Fallguy

Yes, it is legal to carry where package alcohol is served. But....as of today a sign is still a required by 57-3-204(e)(1) The above law has never changed even after 39-17-1305 has. There are a couple of bills in the legislature that would remove the above sign requirment.

The law is not really grey, the law is fairly clear, if you are under the influence you are violating the law. The "variable" is what will the officer consider under the influence and how will he determine it.

Almost makes sense......

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, remember you can still be arrested for DUI even if your BAC is below .08 if the officers feels you are "under the influence" you are just automatically in violation if you are over .08 So even in the DUI law, "under the influence" and a BAC of .08 are two different things. Again I have to agree with OS that "under the influence" is going to be determined by the LEO at the time.

A bit pricey...but cool enough.

No. The law that was ruled unconstitutional was because of the language defining a restaurant and that someone couldn't know if a place met that definition before entering. 1807 doesn't include that language, it just makes a simple exception for a HCP holder regardless of what type of business the place is.

The status page for the bill Tennessee General Assembly Legislation doesn't show that it has been withdrawn. My guess would be there are so many bills already on the calendar the sponsor just hasn't asked for it to be put on the calendar yet. He may also be waiting to see what happens with HB1807

39-17-1351©(6)-(18) covers what can disqualify you from getting a HCP. So seems you will be ok. The problem could be if they can't determine the final disposition of the charge, which sometimes can't be done by the comptuer check and can require some leg work on your end.

I'm afraid it won't be voted on Wednesday though. It seems pretty far down on the calendar and it just strikes me as one of those bills that won't be voted on the first time it is heard. Someone will have a question they want answered from outside source or something before they vote on it.

There is no limit. The law says the permit allows the holder to carry any handgun or handguns that you legally own or possess. 39-17-1351(n)(1)

Several school systems have county or city officers in them. But those officers work for the Sheriff's Dept or Police Dept, they don't directly answer to anyone in the school system. I've wondered if that is what this is mainly about, they want the officers in the schools to be under the control of the school system?

The reason he posted the law was to address the post he quoted that thought that alcohol wasn't mentioned. This is only my opinion, but I don't think a violation of this law has to do with having consumed a certain amount of alcohol or a certain BAC, but agree with you it will simply be up to the LEO own perception. Then in court it will be your word against his and we know how that would go. It is sort of like the public intoxication law. 39-17-310]. When I worked as a jailer ever arrest I saw on that charge was based on the officers own evaluation of the person.

From another site...... Civilian Handgun Permit Law Background Prior to 1989, Tennessee was a limited “open carry†state. Tennessee’s open carry law was limited to “army or navy†pistols but only if such pistols were carried openly in the hand. The statute did not allow citizens to holster the weapons or to carry these types of pistols concealed. A person would have to become a special deputy or receive a special police commission in order carry a handgun that did not fit the “army or navy†designation. These commissions were also necessary if the individual wanted to carry the weapon concealed or holstered. In 1989, Tennessee overhauled its handgun carry laws to provide that sheriffs “may issue†a handgun carry permit to authorize “any person†to carry a handgun. This change in the law allowed a sheriff to issue handgun carry permits without having to make the person a special deputy or officer. Although the 1989 law authorized a sheriff to issue handgun carry permits there were problems. First, it did not require the sheriff to issue civilian permits. Second, the permits were only good in the county in which they were issued. The Adoption of a “shall issue†standard In May 1994 the Tennessee Legislature meagerly addressed the desire of the citizens to carry firearms. Although the Tennessee Legislature attempted to liberalize the laws regarding the issuance of handgun carry permits and to address other problems which had been recognized since the passage of the 1989 law, it failed to adequately do so. With the passage of the 1994 law, Tennessee went from a “may issue†state to a “shall issue†state. As a “shall issue†law, the law seemingly required the chief law enforcement officer to issue a handgun carry permit to an applicant, who was otherwise qualified to own a handgun in the state, unless the chief law enforcement officer believed “for good cause and in the exercise of reasonable discretion†that the applicant should not be issued a handgun carry permit. With the increase in the number of citizens applying for handgun permits after the 1994 law went into effect, several problems began to surface under the 1994 law. These problems generally related to the fact that the law authorized the chief law enforcement officer of each county to issue handgun carry permits to the residents of that county, but it did very little to regulate or standardize the handgun permitting process. With 95 counties, Tennessee had different interpretations of the law and permitting processes. Consequently, the applications, application fees, background checks and even the probability of obtaining a permit varied widely by county. Because of the significant inconsistencies with the implementation of the 1994 handgun carry law by the chief law enforcement officers of the various counties, various bills were introduced in 1995 and 1996 in the Tennessee Legislature to standardize the handgun permitting process. Finally, in April 1996, the Legislature passed the 1996 law which transferred the responsibility for issuing handgun carry permits from the county level to the Department of Safety. The 1996 law also standardized the permitting process to be the same application process and fee structure statewide. The 1996 law went into effect October 1, 1996. During the two year period from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1996, it is estimated that approximately 7,000 handgun permits had been issued in Tennessee at the county level. On October 1, 1996, the floodgates opened. With reduced fees, the elimination of the bonding requirement, and a permitting process no longer subject to 95 different interpretations, the citizens rushed to apply for handgun carry permits. However within only a few months, it once again became evident there were serious problems with the state’s interpretation and administration of the 1996 law. By January 1997 it was apparent that what should have been a relatively simple process and what is a relatively simple process in most other states was not working in Tennessee. Fingerprint cards were being returned and redone because they were unclassifiable (e.g., smudged prints). Computerized background checks were being rejected because applicants would have arrest and criminal histories with open dispositions. Chief law enforcement officers either were not responding timely to the requests for background checks and/or were qualifying their responses to these background checks. Thus, even in instances where an applicant had a completely clean criminal record, testimony before the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee in early 1997 reflected that it could have easily taken from 9 months to more than a year to complete the application process. In February and March 1997, the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee conducted extensive hearings in an effort to determine what was wrong with the handgun permitting system that the Tennessee Legislature created less than a year before. As a result of those hearings, the Tennessee Legislature passed yet more legislation in 1997 in an effort to eliminate the delays in issuing the civilian handgun carry permits. By virtue of the 1997 law, Tennessee became a “leading issuance†state similar to what had existed in Florida. Under the 1997 law, the Department of Safety was required to issue a handgun carry permit within 90 days of the date of the application—even if the criminal history check has not been completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Although this change in the law should have required only minor, technical amendments to the 1996 law, the 1997 law became severely burdened with many other provisions which have been critically denounced as being fundamentally contrary to the constitutionally protected rights of the citizens of this state to keep, bear, and wear arms. This brief outline of the history and status of Tennessee’s handgun carry permit laws helps understand what now exists. While the 1994 handgun carry law and its successors may not have materially increased the number of citizens and other individuals actually carrying handguns in Tennessee, it certainly increased the number of citizens carrying handguns in conjunction with civilian handgun carry permits. Likewise, with the reduced fees and costs which went into effect with the 1996 handgun carry law, it was predicted there would be tens of thousands of new applicants for handgun carry permits. In the first year after the 1996 law, tens of thousands of Tennesseans did obtain civilian handgun carry permits. If statistics from other states are a good indicator, Tennessee can anticipate 2 to 3 percent of its citizens will ultimately exercise their right to carry a handgun — even if it requires they obtain a handgun carry permit to do so “legally†in the eyes of the government. That estimate, in 1996, projected 100,000 to 150,000 permits would be issued. The number of Tennesseans who have been issued handgun carry permits exceed 300,000 by recent statistics. The changes in the handgun carry laws since 1994 have also spawned a material increase in the “self-defense†industry in Tennessee. These changes have caused, or at least should have caused, many people to reconsider the issue of self-protection, and, in particular, the use of a firearm for purposes of self-protection. The use of a firearm for self-defense involves the questions of what is deadly force and when may it be legally used in Tennessee without incurring criminal and/or civil liability? The Tennessee Carry Permit Law In A Nutshell As a result of the changes in the handgun permit laws from 1994 through 1997, Tennessee issues civilian handgun carry permits that have the following general attributes: the initial application fee is $115 (cash) and requires the successful completion of a state certified handgun training course prior to making application for the permit; the state must respond to the application within 90 days by either issuing the permit or notifying the applicant of any problems with the application; renewal fees are $50 and, like a driver’s license, do not require further training or qualifications as a condition of renewal; the handgun permit is good for four years; the handgun permit is good “statewide;†the handgun permit is good for any handgun that the permit holder legally owns or possesses; and the handgun permit is not a concealed weapon permit.

