Fallguy

Actually it was drunk driving. His lawyer basically said you can't try him for DUI and take actions against his DL. Drunks claim double jeopardy. (double jeopardy defense in drunk driving cases) - State Legislatures | Encyclopedia.com JOHN DENVER CONFRONTS STATE ON DRUNK DRIVING.(Local) - Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) | Encyclopedia.com

I had wondered about this too.... Do you think we could try and use a variation of the "John Denver" defense and say since 39-17-1359 says the $500 fine only, that suspension/revocation of your HCP would be an additional punishment? Especially if the Governor signs the bill since it adds the 3 year suspension as an "additional punishment" to the charge of being armed and under the influence in a place open to the public that serves alcohol.

Hey.......what are you trying to say?

Based on the amount of the fine it is a Class B misdemeanor. Any violation of criminal law is a misdemeanor or felony.

+1...especially the last sentence.

That is correct...it specifically says in the law "punishable by $500 fine only."

Well said!!

If you use it in a justifiable self-defense situation, you can not be charged with a violation of 39-17-1359 or any 39-17-13xx law for that matter. http://www.michie.com/tennessee

I think you've got it....

Yes, but not deadly force...and then only the force required to stop the trespass.

While I admit I don't like the symbol alone being a legal posting, I agree with those that think that there really won't be a rash of signs/symbols put up all over the place. A few of us and a few restaurant owner's are really the only ones watching this so close. After the law passed last year I went out to eat at Logan's Roadhouse in Jackson, spoke with the manager to thank him for not posting....he was unaware that there had been any change in the law. This is after it had been on the local news broadcast several times. Also if you do unintentionally walk past a legal sign, it's not like someone is going to hold out their hand for you to put $500 in it. You'd have to be charged by someone, if you're outside and still there it would have to be the property owner since the LEO didn't witness the misdemeanor. You know the property owner isn't going to want to take a day off from work to go to court...especially since the $500 isn't going to him. But even if you are inside...I don't think most LEOs want to go to court over something relatively minor either. I'm not looking back to find the post, but someone posted the reason the language to allow one or both as a legal posting was because, legal staff thought that the way the law was written, that it was that way know. Not sure how they got that....even the AG has opined that (as of now) the symbol alone was not a legal posting. When/if this becomes law....we can just do like last year and speak with any owner's/manager's that post and tell them why we won't be back. Seems like last year I remember several post where owner's/manager's reversed themselves and removed postings after being educated.

I know many (if not all) LEOs prefer a HCP holder to notify them immediately that they are armed, but the law does not require this. So if a HCP holder chooses not to inform I do not see any reason for a LEO to become rude or confrontational if later he learns the person is a HCP holder and is armed. Most HCP holders are not trying to be trouble by not informing, I feel most are just trying not to introduce a separate subject that most likely irrelevant to the encounter.

I see what you're saying. ..and I agree it could be read to allow only the symbol, only the proper sign or the both. However I don't think the symbol along with the words "No Guns" would be seen as not a proper posting by most people (i.e. LEOs and Judges among others) What if symbol is on one sign and whatever words are on another? Does the symbol standing alone and the other words being separate make it legal? If so, then I'm not sure just adding the words to the same piece of paper suddenly invalidates it. No, if the sign gets too "cute" with it's wording I could see a good argument being made that it wasn't clear. Since as we've mentioned many times that we can't seem to find anyone charged with a violation of 39-17-1359 I hope all of this discussion is really just academic and that better changes can be made later.

Yep, see post 664 Agree...however all Rayburn would have to do to make his sign legal is add the international symbol.

