JayC

Ok, I'm probably in the minority here, but what was his reason for continuing the stop after he determined there was no male in the vehicle? He lost all probable cause to continue the detainment of the female driver instant he knew the wanted felon was not present. Why was he going through the drivers bag to begin with? He no longer had the right to detain her, he didn't have her consent to search the bag. We can talk about the fact he was nice to the lady, but the truth is it appears he violated her constitutional rights and escalated the situation into an arrest without probable cause that a crime was committed at the point he was digging around in her purse. As she said, 'him having warrants has nothing to do with me'. Don't get me wrong, she should have just shut up and let the arrest go forward, a good lawyer would have been able to throw shade on the detention and the search of the bag, might have even got the drugs thrown out. \ Shooting the cop was wrong, but the situation is a lot more nuance IMHO.

The eligibility requirements are laid out here: https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequirements.html You don't have to have training, you don't have to pass a background check. Per the currently amended bill. Basically you can't be a prohibited person, with some added stuff like DUI/DWI convictions, not receiving SSI for a mental disability, etc. Basically if your background would allow you to be issued a permit, you can carry without a permit. There is one good thing about the current wording, if passed as is, you would not be required to ID to law enforcement unless you were carrying in a location that required a permit to carry, even if you've been issued a permit.

99+% of people who take the HCP class pass it, it's nothing more than corporate welfare for ranges and instructors. It provides no tangible benefit and only succeeds in making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Any don't even get me started about the finger print requirement.

I'm pretty sure you can get a permit too. So unless your stay was less than 3 years ago, you can get a permit, 10 years is only if a court ordered you to go to rehab. Or this.

There is a TN state law that says it's a crime to wear a mask with the intent to deny someone their civil rights. That is the ONLY state law about wearing masks that I'm aware of. 39-17-309 But, no it's not against the law to carry while wearing a mask. Or generally to wear a mask while in public.

If there is probable cause to arrest, then arrest and take the guns as evidence. If somebody made threats to kill themselves, place them on a 72 hour hold, but they don't get to confiscate guns when doing that. If you don't have PC for an arrest and there isn't enough evidence for a 72 hour hold, the cops are out of luck, the constitution protects one's right to property. And that is how it should be. I think if my wife (who would never do such a thing) called the police and made up a story about a threat... They would show up and interview both of us... if there was PC for an arrest I should be arrested, otherwise, I should be allowed to leave the house and take my property with me.... And under TN state law today, the police are required to not keep my firearms per 39-17-1351(t). I can't stop them from breaking the law, but I have legal recourse should they break the law. Police Officers don't need more authority than they have today, frankly we should be discussing limiting a number of police powers. If they have PC for an arrest make an arrest... Otherwise they should have to take it to a judge where you have a chance to cross examine witnesses and provide a defense before the government takes your property against you will, and violates your fundamental civil rights.

But, you're talking about allow the police to either get an ex parte order, or allowing the confiscation of firearms before a court hearing where you have representation. But of those violate due process.

All permit holders have much greater protections today, unless you're under arrest they must return your firearm(s) when they release you. 39-17-1351(t) How would a red flag law that would allow a police officer to take your guns, and at some later date a court might return them to you give us more protections? If the police feel you are a threat, have a hearing before a judge (where you have representation) and request an order to have your firearms removed. That is the only form of a 'red flag' law that has true due process. Anything less is unconstitutional on it's face.

They're free to ask you anything, but you're under no obligation to show ID to anybody except the police if they ask to see your permit, or your drivers license while operating a motor vehicle. They obviously can ask you to leave if you refuse. Frankly I'm not going to show my ID to a store clerk for any reason, unless it's a gun store and I'm buying a firearm I'd be happy to confirm I have a permit and that it's on me, but no way I'm going to give out my personal information like that to a random stranger. If they push back, I'd ask to speak the the manager and express the liability they excepting by requesting to see my personal information in relation to firearm ownership, ie identify theft, targeted theft of firearms, etc.

Mt Juliet City Hall, also houses the police office as well, they likely think they need to pass an ordinance to allow carry within the building since by default state law would prohibit such carry. They may also have court hearing (traffic court) inside the building as well, both of which would make the building no go under 39-17-1359.

