Fallguy

Bill Passess!!! 66-31

Hope the NRA rescinds McCord's membership and all of his children's...

...and yet again...

...or not with so many passing...

Guess everyone wants to get their say at least....

Motion to Table amendment prevails!!

Agree

McCord ® for 50% amendment (that IMO causes problems again) Fincher (D) against it..... what is the world coming to?

How did this become about the NRA?

Moved to conform to Senate Bill....done...

LOL...yep I did make it through the "another fine waste of time"...or whatever he said.

Not sure what they are discussing now...but don't feel like sitting through it waiting on HB3125...or did I miss what happened to it, if so what was the outcome?

Good deal make sure and let us know what the final outcome is.

From Tennessee - State government The legislative salary in 2002 was $16,500, unchanged from 1999 From Tennessee General Assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia To keep the legislature a part-time body, it is limited to ninety "legislative days" per two-year term, plus up to fifteen days for organizational purposes at the start of each term. A legislative day is considered any day that the House or Senate formally meets in the chambers of each house. If it remains in session longer than ninety legislative days, lawmakers cease to draw their expense money, currently set at $141 per legislative day. Legislators also receive an "office allowance" of $1,000 per month, ostensibly for the maintenance of an office area devoted to their legislative work in their homes or elsewhere within their district. Traditionally, it has been easier, politically-speaking, to raise the per diem and office allowance than the salary. The speaker of each house is entitled to a salary triple that of other members. Under a law enacted in 2004, legislators will receive a raise equally to that given to state employees the previous year, if any

I've been without internet access for the last 3-4 days, so this may have already been addressed and I haven't got to the post yet but.... The above is exactly what the Seneate bill does. It just also modifies the current posting law as well.

True

I missed that he was a probation officer...went by LEO in the title. A PO very well may not be considered a LEO in GA, TN or under LEOSA

57-4-203©(1) It is unlawful for any licensee or other person to sell or furnish any alcoholic beverage to any person who is known to be insane or mentally defective, or to any person who is visibly intoxicated, or to any person who is known to habitually drink alcoholic beverages to excess, or to any person who is known to be an habitual user of narcotics or other habit-forming drugs.

Yep LEOSA on the books for nearly 6 years now. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL...ooops. Only about 3 hours sleep last night due to fire alarm at work and the weather.....

At first I thought you had it backwards, but reading it more closely I think you are exactly right. So the only time the 3 years suspension comes in is if you are intoxicated and in a place that serves alcohol. While armed and... Under the influence - Class A Misdemeanor (Like now) In a place that serves alcohol and consuming - Class A Misdemeanor(Like always has been proposed) In a place that serves alcohol and under the influence - Class A Misdemeanor & HCP Suspened for 3 years Actually...that is not bad as I first thought....and could live with that. ....and just for argument sake....that would seem to confirm that at least in the TCA consuming and under the influence are two different things.

If those places are open to the public I'm not 100% sure they should be allowed to deny entry in those situations either. But actually I really haven't seen a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service sign in a long time. ...and I have seen several barefoot people in public places. I do somewhat understand where you're coming from and I'm not saying a person should have free range of the place. But I stand by that if they are acting lawfuly, not interering with your conducting business and not causing a disturbance there shouldn't be a problem. I mean sitting still and not talking is lawful, but if you are doing it at table, not ordering food and are taking space from paying customers, I have no problem with you being told/forced to leave, because you are intfering with the operation of the persons' business. But I fail to see how having my lawfully carried firearm is interfering with anyone's conduction of business.

I really don't want to turn this into a property owners right's thread....there is enough of those, but.. If you open you property/business to the public then IMO you have accepted to allow the public into your place, along with all the lawful things that persons may have or can do. At least so long as that person doesn't become a disturbance and/or interfere with conduction of business. If you have a private club or business, then by all means you can place any restrictions on entrance and the conduct once inside you wish. If I have a choice, then by all means, I would rather do business with a place that doesn't post (legal or not) against carry, but in smaller towns or in certain situations, there may not always be a choice. If you haven't already, when you get a chance, look at and reply to this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/36341-public-accommodation-properties-have-no-right-block-fundamental-right.html

Funny thing though is the current 39-17-1359 has a grandfather clause for goverment buildings...... I still think it's sad that all of this has to be done because the state can't spend a few bucks to fix some signs....or simply make a list of state buildings that are off-limits by statute. Many states list the State Captiol Building as an off-limits area.

IMO substainlly similar, without any guidlines, is vague. But that could just be me. That was the purpose of my example sign, not to make anyone feel special, but to require exact wording excpet for the fill in the blank areas. That way there is still a standard format, but either certain or all items could be banned and it could be on all or part of the property, but without having to leave the language for all of it in the statute.