Fallguy

Actually you are right. But from what I can tell the House and Senate both have provisions in the their rules that can wave that (without a vote) when it gets close to the end of the session. From what I can tell, within the last two (2) day of the session in the Senate and the last day of the session in the House. From House Rules - TN General Assembly From Senate Rules of Order for the 106th General Assembly, As Amended January 12, 2010 So perhaps this is the reason for not bringing up today. Wed may very well be within the last two days of the session for the Senate so then the 24 hour rule would be waived without having to suspend the rules and maybe the same in the house on Thursday?

Well what do you mean by "Bredesen's Lieutenant Governor"? It's not like Bredesen had anything to do with Ramesy being Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor is also the Speaker of the Senate and is simply elected by the members of the Senate. So if you don't like Ramesy because of some perceived tie to Bredesen, maybe a bit more research is in order. (Not trying to be a smart ***) For the record Ramesy is my choice (for now anyway) too.

E-mailed my Rep and Sen last week, both voted for it on the floor. My Rep responded back in just a few minutes to say he would vote for an override, still not heard from my Sen. FWIW, the House does have Floor Session scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, so if the Senate overrides it on Wed, they House can do it ons of those days. AFAIK there is no 24 hour rule in the House like the Senate.

Very misinformed. I got two e-mails for the NRA-ILA last week that mentioned the veto, one on Wed the other on Sat but neither mentioned anything about last Friday as the day to try and override. Here is a legislative update e-mail I got from Sen. Beavers yesterday.

AFAIK no. I was just saying something weird could happen here with the way the do the HCP and firearms laws. Think of park carry.... they didn't repeal 39-17-1311 like this bill does 39-17-1305. There is simply an exception for those with a HCP in 39-17-1311. So if they just passed "constitutional carry" in TN those without a permit still couldn't carry in parks. Unless they said you could carry anywhere, but then there are some laws that may still specifically apply to those with a permit. So if they got to "messing around" who knows what could come of it.

Or if they ever did allow carry without a permit (not likely, IMO) they may have different restrictions for those that don't have a permit than those that do. Then talk about confusing firearms laws.......

On the bill last year the effective date was June 1. So since it was after June 1 before the veto was overriden it had to wait the 40 days laid out in Article II sec 20 of TN Constitution before it became law.

Me too

Which is what this does Totally agree Not going to look it up now, but the AG has said that you can be charged with being in possession of a handgun and under the influence at home. While I am not recommending itfor anyone else...I feel if you can have a drink and still legally drive car (aka 2000lb weapon) you should be able to carry as long are you not drunk (aka under the influence). Consuming and under the influence are two different things...and this bill ends the debate on that as it provides for an additional penalty for being under the influence inside a place that serves above that of just consuming. However I'm fine, for now, with not even being allowed to consume while inside a place as this bill would have never passed otherwise. Actually .04 best I remember. Had to sign something that said I knew that when I got my CDL, could be one reason this bill also includes adding about alcohol in the HCP safety class. Wouldn't be against that...but it seems like they like to keep grey areas in our laws. I imagine a bill will be introduced, but if gets to the floor I'd be truly amazed.

I know, I know...I really shouldn't side track this thread...but I have to ask.... How long can someone get away with their hand on your wife's ass?

Plus...everyone seems to forget about the dry counties where there is no liquor served, but only beer..which is alcohol too. Beer licenses are controlled on a local level. So even if the ABC came up with a definition of a bar, that's not going to solve the problem.

I don't think any place "open to the public" should be allowed to post....restaurant, bar or movie theater. No reason to make an exception for certain group of businesses I'm also not sure why the government needs to keep us from carrying in a place that gets more than 51% of its income from alcohol. It is a shame good laws can keep from getting passed because of a "fiscal note" that is the main reason for the symbol being allowed, so the state wouldn't have to pay to change it's signs. First I don't think the state should post either...but if they want to make their places off-limits all they have to do is pass a law that makes all state building off-limits without even having to post. That way there should never be a fiscal note when it comes to the posting law. While not the best bill ever, I am glad it removed 39-17-1305, overall 39-17-1359 is not substantially worse than it was. In the future I think it will be easier to deal with 39-17-1359 again than alcohol and firearms.

Agree... While I like what the "Walls of the City" blog is trying to do....there is quite a bit of misinformation in that post.

+1000

Seems like it was discussed that it was some "staff lawyers" on the hill were the ones to thank for they symbol language. However...I think the law takes effect immediately, not July 1st Also....where does it say a second violation of 39-17-1359 is a Class A misdemeanor?

I would imagine that provision is not for buildings but rather open areas where carry is to be prohibited. Fields, parks, parking lots etc.....

Thanks for posting... Great song and love the message at the end.

Of course those requirements are for the places that don't have doors, but SC does seem to have some very specific sign requirments....

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/southcarolina.pdf Places Off-Limits Even With A Permit/License Section 23-31-215 (M). · (1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility; · (2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office; · (3) courthouse or courtroom; · (4) polling place on election days; · (5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district; · (6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms; · (7) day care facility or pre-school facility; · (8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law; · (9) church or other established religious sanctuary (unless authorized); · (10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor's office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer. · Any Place a sign posted states, "No Concealable Weapons Allowed" in accordance with Section 23- 31-235. (sign must meet requirements). · Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings. No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. Section 16-23-420. (A) It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly-owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle." The "Offenses Involving Weapons" Chapter (16-23) of SC Code adds other restrictions applicable to CWP holders as well: Into any establishment where alcohol is served for consumption on premises. This includes restaurants (Section 16-23-465) . Into "any publicly-owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property" (Section 16-23-420(a)) . Section 23-31-235. Sign requirements. (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language. ( All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be: (1) clearly visible from outside the building; (2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size; (3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign; (4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal; (5) a diameter of a circle; and (6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door. (C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be: (1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size; (2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign; (3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide; (4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground; (5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

I agree, whether it is expressly mentioned as in 39-17-1322 or implied/understood as in most city ordnances. I just figure the park wants to make sure you know that you may have to prove to them it was fired in a self-defense situation.

We have the same link in this post in the thread that was already discussing the veto.

Yep....most cities have an ordnance that prohibits the discharge of a weapon within the city limits. None of them I've seen make an exception for one fired in self-defense. Of course I've never heard of anyone charged with a violation of an ordnance like that either, if it was a self-defense situation. I imagine what the park is trying to say is....if they hear a gun shot, you simply saying there was a wild animal that scared me, so I shot at it, may not be enough to justify discharging the firearm.

Nobody really expected and individualized response did they?

Good examples Dave, OS. This all is not to say that if it is clear cut thug who came in in the middle of the night, that the DA is going to use every resource to try and prove you shouldn't have shot. Each incident is reviewed based on it's own merits and how deeply it is reviewed is based on the facts.