I suspect if the current opening is filled before the midterm elections, we'll see SCOTUS taking up a LOT more 2nd amendment cases. Remember up until this point, nobody knew exactly where Kennedy would vote on the 2nd Amendment, Heller was a massive compromise of the conservative justices, to get Kennedy to vote their way. It's unlikely to be any question where the line will be drawn after the current vacancy is filled, and I suspect we'll see a lot more 2nd Amendment cases taken up by the court.

9 men and women in black robes far away do not decide what my natural rights are or are not. My natural rights come from my Creator, or for those of you who don't believe, they come from my humanity. They are mine, and I refuse to give them up, period.

Removing somebody's rights even temporarily without the ability to defend themselves is not moral or constitutional. Bring criminal charges or prove they are a threat to themselves or others, otherwise we can't remove somebody's God given rights.

Or, just mind your own business, make note mentally on why you don't carry like that, because at the end of the day at least he has a permit and is carrying a gun and that is good for society.

Well I'm happy to show my math If you think my estimates are way off, but I based it on 4 major school shootings per year which seems to be the norm, and averaged it over 100 years to get the number up to a point people could see how small it is, but how much money it would cost. I agree that your average street cop probably does have a better ability to deal with high stress situations, BUT that isn't how the SRO programs work for the most part. SRO's are not street cops, they're special dedicated police officers who do nothing but baby-sit the schools in most departments. Their job is no more high stress than mine, or yours. Most will go months or years without performing an arrest let alone dealing with high stress events on a day to day basis. As for numbers, I agree most smaller schools could get by with 2 or 3, remember that you're covering more than just the 7 hours of school per day, many schools have after school activities, weekend activities, and other stuff at the school where a large number of children and/or parents would be on site... So 2 might not be enough when you consider scheduling, sick days, vacation, and not working a lot of overtime. Middle Schools, and High Schools will depend on the layout of the campus, and how many ingress and egress points. When you look at the school where this latest shooting took place, it has 10-12 different buildings with multiple points of entry to many of them, they have large athletic fields, and parking lots. I don't think you could security the entire facility with 10 people on duty, without turning it into a mini prison. Dave, I have friends who are police officers, and work in law enforcement, I've been offered to join a local department as a reserve officer (my work schedule prevents me for taking them up on that offer), I also provide free consulting to 3 different law enforcement departments on technical matters when they need help, and generally have great respect for what officers do to help the community. I do have a lot of concerns over the way departments in general conduct themselves, but those are policy discussions. My opinion of teachers and public schools is much much lower I promise you, but I don't want to see teachers and children die at those schools. I worry about exposing children to the 'security theater' that is the TSA on a daily basis, because that is where we're headed if we start down this path. I don't want to expose most children to a mini-prison environment where they think it's perfectly ok for law enforcement to rummage through their bags, and order them around. And I'm concerned that police officers are trained to make arrests, which is NOT want we need in our schools on a daily basis. But again, these are policy questions about the long term good of society not attacks on police officers. Finally, I think you're under estimating the ability of most grown adults to know when they're in a life or death situation and when it's justified to shoot somebody and not. Going on the offensive is different that securing choke points and waiting for backup from law enforcement. I think most HCP holder who wanted to could learn those tactics over a weekend training course. Remember it doesn't take much to turn a gun free zone into just as dangerous as everywhere else, which is pretty safe.

I don't see how many regulation on the matter will survive a challenge is court, the NFA clearly doesn't prohibit bump stocks, or binary triggers...

