-
Posts
8,066 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Everything posted by Fallguy
-
Yes and No. But the existing law does not include any specifics that must be included, this bill does.
-
Here is my idea for a sign with "exact" wording, but allowing some personlization... That way all the "important" information is included, but a property owner can somewhat customize it for his/her purposes. Just my
-
When I took it (8 years or so ago) it wasn't that I didn't know how to ride, but I still very much a novice. So sort of killed two birds with one stone, got a little training and met the requirments to get my M license. While I orginally thought the course was for those that have never sat on a bike....I have to say (at least in the course I took) that at least some knowledge and skill would be good before taking the class.
-
If the existing language, which is allowed to be "substantially similar", is considered vague enough to be challenged, and the new bill in it's original form spelled out specific language that must be used to eliminate any confusion or vagueness, what sense does it make to then want to retain the language of the existing law using the Senate amendments? What am I missing here? You are missing that when he says "The bill retains the language of the existing law" he said that in regards to "requiring all signs to be posted at entrances and of sufficient size to provide notice to permit holders." Not the substainlly similar part. But even though this wasn't what he was talking about...yes, it does still use "substainlly similar" it goes on to define 3 elements that must be contained for it to be "substainlly similar" to try and remove any vaguness.
-
My certificate (Issued a LONG time ago) doesn't have any expiration date on it. I think the only reason one would is to try and make more money. I mean you don't even have to renew your safety class (training) for your HCP.
-
djack, thank you for explination on some of the inner workings on how we got to this point. This is very good and I think we all agree on that. Perhaps the better thing to have done was to drop the sign changes from this bill all together then, instead of changing it to try and address future law suits. Besides...wouldn't future law suits have to challenge a specific TCA code, not a bill? In otherwords, there could have been a lawsuit to challenge the vaguness of 39-17-1359, but it wouldn't have affected the repeal of 39-17-1305 even though both changes occured because of one bill. Shoot one could argue 39-17-1359 being ruled vauge would be good period, regardless of what version of it was on the books. I know since I have had not law schooling that my opinion on the law doesn't mean squat....but I think the "legal staff" is way off on this. Even the anti AG has said that the international symbol by itself was not a legal posting, and it is spelled out fairly clear in the current law. It is a shame that the very state that issues our HCPs feels the need to protect themselves from us by posting signs on every state building. Otherwise there would be no need for the state to post at all. However I do understand on how bills are killed because of fiscal notes. But if it is the captiol building they are worried about...perhaps a better soloution would have been to simply make any place with a metal dector off-limits, posted with a sign or not. Instead of allowing the international symbol alone to be legal. You're right, it does....we'll see how that works out I guess I could be reading it wrong, but you don't have to be intoxicated for you HCP to be suspened for 3 years, only consuming. Currently your HCP is only suspened for the duration of the sentence for conviction of a Class A misdemenor, including a violation of 39-17-1321. Now this would susspend it for 3 years, for having one sip...not even being under the influence. Just seems a bit harsh, regardless of wether one should consume while armed or not. While NRA support is not bad...they don't necessarly speak for all gun owners (Yes, I'm a member), plus they are just as political as politicians. I don't doubt what you say about Mr. Harris, but the TFA hasn't issued a public statement to that fact...so far as I know. Again...thanks for the explination.
-
NP....the Ol' Script Blocker not letting me see the links gag, huh....
-
Misread post....oops
-
Does a persoon lose their HCP for good if.....?
Fallguy replied to a topic in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
My understating is if there are any signs of violence an arrest must be made. Signs of violence can include broken objects not just marks on the other person. EDIT: 36-3-601(1) says Abuse "means inflicting, or attempting to inflict, physical injury on an adult or minor by other than accidental means, placing an adult or minor in fear of physical harm, physical restraint, malicious damage to the personal property of the abused party, including inflicting, or attempting to inflict, physical injury on any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by an adult or minor, or placing an adult or minor in fear of physical harm to any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the adult or minor" 36-3-601(5) says a Domestic Abuse victim is: Adults or minors who are current or former spouses Adults or minors who live together or who have lived together Adults or minors who are dating or who have dated or who have or had a sexual relationship, [as used herein “dating†and “dated†do not include fraternization between two (2) individuals in a business or social context Adults or minors related by blood or adoption Adults or minors who are related or were formerly related by marriage; or Adult or minor children of a person in a relationship that is described in subdivisions (5)(A)-(E) 36-3-619 says the preferred response of a LEO is an arrest if he believes a Domestic Abuse situation has occurred So there are lots of things that can mean abuse besides there actually being a mark on someone. -
I posted a link to all three in post 340 Or from the page you were on before all you have to do is click on the Amendments Tab
-
No Shirt/No Service signs....AFAIK, No penalty other than trespassing if you do not leave when told to do so. No Smoking signs.... $50 according to 39-17-1807 Legal 39-17-1359 signs....has always been $500.