Either... The moment he signs it..., After it sits on his desk for 10 days (excluding Sundays) or Or after a veto is overridden by both chambers of the General Assembly

It only takes a simply majority in TN to over a veto. So unless a whole bunch changed their mind...Yes, there is more than enough to override a veto. Hmmmm...I think you're right. A judge might not have a choice if you are found guilty. Got ya. Agree! No..A property owner always has the right to carry on his property without a HCP. As far as employess, I admit I'm not 100% sure. Maybe the owner will pay for the HCPs Assuming the side door is commonly used for public entrance...then IMO No, you would not be in violation since you were not given proper notice. I really doubt he signs it...at the best he let it become law without his signature.

Guess he assumed his stance is well noted.....and it is... I could be wrong, but I just don't think that argument would stand... A judge could very well say the item is a "handgun" therefore banning semi and revolvers alike, not just one or the other.

I agree 99 times out of 100 you are probably just going to be asked to leave instead of charged. But even if you are charged...the fine is "up to" $500...doesn't mean it has to be that much...or anything actually.

....and not to try and re-start an old debate..but maybe actually end it.... It would seem that this bill would for sure show that "under the influence" and "consuming" are indeed two different things as far as the law of TN goes and when armed. Since they are not only addressed in two different sub-parts (a) & ( but are punished differently if they occur within the confines of a place that serves alcohol.

Just to give fair credit....the summary came from a TFA alert e-mail, I simply copied and posted it. While I don't like the "International Symbol" part....it is not the worst thing that could have happened I don't think.

The Governor has 10 days (not including Sundays) to sign the bill or let it become law without his signature. But this 10 day countdown does not start today. It starts after all the "recording keeping" and such is done in the legislature. I think this took about 3 days or so last year. The bill would allow the "Circle and Slash" symbol alone to be a legal posting anywhere. However it would still have to be "plainly visible" and at all entrances. There is no reason to think it will get struck down in court. As far as too many words....it simply repeals 39-17-1305...no words at all. Now if someone wants to challenge 39-17-1359 and have that whole law ruled vauge...I'm fine with that. You can follow the status of the bill here Tennessee General Assembly to see the actual date that it is sent to Governor and the 10 days start.

Summary... Rep. Todd moved to substitute and conform to the Senate bill. Rep. Harry Tindell spoke in support of his amendment that would require any establishment that generates less than 50% of its annual revenue from "food sales". It is a poorly worded and thought out amendment. He states he brought the amendment. He claims his amendment draws a distinction between "guns in bars" and "guns in restaurants." Rep. Joe McCord, who reportedly was going around trying to kill this bill by pushing for the Tindell amendment, spoke on the floor in favor of the Tindell amendment. He also took the opportunity on the floor to attack the NRA's proposed solution and to complain about the amount of "gun" bills that are presented each year. McCord paraphrased his perspective of the NRA as taking a position that "if you don't support carrying guns in bars, we will oppose you...." Obviously, McCord is not running for office again and his "out of the closet" oration complaining about the gun bills and the firearms owners of Tennessee. He wanted to know "what line will we not cross" for firearms owners in Tennessee. Rep. Henry Fincher stood to rebut the claims and conclusions of Rep. McCord regarding the NRA and firearms owners comments. Rep. Vance Dennis spoke against the Tindell amendment by noting the care of the House Judiciary Committee that did not adopt this qualifier and its clear ambiguities. Rep. Dennis moved the amendment to the table. The vote on the tabling motion was 60 to 36 - the proposed amendment by Tindell was defeated. Debate on the bill started with Rep. Gerald McCormick. His question went to the issue of whether a "beer joint" could ban the possession of firearms in the location and it was responded by Rep. Todd that the property owner would have the ability to post the property in their discretion. Rep. Larry Miller went back to an old argument (futile) of "whose duty is it to catch someone who is carrying a weapon and drinking"? Rep. G. A. Hardaway, proud that he had one of the NRA's lowest ratings, wanted to raise questions about the liability of property owners regarding posting issues. Rep. Kent Coleman wanted Rep. Todd to review the posting which he stated included the international circle and slash. Rep. Eddie Bass moved for the question. Bill passes...

LOL

Just hope they can get it to the Governor quickly!!!!