JayC

The critical thing to remember is, there is no implied consent...   You don't have to perform a field sobriety test, blow in a breathalyzer, or provide a blood/urine sample...  most importantly you don't have to say a word.  Unless you're full out drunk, it's going to be a tough road to prove in our you were under the influence if you don't say anything and refuse any tests.   And while they might threaten to drag you to a hospital and perform a blood draw, state law only allows them to do that for operating a motor vehicle, not carrying a firearm.   They would need to get a full on search warrant to collect any evidence from you.   Again, nobody is suggesting that you should be drinking and carrying a gun, but a single beer or glass of wine likely doesn't violation the law - no case law to indicated either way - and you'd be hard pressed to get arrested for it if you don't do any of the above even if they're looking for a reason.  Of course, one drop while you're in a restaurant and you'll loose your permit for 3 years.  

I think an ADA would have a hard time proving that 'under the influence' of alcohol for motor vehicles before the legislature fixed a BAC level, would be somehow be different than 'under the influence' for carrying a gun before the legislature has set any BAC limits.   But here is the most important part, there is NO IMPLIED CONSENT when carrying a handgun in state law. That means the officer, can't force you to take a field sobriety test, they can't force you to give a BAC, nor can they force you to give blood under current state law, unless they're also trying to add the charge along with drunk driving.  Also, good luck finding a hospital that will do the blood draw because they have no safe harbor from civil liability under state law.   So unless you agree to one of the above, they're going to have to base the arrest solely on watching you in an uncontrolled environment...  that is going to be a really tough case to prove.   Finally, while we don't have any case law on 39-17-1321, that cuts both ways...  most of the permits we see revoked each year have to do with Class A charges from DUI's...  Yet we haven't seen a single conviction under 39-17-1321...  what are the chances out of all of those cases none of those permit holders had a gun with them?  

There is case law on being 'under the influence' of alcohol back before the MADD crappy laws were passed, there were a number of cases where BAC levels were argued in front of judges, and there are ruling from those cases that would still stand today...  You can't use those as precedence in cases involved the operating of a motor vehicle because the legislature has lowered the BAC level for the purpose of driving a vehicle/boat but they would probably still stand for operating a firearm.   More importantly, 39-17-1321a clearly does not prohibit all consumption of alcohol while carrying.  You're right at some point somebody will be stupid and get charged and we'll have better case law...  but lets not scare otherwise law abiding citizens that they can't carry a gun because they had a sip of beer at home 2 hours ago ;)  

More busy work for F Troop?

It's a Presidential election year, where the base turns out in droves for primary votes, and it's fresh in every-bodies mind if their local legislator supported a gun rights bill...  it use to work that way here before Harwell became speaker.    

Exactly ;)  And you catch them in the very last sentence talking about alcohol add the correct words...  but if you don't know the law already you would miss it entirely and think drinking is completely prohibited by law while carrying a firearm.  And again I don't think people should drink while carrying, but I also don't think we need a law against it either.  

This isn't a generic video made by the NRA or some other association/training group.  It was made by TDOS with HCP Permit money...  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect they tell the exact requirements and not push an agenda which they obviously did in this video.   But again, the video has nothing to do with this topic really, they mention 'castle doctrine' for a few sentences and none of that conflicts with the basic review of the laws that have been posted here.  

The video, the video is just awful and full of mis-information or half truths.  One would think after watching that that it's required that you inform officers you're armed, and provide a copy of your permit when you hand over your drivers license - which is clearly not required under state law.   I'm sure there are some 'bad' ideas in this topic, but I was talking about the video.  

Other than some really bad suggestions, none of this conflicts with anything we've been saying in this topic.  

If you go back a couple of pages, I posted the different sections of the law having to do with 'castle doctrine' in TN.   http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/95243-recent-carport-break-in-riverside-plantation-west-nashville/page-2#entry1365282   You'll see that both the carport and front porch are covered as long as there was an unlawful entry made.  Pretty much anything that has a roof over it... and any curtilage.  It's a very broad law.    

