Fallguy

I will see if I can find anything in the TCA on this The "People of the State of TN" I don't necessarily disagree.....

If the crime involved the weapon (as illegal carry would), it is always going to be seized. Whether you get it back or not will be up to the court.

The questions I would like to see all of these legislators answer is...."How is any of this within the scope of 'to prevent crime' as mandated by Article 1 Sec 26 of the TN Constitution?"

+1 ...or to clarify a bit further, when it is reasonable to believe there is imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. There is no 17ft rule in the law.

May want to start here Handgunlaw.us

Wow....3 years huh. The funny thing is, the same offense commited by a non-HCP holder wouldn't prevent him from getting one as soon as he could...

Well...I meant between the House and Senate versions of HB3125/SB3012 I agree as of now the better bill period is HB2694

I believe you have all your information correct pws_smokeyjones If what is out there now is the only choices the "best" option would be for the house to pass their version and then senate to adopt the house version.

Yes....

Had HB3125 been introduced in the form it was after the first amendment (what passed in the Judiciary committee) it would have never gone to FW&M and had all of this. I admit, at this point I would rather see HB2694 (as it is now pass) or nothing. Assuming if HB3125 can't be fixed on the floor. Not even sure if I want the appeal of the current law to win...as it might just be an excuse not to do anything in the future.

I have to say HB2694 is looking better....not so much because it is a "better" bill, but with different amendments on HB3125/SB3012 I really do doubt there is time for it to make it through the whole process.....

Actually the Senate Amendment makes the slash and gun a legal posting for any business, not just those that sell alcohol. It can bee seen here http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Amend/SA1236.pdf

So, according to the amendment, they can just put a circle/ slash sign up and call it a day. And Saintsfanbrian, it will be legal. You're right...I had not seen the text of the Senate amendment. It would make just a slash and gun a legal posting. That is not good at all!!!!!! Several steps back from where we are now. I admit I have never heard of Todd wanting there to be a sign you could download. Guess that would leave no doubt about whether it was a proper sign or not. HB2694 simply repeals 39-17-1305, it does not address posting, so 39-17-1359 would still be in effect just like for any other property.

HB2694 doesn't address 39-17-1359 at all, let alone the wording of a sign. How hard is to look at a sign and see if it says... Pursuant to TN law or Pursuant to T.C.A. 39-17-1359 All weapons have been prohibited on this property or Handguns have been prohibited in this building or Firearms have been prohibited in this room. Violation of this posting is a criminal offense or Violators are subject to a $500 fine. One problem with the exact wording in HB3125 is, it still says "On this property, within this building or the posted portion of this building" It has to include all 3 areas even if possession is only prohibited in one of them. Isn't that a bit confusing as well?

Previously "substantially similar" has not been defined (in the TCA or in the courts). This amendment says "substantially similar" requires at least three elements to be in the sign for it to be legal. Don't get me wrong...I'm not really happy with all the changes, but so far they still seem to be better than where we are now.

Once you chose to enter, you assumed the risk of anything happening. If you don't want to disarm, don't enter. It may not be right, but that is the law as of now. Interesting argument.

While I still like exact wording better....Jackson's amendment doesn't mean the sign can say "anything", it says that no matter the wording, the sign would have to include, a)That is it posted per TN law, b)what is prohibited and where it is prohibited and c)that is a criminal offense. I have always thought the "substantially similar" part was to allow the personalization of a sign, but certain elements were to be required. While not the best, at least this does require certain elements to be in the sign. So a simple "No Guns" sign would not be legal since it wouldn't have all three of the above requirements.

I'm sure you're right. While I hate the $500 fine for a violation of 39-17-1359, AFAIK that has never been up for change this year, so no reason hating this bill because of that. I do like that it has specific wording requirements for 39-17-1359, no more wondering if a sign is "substantially similar" As far as the 50% rule, as OS said, it is up to the business owner to determine his percentage and if need be post a compliant sign. It is not up to the HCP holder to determine, but only look for the sign. Best I can tell, if a place should post a sign by the law, but doesn't, it is the business owner that has broken the law, not the HCP holder if he carries in the place. The bill technically doesn't make it illegal to carry in such a place, only places that are posted, and requires the owner to post in certain situations. The one thing I don't like.....is if they are going to have this requirement, I would rather see it be if a business has 50% of revenue or more from alcohol than 50% or less from food. As some have pointed out, there are places that serve alcohol, but alcohol is not their main purposes, but neither is serving food. So it is unlikely that those places will have 50% or more of revenue from food. While I would have rather seen it pass as is, this is still not a bad bill. If the 50% can't be removed or tweaked on the floor, perhaps it can be in future years.

There are restaurant and other than restaurant or "special" licenses from the ABC, but I don't think there is actual BAR license. ..and again...ABC only controls liquor, not beer. There are thousands of places that serve only beer and not liquor, some serving food...some not, so the ABC wouldn't have anything to do with them either. While we all know what a bar is, there is no legal definition in TN. I was out and missed the actual video of the committee, but it sounds as if it will be up to business owner to determine if he has to post a sign or not. So as far as we go...it is still if there is no sign, legal...if there is...it's not. One question though....could this amendment be removed on the floor? Seems like last year there were several amendments that were introduced on the floor....so this could be cleared up or removed still I assume.

I think when most say it is "grey" they mean each LEOs idea of what "under the influence" means/is will more than likely be different, not necessarily that the law itself is grey. Some may not think you're under the influence unless there is a noticeable affect on your speech and/or balance. Some may think you are under the influence if you admit to a single drink 2 hours ago, even if you don't exhibit any outward signs of intoxication. So the grey area is not the law, but how an officer will come to the determination of whether you are under the influence or not.

Guess it is easy in one's desire to help that they may not see the request was made to a limited few.. Shipping it is an idea. AFAIK shipping a firearm to yourself is legal across state lines. I'm not 100% sure, but not being a resident of AK I don't think you can buy a firearm when you are there.

Not sure if this is of any help or not... http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/TakingGunsIntoCanada.pdf http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/visit/index-eng.htm

deerslayer is right on not needing a BAC of 0.08% to be charged with DUI, it is just that it is presumed you are intoxicated at that level. However the LEO could still determine you are intoxicated at a lower level, he may just have a harder case to make. As has been said, the law says you can't be under the influence and in possession of handgun....with under the influence being up to the discretion of the LEO and then maybe the judge.

TGO Thread on subject... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/38652-arizona-allow-concealed-weapons-without-permit.html

On a side note....excellent situational awareness by the manager!!!