Fallguy

43 is supposed to have an amendment introduced that will make it more favorable. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/36392-hb3125-sb3012-new-restaurant-carry-bill-todd-jackson.html

For a variety of reasons I was unable to make it to Nashville today, but do intend to try and watch the sub-committee meeting via streaming video on the state's website. It starts at 11:00am (CST) or in about 15 minutes. I will post about any restaurant carry bills in this thread, and other firearms bills in the thread below. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/36627-bills-being-heard-today-3-10-10-a.html

She have a sister?

Yes, I think many of them are. Technically possession of a firearm period is illegal in TN. Being on your property or the fact the weapon is unloaded are only defenses to the violation of possession of a firearm. Doesn't sound much like a right to me....

It really doesn't take much to make some people scared or over-react When I dispatched 911 I'd get calls all the time of a "suspicious person" and 99 times out of 100 it was just someone walking down the road that the caller hasn't seen before. Now I'm all for neighborhood watch and reporting actual suspicious activity, but if you can't simply walk down the road anymore...jeeezzzz

To the OP, that is correct, new law says those with a HCP can have a loaded long gun in a private vehicle so long as there is not a round in the chamber. But a round can be chambered to use the weapon in self-defense. ---------------------------- On those without a HCP there is a bill that is trying to address this for, but I'm not sure if it is a big help or not. HB2567/SB2390 It has already passed the Senate with this amendment, which makes the bill. It says the ammo can not be in the chamber and that a loaded clip can not be in or close to the rifle or shotgun. It is scheduled to be heard in the House Criminal Practice and Procedure sub-committee Wed along with several other firearm bills.

Possiblly, but it sure would cut down on the "Is this a proper sign?" threads on here...

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/13408-reference-material-some-basic-questions.html

Me either...

Nothing wrong with using the search and finding a thread that has already been started on a subject instead of starting a new one. How many times has a new thread been started and someone post that it has already been discussed or say "got search"? Then if the thread goes on, somebody does a search to post info from the old thread in the new one....this way the older info is already in the same thread.

Actually Sec 3 is the best part of the whole bill and I wish it was a bill by itself. It says a 39-17-1359 sign must contain exact wording. Where it mentions substantially compliance is only where it says those signs would be valid until 10/01/10 but then after that date those signs would no longer be valid and only those signs with the exact wording would be valid. Personally what I would like to see is an amendment to remove Sec 1 and Sec 2 (let HB1807 cover that) and the rest of the bill pass. Sec 4 can stay or go, doesn't really matter.

Well I have lost track or some bills and hard to do a search since so many are similar, but HB1807 that would make a general exception is scheduled to be heard the same day on 3/10/10. HB2694 that would repeal 39-17-1305 all together is not on the calendar yet.

By common sense they are of course a restaurant. But since they don't serve liquor they aren't categorized as anything by the state ABC.

See here Tennessee General Assembly Legislation There are several things I like about this bill, but some that I don't. Of course one bad thing about Sec 1 is it that carry in the little local place that serves beer only or like Pizza Hut will still be illegal. Also still not sure how you are supposed to know if a place has a restaurant license till you go in and maybe have already violated the law. On Sec 2, why more jail time for illegal carry in a place that serves alcohol than for DUI? Really like the exact wording part of Sec 3 and that old signs have to come into compliance by a certain date. Also glad Sec 5 and Sec 6 are removing the requirement for the outdated ABC signs. I still like the either completely repealing 39-17-1305 or making a general exception for HCP holders regardless of whether the place has a ABC license or not. Going to be bad the first person that has to spend 72 hours in jail for carry in Pizza Hut when they that all restaurant carry was legal.

Bill was signed into law!!

AFAIK Heller and the Chicago case are about ownership not carry, so neither ruling would allow carry. However it's possible future cases and rulings could.

Looks like SCOTUS is going to say it is, just that it is subject to reasonable restrictions. That is what will cause more cases, determining what restrictions are reasonable.

Not that I completely disagree, but I bet all the LEOs over the years that have fired at vehicles attempting to run them over probably thought they had a slight chance of stopping the threat.

As do many places and even governments (like TN) but maybe it is a sign things could change. If the SCOTUS Chicago case goes the way many think it will, the already expect many more challenges to current restrictions to determine which ones the court thinks are ok and the ones that aren't. It might behoove the NRA to get Judge Napolitano to argue their cases for them,

What he said...

Only on TGO could a thread that started about the use of deadly force become a book review thread.

knoxrocks222's comments aside, my point is that perceived is all the law requires as long as it was reasonable. If he had killed the driver/occupants we may have never known what the actual intentions were. But it would matter what their "intentions" were if there actions were creating a threat. All that said, I think he did just right in drawing to the low ready and holding fire.

I recorded a video of Judge Napolitano on Fox News discussing the situation at Starbucks in Washington. In it he mentions something that I have several times...that there is (or should be) a difference between properties that are open to the public and personal private property. At one point he says that if a business opens theirs doors to the public than can not block a fundamental right of a person entering and in his opinion the carry of a firearm is a fundamental right. Just something to think about and another reason I wish he was sitting on a federal court somewhere...

See post 42 made on 02/28

I believe his point was that just because something bad didn't happen, doesn't mean that it couldn't have. Also meaning just because someone didn't die in a certain situation doesn't mean that their life wasn't in danger (or at least reasonably perceived to be in danger) at the time.