It's perfectly legal under TN law to confront a would be thief on your property, but you're only allowed to use deadly force you have a reasonable fear of death or injury.  If said thief has unlawfully entered a dwelling on your property, then under TN law you have the assumption of a reasonable fear of death or injury.     I honestly think it's as simple as that, and there aren't any known cases that conflict with that assessment that we're aware of in the firearms/self defense community here in TN.   Using your logic, the DA could make the same argument as to why you even left your bedroom if you heard a would be thief downstairs... and we know that isn't an example that would hold up under TN law.   Now, if somebody pulls a Byron Smith, I suspect we'd see a trail and a conviction, but then again he executed both thieves with shots to the back of the head after they had already been shot and were begging for their lives.   If a bad guy makes the decision to break into a persons home or dwelling, I have no sympathy if their own criminal actions leads to their death.     

I don't there is any TN case law on that point, but the plain reading of the law would not remove your assumption of the fear...  Just because you're afraid of a threat does not require that you retreat from your dwelling, nor does it prevent you from confronting the threat.   A home is a man's castle, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a TN DA willing to take most of these examples to trail, for 1 getting the case bounced or the bad press they'd get.  The fact is most people don't like the thought of a known bad guy breaking into their house, and they tend to make very unsympathetic 'victims'.  

In all fairness Dave, in TN under current law, a carport is the same as your house for purposes of self defense.  If you shoot somebody who has unlawfully entered the garage or carport, then it's assumed under the law you had a reasonable fear, the DA would have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt you didn't have such fear.   I don't believe the 'reasonable person' test comes into play at all, because under the law it's assumed that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life in somebody unlawfully enters dwellings on their property.   I think everybody is missing the current status of state law...  Finding a thief in your garage or carport is no different than finding a thief in your home under TN state law.  And our 'castle doctrine' immediately kicks in...  It's assumed under state law that you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death by the mere fact that they unlawfully enter your dwelling.   If somebody breaks into your home, no matter the reason, you're under no obligation to offer them quarter, or wait until they charge you after confronting them...  If they are unlawfully in your home, you're assumed to have a reasonable fear and are free to defend yourself.  You're under no obligation to give them a way to escape, and they have no right to self defense in that situation.  There is no requirement to use proportional force, you're free to escalate immediately to deadly force if you feel the is the best way to remove the threat.   And under the plain reading of state law, your garage, and any building on your property with a roof are the same as your home.  

    Unfortunately and illegally under state law, some departments (and a number of individual officers) have a policy of running the serial number of any firearm they come across, including those carried by HCP holders.  You should assume if they disarm you during an encounter they are running you firearms serial number, and 95+% chance that information will end up in the LinX database in an easy to query format.    I have no clue if carrying a receipt will do a bit of good or not, some officers it might carry weight, my guess is most just see running the firearm as a check box they must tick every time they encounter somebody with a gun.   Truth is I doubt very few officers really understand that this information is being collected somewhere.

Dispatch in most agency's.  In some that have connected computers in each patrol car, it's being entered in by the officers themselves.  LinX is a 2 way 'plugin' that grabs data and queries being entered into the system by dispatch/officers and creates events on the LinX database, but can also be queried automatically when entering in say a persons name, dob etc.  In most agency's setups it will grab just about anything that is entered into their local system and pass it along to LinX automatically.  Including if not disabled, parking tickets, and minor fender bender reports.   It's all done behind the scene, most of the IT staff in local agencies don't even understand the details of how it works.  I worked an 'incident' (employment related) a few years ago for a small local police department, and 'discovered' LinX during the course of the forensics work for them.      

While they don't own the firearms, they can have you sign a contract that by accepting the money you agree to use that money to buy X and then have it destroyed in a certain manner.  

Oh I agree this guy had no thought to challenging the law...  just saying if you think a law is unconstitutional there are was to get standing to challenge a law that do not require you to place yourself at risk of being arrested ;)    

The biggest one, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service - Law Enforcement Information Exchange.   Everytime a local police officer stops you, and runs the serial number on your otherwise legal firearm, the fact you had possession of that firearm is entered into the LinX database.  Along with a lot of other information, such as parking tickets and fender-benders.   Because the data in question is still owned by the law enforcement entity that enters it into LinX, it skirts around federal laws prohibiting the building of such databases since no money is spent at the federal level entering the data, and it's not owned by federal agencies in most cases.  

Agreed, but he signed the document under penalty of perjury....  This is a perfect example of better to dot your i's and cross your t's when getting standing than to get caught and trying defend yourself.   Better to fill out the form 100% correct get denied and challenge them in court, than fill it out incorrect, get caught and then try to challenge a law in court.   Which dovetails nicely with the conversation on how to deal with illegal postings of streets and parks around the state...  

