Fallguy

LOL...well you know us MODs always ruining everyone else's fun.

Fixed

I have never rode through a state where a TN permit is not honored, but if I did I would unload the weapon and put it in one saddlebag and the ammo in the other. When I was talking to a Natchez Trace Parkway ranger, he said that would be good enough for him. Now if I was in IL I might field strip the handgun.

WRONG!!!!! You go and talk to the local owner of some of these small local banks and ask them if their buidling is a federal buidling..... Besides it's the money that is insured by FDIC, not the bank.

I think OS has said about all that can be said about it....

Yes, that is what it's talking about.

Makes sense to me. In fact I've always thought since it is generally illegal for citizens to carry a loaded handgun off their property anyway unless they have a HCP, never real saw a reason to make exceptions for HCP holders to off-limit places, but to simply repeal the law, unless there was going to be some other penalty then that provided for illegal carry already. If you repeal 39-17-1305 the penalty for intent to go armed is still in place for those that don't have a HCP, still against the law to be under the influence while armed and still a violation of 39-17-1359 to carry past a proper posting.

Hopefully he's not using the non-plumbed display models....

As some of you may already know Nikki went to Ohio Tuesday to testify in front of their legislature on HB203. Here is a video of her moving testimony.

Not sidetrack the thread but, I don't think that is right.... 39-17-1309©(1) clearly says... "It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution......" Doesn't mention loaded or not...also this section of the law doesn't even mention the "intent to go armed" part that is in sub-section ( In the second half of it it does provide an exception if the firearm is in a private vehicle, but not on your person anywhere outside of the vehicle..... "...... It is not an offense under this subsection © for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property"

Pretty much the way I've seen it...

No need to crosspost... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/want-buy/33739-wtb-rifle-crate.html

This post got me to looking...it is actually 39-16-702 (Not 39-17-702) So tell him it is a Class E Felony

You are right in that he is not eligible per 39-17-1351©(10) but I don't see anything in the law the describes a criminal penalty for lying, just that the permit will be denied if the DOS finds out the applicant meets any of the disqualifiers in 39-17-1351© Even under 39-17-1352 where the HCP would be revoked if it is found out false information was given 39-17-1352(a)(2), it is only a crime if the person does not surrender the HCP within 10 days of being revoked. So unfortunately, even though he knows he doesn't qualify there doesn't appear to be any penalty for trying, other than he would be out the money for the class and the $115 for the HCP if/when he is denied.

I am talking about applying what I've said to ALL business, not any one specific type.

I personally don't think a business owner is liable for the actions of HCP holder on his/her property either. Also I'm not talking just about places that serve alcohol. The trouble is that is an argument some business owner's use to prohibit carry, that they could be held liable, by their action of simply allowing the carry of firearms on their property. If a shooting occurs on their property and let's say an innocent 3rd party is injured, in which case the shooter could be liable, then the property owner may be liable as well for allowing firearms on his property. At least that is the argument a lawyer may make. Right or wrong the property owner would have defend himself against the suit...and you can be sure he will be named since he is the "deep pockets" of all that are involved. So as of today if a property owner doesn't wish to take that risk, then they can post. So I'm just saying if you take away their ability to post, then they should be afforded some protection except for it is obvious they some how directly contributed to what happened, such as serving alcohol to knowingly armed person.

On the civil liability issue, I agree a business owner shouldn't be held liable for the actions of HCP holder on his property because he allowed the person to carry. On the flipside, as long as the law allows the property owner to post, I don't think a HCP holder should be able to hold the property owner liable if the HCP holder chose to disarm and enter the business and something happens. Therefore if the state did prohibit business owner's from posting, they do need to provide some sort of protection for them.

So changing the wording to "where meals are served" would satisfy her only objection, that we can't know what their principle business is. I've read through her decision several times and that's it. That was the phrase that she based her "vagueness" decision on. I added "hot" as a preemptive rebuttal to those that would question beer joints that serve pretzels, chips and hard boiled eggs as "meals". No, she doesn't. She doesn't say Hot either. You're right that she has apparently focused on the serving of meals being the "principal business conducted" therefore my argument to remove what the business does (serving meals, bowling, sports, etc...) from the law period. That way you don't have to know what the primary business is as long as they don't post.

100% agree

I really don't think it is just the "places that serve hot meals" that makes it vague. Besides the serving of "hot" meals is not in the law. I'm saying how are you supposed to know if a place has a adequate and sanitary kitchen, if it employs sufficient staff and the such when you are in the parking lot or approaching the door? ...and yes, I'd rather push for a new clean bill or let the current law go through the courts instead of introducing another, still confusing, bill.

Oh I agree the best option is a new "clean" bill that simply exempts HCP holders. I just haven't seen any legislators talking about introducing such a bill. Also I'm concerned if Sen Jackson introduces his new bill it would make it even more difficult for a clean bill to move through the process. EDIT: I don't have an aversion to business owners' being required to post, I'm saying they would and that is something that could be a problem in getting something passed.

....and because of that no one should drink? If that is the case the argument could be made against many things, including gun ownership, because bad things have happened or some have taken thing to excess in almost any situation/activity you can think of.

Not everyone drinks and stays bilitzed 24/7 for years...

Well there are sort of two problems with that.... I don't think any owner's like being required to do anything. ...and I think 39-17-1359 using "substantially similar" is more vague than any other firearms law out there. I had wondered if all the discussion about posting generated from the restaurant carry bill would help address issues about 39-17-1359, but it doesn't appear so.

With all due respect to Sen Jackson, his new bill that would only allow carry in places that have a restaurant liquor license is more confusing and complicated than the bill/law that was struck down. Maybe the best plan, although probably the most time consuming, is to follow up on the appeal. Hope that the ruling is reversed, then in the 2011-2012 legislative session (where hopefully there is more prominent Pro-2A majority), introduce a bill that simple removes the part about restaurants.