pretty much my thought too. If someone is nuts enough to come on my property and kill one of my pets right in front of me, then I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they are coming after me next.

I've thought about it, but I'd really prefer something with a safety.

BTW - what was the written test like? My wife is a little worried about it.

Good Job! Now you just have to file your application and prints, then wait the longest weeks of your adult life.

I believe that if you go to opencarry.org and select a state, that there are links to the state websites where you can find the actual state laws.

Am I right in thinking that won't ship to a TN address?

Well, I think we've just done that for one state. It's then a matter of doing the same thing for more of them. The reality appears to be that he's parsing the new TN law as though it allows carry anywhere that allows alcohol. He's right that most states do limit the right to some degree. The thing is, TN will also be limiting the right to some degree - a degree that is less than some states, but more than some others. So, he appears to be excluding those that are even slightly different - and using a very restrictive view of the word "remotely" - to come up with the statement that there are "only 15 states having anything "remotely" like our new law". He also appears to have automatically eliminated any state that issues carry permits differently than TN does - and those that don't require a permit at all.

Kentucky prohibits carry in business and sections of businesses where the "establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose" - where "that purpose" is selling alcohol. So, you cannot do is carry into a bar, as a bar is defined by Kentucky law. But, you can carry in a restaurant that sells alcohol - as a restaurant is defined by Kentucky law. Tennessee will work in a similar manner, though the two states define "restaurant" differently. Tennessee really doesn't define a bar though, but I assume it would include anything that isn't covered by the restaurant definition.