Fallguy

Senators - TN General Assembly

IMO that sign means you should not carry any firearms purchased at BS into the mall. Just like the signs in some shops that mention checking firearms and meaning ones to be serviced, not carry weapons. It would not appear to conform to 39-17-1359 (IMO) Remember not all "Don't Carry" signs carry legal weight or apply to HCP holders. Many state parks still have "No Firearms" signs, but they do not apply to HCP holders.

Well all-in-all I'd rather see us allowed to carry and the Title 57 signs no longer required.

Hmmm...March 10 may be a good day to go to Nashville. Nikki could you help with that or give any suggestions?

Well all of them by West were.... HB1801 Handgun Permits - As introduced, provides that "handgun carry permit" may be used interchangeably with "weapon carry permit" where applicable, thereby imposing any rights or duties that apply to persons with a handgun carry permit to persons who carry a lawful weapon. HB1808 Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, extends from 60 to 90 days the amount of time that a permit holder has to notify the department of safety that the holder's address has changed. HB1809 Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, clarifies that rules concerning weapons shall be subject to review by the house and senate government operations committees. HB1805 Handgun Permits - As introduced, exempts holder of handgun carry permit from prohibition against carrying a firearm in any public park, playground, civic center, or other public recreational area or facility. HB1806 Handgun Permits - As introduced, allows non-student adult who has a permit to carry a handgun to carry gun onto school grounds if gun remains within private vehicle and is not handled by the adult or a person acting with the adult's consent. HB1807 Handgun Permits - As introduced, allows person who has permit to carry a handgun to carry gun in place where alcohol is served for consumption on premises if person is not consuming alcohol or is not otherwise prohibited by posting provisions. Rolled one week (Feb 24) HB2718 Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, provides that a certified copy of a birth certificate is not required for the issuance or renewal of a handgun carry permit. Sent to full Judiciary Committee. On Feb 23 Calendar HB3031 Criminal Procedure - As introduced, revises the castle doctrine to prohibit a person from criminal prosecution or civil action in the use of force which is justified; directs the commissioner of commerce and insurance to determine whether there are impediments inhibiting insurance companies from underwriting coverage for such events. On HB3031 the status page mentions an amendment, but it is not posted yet. Did anyone watch the video and know what that is? I will try to watch it myself shortly. EDIT: Ok the amendment was to remove Section 1 of the bill.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/35398-all-gun-related-bills-delayed-3-weeks.html

Well you are indeed correct. In almost all other aspects of the law Beer and Liquor are controlled under different parts and may have separate laws. In fact there is an AG opinion from about 10 years ago (00-31) that says beer with a alcohol content of less than 5% was not an "alcoholic beverage" for the purposes of 39-17-1305. Of course the law has changed then to include beer with any alcohol content. I guess those of us that have followed the law and lawsuit closely just assumed all would know that it applied to any alcoholic beverage, but you are right that based on history and other laws, it was not as far fetched as first perceived.

Yeah, I've heard they call Columbia "Mini-Metro" (Nashville)

Video appears in the post for me. Very interesting...

There are several real "winners" up there in Nashville....

While I admit on a statewide board that there are two post about the same dept, is a bit curious....I would say it could happen anywhere. Sometimes tag numbers are hard to read or the wrong key can be hit on the computer.

I don't necessarily find it in the Constitution for the government to restrict property owner's right, but the legislature and courts apparently have. The government has already told property owners they can not deny doing business with someone because or gender, race, ethnicity etc... The state of TN (and others) has told property owner they can not allow smoking on their property unless certain conditions and/or restrictions are met. As I said the "open to the public" is my own opinion and is not necessary based in law or the Constitution. My feeling is, if you open your property to the public, then you are voluntarily giving up, or at least suspending, some of your rights, by your own choice. So (again IMO) if you have chosen to allow someone on your property, unless they do something that prevents you from being able to do business, they should not be denied access or thrown out for a legal action. As to whether I want the government telling the property owner that...well that is a different question that I admit I'm not 100% keen on. Now I admit it would be hard to do this for most businesses, but a business owner can have more control over his property (IMO) by not making it open to the public but restrict access only to members, such as Sam's Club. If a condition of membership is no carrying of weapons and you still choose to join, then so be it. But as this applies to employer parking lots...the employer has agreed to set aside part of it's property for employee vehicles, IMO they should not restrict or deny access to that parking for something that is otherwise legal, being armed with a HCP, driving a green car or the like. Now the employer has not duty or legal requirement to provide parking so....they could choose to do that too. But without some government regulation all the places that provide a particular service or sell a certain item could conspire and effectively prevent anything from occurring they didn't want to. It's a hell of a balancing act that usually seems to tip one way or the other most of the time.