There are 100,000 schools within the United States, and over a 100 year life time of the school (trying to keep math simple most schools won't last 100 years) there is a 0.4% chance of an attack like the one is Florida. And 0.4% over 100 years is probably on the high side. Most sites are going to need at least 2 or 3 full time security guards, and many of the larger sites are going to need 6 to 10. Lets say the average is 5 which I think is a low number, but to keep the math simple. That is roughly 30 BILLION Dollars per year, more than 50% of the federal Department of Educations budget. That isn't pocket change, it isn't money that can be found from current budgets without cutting educational programs. Finally, I don't know if it's a good idea to turn 5 police officers/security guards loose inside each of our schools, and the unforeseen consequences. Remember we've already seen a lot of 'abuses' from within the current SRO program around the country, turning minor disciplinary issues into cuffing 8 year olds and tossing them into the back of squad cars. And I question if it's more dangerous to our society to expose virtually all children to the security protocols needed to protect the school from such a RARE risk. Allowing parents with HCP's (and teachers with them as well) to carry within their children's school is a good compromise, require that it be concealed, require that it only be on the parents person, but place a question mark in the mind of any attacker that they could be confronted by an armed parent would deter a vast majority of these attacks. And would more likely lessen the number killed even in the event of an attack. And is largely costs nothing, nor does it turn our schools into mini prisons with armed guards all over who have nothing to do but look for minor crimes to justify being there. I agree the current HCP class doesn't do enough to train people to deal with an active shooter, so lets put pressure on our state or local law enforcement to provide that training - at cost - to ANY HCP holder in the community, and if they can't or won't do that, lets pressure the NRA, TFA or if all else fails start a non-profit group to provide the training. Basic defensive training is pretty easy, and could be taught in a single weekend, how to secure a room, and how to cover the fatal funnel, how/what to communicate to law enforcement in the event of a school shooting. Teaching HCP holders to be that last line of defense when a mad man strikes, leave the room clearing, and going towards gun fire for law enforcement or those with prior military training, but defensive tactics work, and are easy to teach. That's just my 2 cents worth on the subject, as somebody who has a daughter in school right now, and can't believe my wife who volunteers there on a regular basis can't carry to protect herself and my daughter when at school.

About 8% of non-felon adults in TN have a HCP, they are just as unlikely (if not more so) than police officers to be convicted of a serious crime. Their children are in these public schools, and I'm sure a number of them would be more than willing to participate in helping defend their own children as volunteers. School has parents volunteer constantly in school, to help out doing things they can't afford staff to do, why on earth not use this model to better protect the school. Sure more training would help, and having highly trained and paid security might be a better option, but at the end of the day parents will die to protect their children, and in most of these shootings just controlling a fatal funnel would be well within the abilities of an average HCP holder with very little training. And could very well save lives. It's a crime that I can't have a loaded firearm on my person at my daughters school, I'd be a lot more active if I didn't have to completely disarm every time I go there, even after hours for meetings.

You're reading the wrong section of federal law, scroll down a little more to 922g - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 922g just lists all the standard 'prohibited person' stuff that prevents you from owning any firearm, it makes no mention of age, or of handguns specifically. Neither does 39-17-1316, nor any of the USC's listed within it. While 922(b) does prohibit the selling or delivering of firearms by an FFL, it doesn't prohibit possession, selling or transfers by a private party. So an 18 year old can legally purchase a handgun under 39-17-1316. 922(d) covers private sales (by non-FFL's) and clearly doesn't prohibit sales to persons under 21. 922(x)(1)(5) goes futher to address this issue by clearly defining the term juvenile as a person under the age of 18. Even this anti-gun group got it right - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/#federal So, clearly a 18 year old can possess or receive any firearm under 922g, unless they're otherwise a prohibited person. And 39-17-1316 doesn't prohibit them either. So, loaded firearm carry in a vehicle is clearly lawful as to the plain reading of the law unless the person would otherwise a prohibited person. The law is so broadly worded I can't see any reason a 16 year old couldn't posses a loaded rifle or shotgun (handguns would be a different issue - see 39-17-1319) in their car under this law. Although I doubt the legislature meant to do that, 922g and 1316 do not mention any reason they couldn't.

IANAL but the law is very clear. Short answer is she can legally in her car, but not walking around in public. But read below for a more detailed version. Any person over the age of 18 may legally purchase a handgun in TN as long as their not otherwise a 'prohibited' person, such as a drug user, convicted felon, etc - The same things that would prevent you or I from lawfully owning a firearm. Assuming above is true, under 39-17-1307 she may legally possess it in her car while loaded. The plan reading of state law is clear and there isn't any known case law on the subject, so the short answer is they can. They can also have a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicle per state law. She can also carry the firearm at her residence, her place of business, or any other property she owns within TN. She can NOT take advantage of the 'parking lot law', and the 'school exception' those are limited to HCP holders. The confusion above is from people quoting the WRONG portion of Federal Law 922b is not 922g and therefore isn't on point for this discussion. 922g just lists all the ways somebody can become a prohibited person (DV, mental adjudication, felon, illegal alien, etc) and doesn't mention AGE at all. Even though 39-17-1316 is referenced to include all of USC 922, nothing in 922 prohibits an 18 year old from purchasing a handgun, only prohibiting an FFL from transferring a handgun to somebody under 21, remember the wording is key. It's good to see more people quoting laws, but quoting the wrong law causes a lot of confusion.