-
Here is something to make it more confusing... If I am reading this right.... A sign with the international no symbol and a gun would be a legal posting, with any wording or without any wording at all. But if a sign doesn't have the international no symbol and a gun then it would have to contain the substantially similar wording. So a sign like Rayburn had would be legal as long as the "slash" symbol was somewhere on it...but probably wouldn't be if it didn't.
-
The house can pass a different version. Then it would have to go back to the senate to accept or reject the house version (similar to last year) and so on. However there is some question if there is enough time for the bill to go the Governor, him wait the 10 days and veto it and then it go back to the legislature before the adjourn...let alone if he had to go through the process like year.
-
I like that it repeals 39-17-1305 Neutral on the new 39-17-1321 making consuming an offense, but do not like a violation means HCP suspended for 3 years. Don't really helps 39-17-1359....if anything may make it even more confusing as to what a proper posting is. So now the question is...will the House simply adopt this version and pass it on 5/5/10? For those who wish to read it for themselves. Amendment 1 rewrites the bill that was first introduced. Amendment 2 add that violation of 39-17-1321 (consuming) is a Class A misdemeanor and suspend HCP for 3 years Amendment 3 changes 39-17-1359 from what is in Amendment 1
-
Does a persoon lose their HCP for good if.....?
Fallguy replied to a topic in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
I have to say getting copies of the paperwork showing the DV charged dismissed is a very good idea. It will be easier now while it is still recent. Others are right...the arrest liable to show up in the future, but the outcome may or may not. -
Well apparently the legislature doesn't see that way is all I can say. But granted LE is going to be the one to arrest you. But if any consumption at all puts you under the influence....why are there so many vehicles parked in front of places that only serve alcohol? There is nothing in the law that defines under the influence in regard to being armed differently than it is for driving or public intoxication. EDIT: There is even a place in the TCA where under the influence and consumption is listed as two separate things. The ironic thing is, it is in the part off-duty LEO carry. 39-17-1350©(2) says a LEO can not carry when he/she "is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance" Now and even more ironic part....HB3125 would prevent consumption while armed by HCP holders only while in the confines of building open to the public where alcohol is served, not universally, like for LEOs. But I grant...if a LEO know he can't carry even while consuming...he is probably not going to think it is ok for you to.
-
LOL....let's see if I can make it worse. If you are under the influence it is obvious you have consumed at some point, if not still consuming. But if you have consumed and/or are still consuming it doesn't necessarily mean you are under the influence. Current TN law prevents carry while under the influence. Currently there is no real need to address consuming while armed in a place that serves alcohol since it was illegal to be armed in there period....consuming or nor, under the influence or not. But if they (legislators) allow carry in place that serves alcohol, apparently they don't think the current 39-17-1321 (under the influence) is strong enough and want to prevent any consumption at all.
-
If the few shots of Jack have not caused an apparent outward affect on your abilities, then IMO you are not "under the influence" and therefore would not be violating 39-17-1321. The smell of alcohol on your breath is of course a sign of consumption, but not necessarily being under the influence.
-
There is no blood test (or any other test) to determine "under the influence", it is simply the officer's discretion based on his/her observation of you. HB3125 would make the consumption of alcohol, while in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption, illegal...even if you weren't under the influence. The senate companion bill of HB2694 was defeated because it did not address consumption. As has been pointed out, many states don't forbid the consumption of alcohol while armed, only the being under the influence (as TN is now) some states have a BAC limit, others not (as in TN). For various reasons the legislature seems to think they need to forbid any consumption while armed to be able to carry in a place that serves alcohol.
-
Nope...Hex is right.
-
We also have a map here on TGO See http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/13408-reference-material-some-basic-questions.html
-
Does a persoon lose their HCP for good if.....?
Fallguy replied to a topic in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
No, they don't. Only if you are going to be questioned. On your HCP 39-17-1352(a)(1) says your HCP shall be suspended or revoked if you are "prohibited from purchasing a handgun under applicable state or federal law" 39-17-1307(f)(1)( says you can not posses a firearm if you are"at the time of the possession, subject to an order of protection that fully complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)" 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) says is what says if you have are the subject of an Order of Protection that you can not purchase or posses a firearm. But it doesn't seem you would loose your HCP "forever" 39-17-1351©(8) only prevents the issuance of HCP if you are "currently" the subject of an Order of Protection. As far as the domestic violence charge, only a conviction, not just an arrest would affect you on your HCP or possession. So it seems the order of protection is going to be your problem. TCA can be looked up here and US Code, Title 18; § 922 here **NOTE** I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice, it is simply my own personal opinion. -
Penalty for concealed carry in Memphis Parks
Fallguy replied to a topic in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
This law was changed this year by HB2376/SB2334, see Public Chapter 629. But it didn't have anything to do with confiscation, only disposition. -
It is 10 days (not 30) not including Sundays of sitting on the Governor's desk that a bill becomes law. Hate to see what happened to SB3735, funny how they didn't seem fit to address or worry about consumption till now (this session HB0962 and HB3125) though. Still a very slight bit of home that the bad amendment of HB3125 can be removed and the senate simply adopt the house version I guess. Fingers crossed.