Technically they are charged with lying on the government form, not with buying the firearm as a straw purchase.   Again, a straw purchase itself is only a crime if you knowingly intended to purchase a firearm for somebody that is a prohibited person.  And technically you can be charged with this crime without going through an FFL.  But, the 4473 has a question on it, and the easier charge is to prove you lied on a government form.   The SCOTUS case doesn't touch on the legality of purchasing a firearm for somebody else that you know is NOT a prohibited person, if that police officer had properly marked the 4473, was denied, and he took the government to court for denying him a firearm he may well have won the case, because under federal law there are examples that are perfectly legal to purchase a firearm for somebody else.   Here is the ruling from SCOTUS on the case you mention: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_5468.pdf   The only finding in the case is lying on the 4473 - 'We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statue"   Truth is the uncle probably had greater standing to argue that the ATF's form 4473 was prohibiting him from purchasing firearms at a better price...  there is some case law in the 5th circuit that would seem to backup this line of thinking.  

TFA for all of it's faults have field a lawsuit against the City of Knoxville over this very issue and it's working it's was through the courts right now.  It's very likely they will win and the city will end up paying a large legal bill to the TFA for the pleasure of loosing.   The simple way to get this solved quickly is to go to the local chancery court and request a temporary injunction against the City of Clarksville, and the company operating this festival (which in this case appears to be the Chamber of Commerce in Clarksville) from prohibiting otherwise law abiding gun owners from carrying on public streets and public parks.   Since we still have 4 days before it starts, you'd need to either find an attorney willing to take the case for a very low fee and pass the hat asking for donations (my guess is you could raise a couple of grand if you promoted this on facebook), find a law student who can help draft the request for injunction, or a paralegal who is pro gun that could help draft the request.  Or obviously reach our to John Harris at the TFA and see if they'd be willing to take this case on and try to get a temporary injunction before the event starts.   My guess is this case would be very easy to win, state law clearly doesn't allow the prohibiting of lawful carry on public right away, nor on parks.  The private land areas likely can legally post, and that is the vast majority of the land here...  the only 'park' you'd have it around the government building and the courthouse, and of course all the streets and public sidewalks.  It wouldn't be a total win, but it could provide case law for future incidents.   I believe we need to have a much harder stance on this behavior by governments violating the law...  we should have an organization in TN that focuses on taking to court any clear violations of state law concerning firearms.  This has worked very well for example in GA.  I don't think being a crash test dummy is the best way to do this, I think just going into court and asking for a TI is the best way to handle this.   Also, it might not be a bad idea to get the Clarksville Police and the Montgomery County Sheriff on he record on if they will enforce this ban or not...  having them make public statements would help encourage TFA or some attorney to take this case, since then there would be a reasonable expectation that 'reasonable attorney' costs would be award after winning or settling the case.  

There is no case law yet, but the Nashville Zoo is likely a park under state law and can no longer be posted.  We'll have a better idea after the case in Knoxville works its way through the court system.

A better question is how can the Secret Service declare any location in the US under it's control and prohibit the carrying of guns?  How large of an area can they declare a no gun zone?  Can the RNC refuse Secret Service designating their event?   Why not demand that Congress (which is republican controlled) pass a law allowing firearms to be carried at the RNC convention?  I doubt Obama would veto such a bill since it would be limited in scope to a private meeting.   Even better, why doesn't the republican party site selection committee, pass a resolution that they will only hold conventions in the future where members are allow to carry?   Something is really wrong with the Republican Party, rotten to it's core.  

Pre-schools in most cases are not schools in and of themselves.  They are officially day care facilities.

You want to read TCA 39-17-1307e and 39-17-1308a both of these sections of the law will better explain what you can and can not do without a permit.   IANAL but the basic reading of the law makes it clear you can have a loaded firearm (rifle, shotgun, or handgun) in any vehicle as long as you have legal possession of it, and it does NOT belong to a government or private entity that has a written policy prohibiting firearms.   Moving the firearm from the passenger compartment to the trunk of your vehicle LOADED can only be done legally while on your property, place of residence, or place of business.  UNLOADED, you can move the firearm just about anywhere except a school/university.   Remember, that 39-17-1307/8 does not cover public/private schools, universities, public parks, etc in those locations to have a firearm legally in your vehicle you will need a permit.   As others have said the best solution today is to get a permit.  But you can legally carry in your vehicle without one, and if you need to should.