My wife shot a pistol for the first time when taking her carry shooting test, she passed with flying colors... Have your grand daughter focus on 3 and 5 yards and she'll ace the test no problem.

Seeing as a violation of 39-17-1351 nor a class B misdemeanor is not a reason they can deny you issuing you a permit, I don't see how they turn down the application. I said at the time, Voldemort could really mess up their day by just simply re-applying for a permit. Nothing in the law allows TDOS to deny the permit... and lets remember that TDOS's track record in court on permits is like 0% success rate. Either way, the chance you get charged with 1359 is slim as long as you stay away from Airports, and don't give any reason for the officers to look for a charge. (Again not suggesting that people should violate the law, but walking past clearly unlawful signs while concealed is not the risk some folks are making it out to be.)

I'm not aware of any suspension/revocation from a violation of 1359. Even though Voldemort refused to show his permit, and that technically was a violation of 39-17-1351 they didn't revoke his permit using 1352a6 they used the public risk clause, probably because if they revoke your permit under a6 you could re-apply the next day and they'd be forced to grant you a new permit. Also, I'm not sure how TDOS gets notified of a misdemeanor conviction to begin with?

I'm pro-property rights which is why I don't associate with the TFA anymore... But there are certain circumstances where you're not dealing with a regular business. Before the recent law change I often was forced to go into government buildings, unlike your local restaurant or chain clothing store, there is no other place to 'go' to "buy" these services. More importantly in many cases these 'services' are mandatory, as in if you don't partake the government will send men with guns to force you to pay one way or another My logic is simple if you're a government entity and you can't be bothered to follow the letter of the law in posting no firearm signs, then I shouldn't be required to disarm. Hospitals are another grey area in my book, my Doctor isn't anti-gun, but he sometimes refers myself or my family to a Hospital where they are, he doesn't have privileges anywhere else - not that in Nashville there are any Hospitals which aren't anti-gun to begin with. Anyhow the Hospital in question has no firearm signs outside their ER entrance and main Hospital entrance, but doesn't have them from the Parking Garage entrances. So I put a bug in my back pocket in a wallet style holster, and don't ask/don't tell carry. And frankly I don't feel bad about doing it. Obviously if somebody asking you to leave you should leave. But, while I part of a business that has a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' sign on the door, I don't expect the government to charge people who ignore it with a crime, I ask them to leave and so far they all have left, just as I suspect would be the case with the vast majority of HCP holders.

First, the key fact that everybody here seems to forget, we know of only a few cases where permit holders have been charged for violating 39-17-1359 and ALL of the known cases involve carrying firearms into the secure area of an airport. Second, violation has been changed to a class B misdemeanor with a fine only, so if you're found guilty you're not facing any jail time, you're not facing loss of your permit, you're facing a $500 fine. I highly doubt you'd even get arrested, just cited and told to leave. Obviously I'm not recommending knowingly committing a crime. While I won't spend money in a business that is posted, there are times that I'm forced to carry into 'unfriendly' territory, and will carry past a sign that doesn't comply with the statue, or use an entrance that isn't posted. I carry concealed, and nobody is the wiser. If I get caught and charged, I probably won't hire an attorney, $500 isn't much more than a very bad speeding ticket money wise, and I think I could properly put together a motion to dismiss and argue the legislative intent was clear, any sign that fails to standards set out in the law were meant to be unenforceable. If not I write a check for $500 and have a great story to tell. If some employee comes up and asks you to leave, then leave. If some officer walks up to you and tells you to leave, apologize, tell him you have a HCP and didn't see a valid sign, then offer to leave. I seriously doubt you'd find many officers who are going to try and make a case out of it when you act reasonably to resolve the situation.