I have to disagree. The two below paragraphs seem to be in conflict. In the first paragraph above, you say you will respect property owner's rights. In the second paragraph you say your right trumps a property owner's rights. Don't think you can have it both ways.

I'm not saying I feel threatened by a HCP holder being armed. I'm saying that I can restrict or deny access to my personal private property PERIOD I don't have to allow Law Enforcement onto my property (without a warrant) so why should I have to allow a private citizen? Now I personally think there is a difference between my private property and property that is "open to the public", but in many situations (including handgun carry) the law does not. I personally feel that on property open to the public the owner should not be allowed to ban any legal activity (like carry with a permit) that does not disrupt him being able to do business. But that is not the law of the land as of today. But...on my own personal private property, I don't have to allow anything I don't want to, you do not have a right to be there in the first place. If I place conditions upon your entry and you do not want to meet them, then you simply do not enter my property. I'm not denying your right to carry, I'm exerting my right to control my property.

Give it up Punisher.....he obviously feels his rights are the only ones to be respected and that a property owner is not to have any say so as to what occurs on his property.

The law does not require you to inform an officer you are armed. If an officer ask to see your carry permit, you must show it to them. An officer can disarm you if he feels it is necessary for his, yours or the publics safety. Under no circumstance would I hand over or touch the gun with out being instructed to do so.

There was a lawsuit. It was heard in Davidson County because that is what state law required for the type of suit it was. A search on here will reveal several hundred post discussing it.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I took is the question is, does the ruling revert the entire law back to the previous law, which would make it illegal or did the ruling only say that the part defining what a restaurant was was too vague meaning only that part of the law is invalid and therefore allowing carry in all places that serve alcohol. Either way I think one of the bills in the legislature that either make a simple exception for HCP holders or repeal 39-17-1305 all together is the best way to go.

Me either. In fact in the years since the 39-17-1359 law was passed I can count on less that one hand all the even close to proper signs I have seen anywhere.

This is why many say that will not patronize a place they can not carry. There must be another beer store in the area that is not posted.

New thread to discuss this issue started here http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/35308-gun-carry-may-still-legal-tennessee-restaurants-serving-alcohol.html Let's try to keep this thread on the convenience store carry

The above is very possible, but unless you appear to be under the influence or volunteer the fact you have been drinking and/or consent to a blood test, I'm not sure if they would ever know you had a drink earlier. The other guys lawyer is a DA in the criminal case, he has to convince all 12 your guilty, your lawyer only has to convince 1 you are not. I'm not going to let the fact I may have consumed a beer prevent me from using my firearm if I am truly in fear of my life, but that is me. But as I already said...I am not condoning or recommending any course of action, this is not legal or medical advice, it is simply my opinion.

That is incorrect, you CAN carry your handgun into a local gas station if they sell beer. Unless they have a sign posted per 39-17-1359. (Re-read the first line in post 15) The sign required per 57-3-204(e)(1) was never designed to prohibit carry, only warn of the consequences if you violated 39-17-1305. Since each was first established 39-17-1305 changed to allow carry in places that served packaged alcohol, but for whatever reason the powers that be forgot to change the 57-3-204(e)(1) law. But as I said there are bills to fix that.

Not if it is the sign mentioned in post 15

The AG opinon you speak of says the "Circle w/ slash" by itself does not meet the requirments of 39-17-1359. 39-17-1359 does not require the circle w/ slash but it does allow along with the wording.