Closing this thread. Lots of things that should have been dealt with via PM's. Especially when it comes to disagreeing with a moderator.

Either the work is done, the guy has been let go or they just said it to be appeasing.

There is no mention of gender in the self-defense law.

Correct "Can We Tape?"

Not really sure what it will accomplish to be honest.

Hmmm...a little ways down on the calendar it seems. Wonder if they'll get heard this Wed or not?

The law doesn't say you can't have consumed alcohol and then re-arm, it says you can't be "under the influence" and be armed. 39-17-1321 So there has to be some point after consuming you are no longer under the influence (if you ever where) or you could never be armed again or drive for that matter. Alcohol is generally metabolized at the rate of 1 drink per hour (drink = 12oz beer, 5oz wine or 1oz liquor). Body weight also affect the concentration of alcohol in your system. Eating while consuming alcohol does as well. So if a decent size guy has 1 -2 beers with a meal that took an hour or so to consume, it is very unlikely he is "under the influence" of alcohol. I am not condoning or recommending any course of action, this is not legal or medical advice, it is simply my opinion.

Liqour = Alcohol Wine = Alcohol Beer = Alcohol

Best of luck in dealing with the DOL and on the Job hunt.

I found two "parking lot" bills, not sure if there are more or not. HB1793/SB1607 and HB3141/SB3009 Both are in the Criminal Practice and Procedure sub-committee in the House, but are not on the calendar. You may want to check with the sponsors and see if there is any information they can give you.

Ok, what I ended up doing was just going straight to the setup file on the disk. I was getting the "Newer Version" installed from the menu that automatically came up when I put the disk in. The disk has active sync on it as well for the PDA. Anyway while looking for the file that Aplha7 mentioned, (that I couldn't find) that is when I saw the setup.exe file. So I made copies of the PST files, ran the setup and all seems to be well, didn't even have to copy the PST files back. All e-mails there, rules still in place and so on. Thanks everyone for the help!!

Ok, here's the latest. I dug out the installation CD, but it says there is a newer version that will have to be removed first. I'm afraid if I unistall I'll loose all my old e-mails and address book. So I guess what I need to do is what trblmkr13 said and copy the PST file right? But I'm not sure if I know how to then use that to restore everything. EDIT: Ok when I search for PST there is an Archive.pst and an Outlook.pst for both my son's and daughter's profile, but under my profile there is an Archive.pst, Outlook.pst, Outlook1.pst and Outlook2.pst The Outlook1.pst is the largest. But do I just need to copy all of them and then but them all back?