Fallguy

If it is not posted or prohibited by law I completely agree!!!

With an orange background.....

This one closed....

That is a change I'd like to see as well. Including a minimum size of the sign as well.

Hmmmm, not sure. To be honest I even thought with an exception the property owner could still ban someone by posting a 39-17-1359 sign. The exception would just mean it is not a violation of 39-17-1305 for a HCP holder to be in there, but a I think a proper posting would still ban carry just like any other property owner. But I admit not 100% sure.

Really think that is the best way to go.....although it may not be the easiest to get passed.....

They used to record information about the firearm you used in the class. Also there was a provision that allowed you do just the range portion again with a different weapon if you wanted to "qualify" with it. Some thought that in a lawsuit a lawyer may be able to use the fact you shot one caliber weapon in class and then used a different in a SD shooting. (I never really bought into that...what about shootings in the home where no permit/"qualifying" was required?) But as you said, the law has now changed an no identifying information about the weapon you use is supposed to be recorded, so there shouldn't be anyway someone could find out what weapon you used in class.

"....and I was in fear of my safety." is about all else you'd need in most cases I think.

I leave mine in the pocket holster mainly just to protect it and/or the nightstand. Otherwise I just lay it on cloth case.

The only way to know if a place is violating the law by serving liquor but not meeting the requirements of their restaurant license is by a state audit/inspection. The average patron is not going to conduct such an inspection prior to entering. Another thing is there are many places in dry counties that don't serve liquor but still serve alcohol (beer only). Under the law that was ruled unconstitutional it was still illegal to carry in some of these places, but not others just depending. So who determines if they would have to post a sign or not? It can't be the local beer board....remember the law that allowed LEOs to carry where alcohol is served also had an amendment basically restricting local beer boards from basing any permits issues on the carry of handguns. So therefore it would have to ether the state (something it doesn't do now) or the business owner himself...with someone probably still having to certify his results. Those that live in liquor by the drink counties seem to forget that isn't the case statewide. In many counties there is no such thing as a restaurant serving liquor, but they may serve beer (which is still alcohol and covers by 39-17-1305) and are not required to meet any 50% rule by state law. As mentioned above...remember LEOs can carry in any place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption, there has been no challenge to that law, it just seems that a general exception for HCP holders is the least vague way to go. Not the state requiring a place to post a sign...

The trouble is there is no legal definition of a bar. So the only way to determine which places should have to place a sign saying it is a bar is to have to do some accounting work. Then the places argue it puts an undue burden on them........

While anyone can file a lawsuit for just about any reason (as we've seen) I'm not sure what grounds a lawsuit could be filed on if there is simply a general exception. Based on what the judge said at the first hearing she didn't really seem to lend weight to any argument other than it being vague, so if it is not vague then I'm not sure what else they have. There may have been, but and the end of the day her ruling is her ruling. There is a check and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. If the judicial rules a law unconstitutional, it must give a reason (other than the judge just doesn't like it) that the legislative branch can use as a guide to correct the problem. In this cause the ruling was it was vague, the solution is to remove any vaugness....

Not if the new law simply makes an exception for HCP holder's with no restrictions on the place being a restaurant. The lawsuit prevailed because the judge felt the average person could not tell if a place met all the requirements to be a restaurant per the law. Not just because she doesn't like guns around booze. So if there is no requirement that the place be a restuarant...then it removes that vagueness.

To use deadly force the law says.... From 39-11-611((2)Serious bodily injury is defined as.... From 39-11-106(a)(34)Although he may be arrested and have to go to court.....I think a lawyer could make a very good argument that an old man reasonably feared one or more of the injuries above if hit by a "linebacker"....therefore reasonably fearing a risk of serious bodily harm. It would be up the "grandpa" to determine at the time how he felt and if he thought he could make that argument in court if need be. But flat out saying the risk of being punched regardless of any other factor(s) doesn't justify deadly force is wrong.

Have always carried one in the chamber, only way to go as I see it. But that is one reason I also keep it on my person even at home, because of my kids.

I doubt it would change her mind. It is up to you if you want to ask her anything, but by all accounts it appears it is legal to carry there, so by asking her about it your more likely to stir up something that otherwise may not be. If she tells you no and then for whatever reason you carry there again, you could be charged with trespassing, even if she never posted a sign. See AG opinion 07-148 (Question 6)

With the info in the post above I think someone could give it a real good shot...

FWIW IMO I don't think a daycare is a school. In other states daycares are listed as off-limits seperate from schools.

I understand that the TBI may pull up something that doesn't show up elsewhere. I just meant that pulling up a juvenile arrest and a voluntairy admission to a private hospital are two different things... But as I said in my post I too advised waiting till the law changed to be on the safe side....

There is a difference between something involving the courts and something involving mental health. There is a database to check a criminal history and it is public record. However there is no central database to check mental health records and usually they are not open to the public. However one thing the above bill does too is create a database that can be checked to see if anyone has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

That's the way it was when I did it...

Yes, if you give a reason for the termination you need to be able to back it up, but if you simply tell someone their service is no longer needed there really is nothing to have to back up.

I don't think he was talking about sign posted per 39-17-1359 but rather the ones required (and still required) under Title 57 of the T.C.A.

Very possible. When I moved a while back I changed my address on my DL online. A few months later took my son to get his DL so I thought I would just get me a new one with my updated address. I had to show my health card (I have a CDL) again, even though my address was already changed in the database and I simply wanted a new license printed.