Fallguy

You're right...if you car is stolen from your company parking lot with your handgun in it, it's not going to do you much good. However you can't use deadly force to protect propert anyway. You can use it to prevent a carjacking, but not if you had to leave your handgun at home. Also, if you have a long commute to work, being able to have your handgun with you to and from work and during any stops along the way could help. Otherwise you have to leave your handgun at home so as not to have it on company property, then it can't even help you period.

Except for schools....True. Not sure why at one time they thought it was necessary to give special warnings at places that served/sold alcohol.

There is no real need to post a sign for those that don't have HCP, it would be illegal for them to carry anyway.

JayC is right...and this has been discussed before. 57-4-203(k) still requires this sing to be posted ....and what that signs says is 100% correct if someone doesn't have a HCP. It describes the penalty in 39-17-1305 If someone has a HCP then there is an exception under 39-17-1305©(3)(A) So in that case then only a 39-17-1359 sign prohibits a HCP holder from carry.

I can't check T.C.A for some reason now, but I don't remember any statute addressing chemical spray. Also not sure, but does 39-17-1309 mention chemical spray? So if state law doesn't call it a weapon and if it is not prohibited by 39-17-1309 wouldn't it be legal to carry on school grounds? I thought that is what most campus police suggested female students to carry?

I don't disagree. But the law doesn't say the "intent" has to be substantially similar but that the "wording" of the sign does. I have asked Rep Todd (sponsor of the Restaurant carry bill) to check on an AG opinion as to whether certain things would have to be in the sign etc... He is supposed to be checking into it. So far any AG opinion mentioning 39-17-1359 only repeats the "substantially similar" that is in the law, without any further clarification.

LOL...true, but the one good thing about that would have been that there would be no doubt as to what a legal sign was.

Guess not too many on here really ponder such things......

Yep...I didn't type that exactly the way I meant to..... Meant to say you had to have a permit period to have it loaded in your car...whether it is on you or not.

I'm really not sure what your question is. If the question is Can you have a firearm in your car, like in your house...the answer is No. As Punisher84 said...you have to have a carry permit to have your handgun on you in your car. If your gun is in your car and your car is inside of a place where the posession of firearms is prohbited, you are going to be in trouble, carry permit or not. As far as the work place, as has been said in many threads, TN is a "right to work" state, you can pretty much be let go for no reason at any time. So even if the possesion is not against the law, that's not going to help a lot if you are fired.

I work on a federal installation, so no firearms on your person, in your car, in the air on anywhere inside the fence....

Why was the guy a d***head just because he didn't want comply with a request he didn't legally have to?

You are going to IL, then you are not traveling through it. The law you speak of says if you are transporting it from a place you can legally posess it to a place you can legally posees it you can transport it through any state. However you said you are to IL US CODE: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

I think HOTSHOT is right. When I search "snake" in the T.C.A. the only result is 39-17-101 which has to do with "snake handling" 70-4-102 says it is illegal to kill (among other things) any animal in the state except as set forth by Title 70 of the T.C.A. There is no hunting season for snakes listed. 39-14-205 has to do with the killing of an animal when comes to protecting you from harm or your life or the life of one of your animals. Other than that I can't find anything directly on killing of snakes on your property.

If he wants to make sure...tell him to wait until after Jan 1. From what I can tell Public Chapter 578 will change the law so that only those "adjudicate" or "judicially committed" are prohibited from getting a HCP. Not those that have sought voluntary treatment. See Sections 8, 10, 11 & 12 I have e-mailed the bill's sponsor for clarification on this, but have not heard back from yet. But to answer the original question, I don't think it would show up on a check. But until Jan 1 it would still be disqualifer for a HCP. See AG Opinion 09-99. Also giving false information to get a HCP (denying being committed or hospitalized) is ground for revocation later. See 39-17-1352(a)(2)

What exactly do you mean by the "use" that as a reason? I'm not sure what Grampas is, but if the only sell package beer it is not against the law, if they sell it for onsite consumption it is not against the law as long as they are a restaurant per 39-17-1305. Unless you meant that they just simply state that as a reason they have posted a 39-17-1359 sign.

I tend to agree. I don't think this case (TN case) directly addresses if a tip is enough to make a stop.

To get a license from the state to serve liquor they only have to be open 4 days a week. To get a license form the city/county to sell beer there is no state level mandated amount of days to be open. But I really wanted this thread to be about if 39-17-1305 is ruled vague or even the fact that is being considered to be vague...then isn't 39-17-1359 vague for sure.

As most of you may know, the argument that those that are trying to repeal the restaurant carry law are using is that the law is too vague. You can ask TGO David and Daniel, we were at the first hearing…the judge seemed very interested in that argument. I’m not too worried though, I feel that even if the judge rules the law void, the legislature will come back in January and correct it. However….what I have been wondering is that is a law that specifically defines what a restaurant is can be considered too vague…..how can a law (39-17-1359) which uses the words “substantially similar†not be considered vague? I mean in 39-17-1305 there is no doubt what a restaurant is, although you may or may not know from the outside if a place meets that definition, but how in the world can you know for sure if the wording of a sign is substantially similar enough to that in 39-17-1359? Win or lose on the lawsuit on restaurant carry, I think there could be strong argument made to rework 39-17-1359 based on the “void for vagueness†argument. Thoughts, ideas or comments……

Just for further clarification.

They are allowed to carry, it doesn't say concealed or open. 39-17-1309(e)(7)

True.. It's not just firearms banned on school property...

May have it here too soon...

The United States of America is the greatest country on earth. However that doesn't mean we don't have some problems. Ignoring those problems will not help solve them.

If he's coming...better make it a WHOLE LOT more liqour....