Fallguy

I'm sure he is a nice guy....but it is even worse that he doesn't know the law if he is a LEO too. It's not exactly like it was a recent change....it was changed in July 2001, see Public Chapter 345 of 2001

+1 on both accounts

You would think....but many don't. Talked to a HCP instructor a little after the long gun in car carry for HCP holder's passed. He knew nothing of it. A quick search of threads on here can find lot's of misinformation given out by instructors. Don't get me wrong, many do a great job.....but a few don't.

I think that is very wrong. There are many states that issue permits to non-residents. There is nothing in TN law that says you can not have a permit from another state, only that if you become a resident of TN you must obtain a TN permit. Or that in a specific set of circumstances if you work 30 hours a week or more for 6 months in TN and do not have a permit from a reciprocal state, then you must get a TN permit to carry. So even TN issues non-resident permits in certain situations.

I had tried to work on getting one of the older permits, but was having trouble finding a company to issue the bond. Then found out how close the law was to getting changed and just waited...

Got it in early 97 and then only carried on ocassion. Daily carry since 2001

If they have "opted out" and properly posted per 39-17-1311 a violation would be a Class A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine of $2500 Also a conviction of a Class A misdemanor will cause your HCP to be suspended for the length of any sentence, including probation.

What is the point of having committees if the debate on a bill isn't going to be limited to the scope of the committee? When it gets to the floor....that is the place for general debate...

Correct Right again Well that is the question....the text of the law says "reciprocity agreement" not just recognition. But at the time the law was first written there was no general recognition by TN. IMO since TN now honors any other states permit, whether there is a formal agreement or not shouldn't matter, but it seems the DOS keeps pointing the other out and the possible need for a TN permit by those from out of state. There was even a bit of a problem last year between TN and VA because of this and a short time that VA did not honor TN permits.

The DOS doesn't quote the whole law on it's site. The above is 39-17-1351®(3)©(i) but 39-17-1351®(3)©(ii) says... "The provisions of this subdivision ®(3)© shall not apply if the state of residence of the person employed in Tennessee has entered into a handgun permit reciprocity agreement with this state pursuant to this subsection ®." Georgia and TN do have a written reciprocity agreement. (See link in quoted post) On a side note....now that TN recognizes all state permits, not sure why this is still in the law...but it is....

One thing I thought of.... If she doesn't have a HCP and/or isn't comfortable with handguns....would leaving her yours (regardless of the law or not) really be of any help?

Center Of Mass Central

Wonder what the little piece of paper is worth in the long run actually and what is supposed to protect you from? As has been said, unless the place is posted, there is no law against it. Also if your employer has no problem with it (assuming they would even know for any reason) depending on the size of the company, do you really need it in writing?

^^^Well said^^^

Here is a post I made with some relevant laws, although most of the links are probably broken you can use the numbers to look them up in the link midtennchip posted http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/13408-reference-material-some-basic-questions.html Also here is a post where I laid out how I have looked up court cases in TN...at least ones that have made it to the appeals court and/or supreme court. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/7231-looking-up-court-cases.html

IMO, No, it doesn't comply with 39-17-1359 If the judge and the owner of this building are friends though, I'm going to bet he says you had not doubt what the intentions of the owner were and that is close enough. Just another reason I would like to see HB3125 pass...so as to require exact wording for a sign to be legally binding...

Also....just like when I made the above post, and it went back to the thread page...it went back to the top instead of showing me my post. But it doesn't do it in all threads....really weird...

Well I still have problems on Home computer running XP, Work Computer running Windows 2000 and Laptop running Vista. Guess the board just doesn't like me...lol

Well it didn't work for me either actually. But still not sure why it does just fine on some threads and not others.

Call mine, Rep Curtis Halford. Staff Contact assured me that he is a firm 2A supporter and would vote in favor HB2694.

My bad....I didn't notice the reference about the instructor in the first post, although it seemed you weren't sure if that was the source or not. Then got caught up in the other post. Of all of the misinformation I have heard of instructors giving out...this has to be about the furthest out there I've heard of yet...... Care to share where you took your class?

Not meaning to sound rude in any way.....but... How in the world would ever even get the idea you were supposed to notify anyone? Now if you mean to notify a LEO that has stopped you etc that you are armed.... that is different. Some states require it, some don't...to be on the safe side I always would when out of state. But as far as calling ahead.......who would you call, why, what you expect to be done? I mean I know LEOs notify when they are going into one county from another, if they are going to be doing some type of official duties, but that is way, way, WAY a whole different ball of wax.

Both bills Repeal 39-17-1305 HB3125 as amended does not have a negative fiscal note. I think HB3125 is better because it also amends 39-17-1359 requiring posted signs to contain exact language. It also removed the laws under the alcohol statues that required (now outdated) signs to be posted. But it does appear HB2694 has a better chance of passing because it's next step is on the floor, while HB3125 is having problems in the budget committee. An interesting note...HB2694 does not have the "no consuming" language that HB3125 does. If some legislators think of that...and realize that at least one of the bills is likely to pass, they may send HB3125 on to the floor. Another issue is that HB3125 was rolled two weeks, some have worried if that would leave time to override a veto. My understanding is the sponsor of HB2694 has said he would wait to see what happens with HB3125 before moving HB2694, if so that could cause the same problem. Considering Sec 1 of both bills simply repeal 39-17-1305 I really don't see any reason why HB2694 couldn't go ahead and proceed. Even if it passes and then HB3125 comes along, HB3125 wouldn't undo anything done buy HB2694, it would just do a bit more to other sections of the law.

Sen Mae Beavers Sen Ben West, Jr

Okay....if one of the problems with rolling HB3125 two weeks is because it might not leave time to override a veto.... Then isn't there the same problem if the sponsor of HB2694 waits to see if HB3125 gets out of the Budget committee? Since Sec 1 of both bills do the same thing (repeal 39-17-1305), couldn't HB2694 go ahead and proceed? Because even if HB3125 moves out and it passed, there is no real problem. It would just match HB2694 and do some additional things. One difference between HB2694 and HB3125 is HB2694 doesn't contain the "no consuming" like HB3125. Maybe if some think 39-17-1305 is going to be repealed by either bill, they would rather see the one with the "no consuming" pass?