Fallguy

It would be up to the LEO/Judge. My argument would be that I entered through Sears (or wherever & if that is what I did) and did not see a posting. Whether they buy it or not......who knows. I have not heard of any charged or convicted of 39-17-1359 in the state.

See Question 3 of TN AG Opinion 07-43 As you can see in the last part of the answer, if the entire property has been posted, then each individual business does not have to post.

Are these places on the property owned by the mall? If so, then the property owner has taken away the indvidual stores choice as whether to post or not by posting the property they own themselves. If the places are on their own property, then I don't think the posting would apply to them. You may have to read the sign in detail to see exactly where the posting is applied to.

If all the entrances are posted, then Yes, the enitre property, including the parking lot is off limits. The property owner can post at the edge of his property if he wants to.

Posted twice already... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/29128-tennessee-asserts-state-sovereignty-feds.html

I agree it isn't as free as it once was...and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Actually in both cases it seems the LEOs may have known (or found out) that OC was legal without a permit in NC. They just didn't like it and didn't like being told No when asking for something. One LEO backed up regrouped and let it be...the other went ahead and made an arrest and got a scolding by the judge. Hard to believe there are officers that aren't aware of LEOSA.....well.....

I almost didn't either, since no one else had

The officer didn't seem concerned for his safety, he just thought the person shouldn't be armed and wanted him to provide ID that he was not obligated to unless he was suspected of a crime. Being suspicious because of raised flags is fine....but is still not enough for an arrest without more proof. No green stamps for soldiers and there shouldn't be a pass on violating rights/laws for officer safety. You mean all the kid had to do is become a subject of the state and capitulate rather than exercise his rights. As far as doing the same in TN as I said above...you have to show your OC upon demand...so can't really work the same here.

Just a reminder... When we start talking about OC in other states, especially where it is legal without a permit, I sometimes feel the need to say that in TN of course you must have a HCP to OC. So if you are OCing in TN a LEO has every right to demand to see your HCP.

No, only Parks and WMAs However that is because there is no federal law or reg against carry in a National Forest.

Alternate Answer: Because he is a free citizen in a free country and is not subject to the unlawful demands of the state.

#1 Not in TN or NC - Rather there is not "Stop and Identify" law. Of course there are times you must identify yourself. #2 You can legally OC in several states younger than 21. In VT the legal age to OC is 16. Purcashing from a FFL and possesion are two different things. From here #3 In the story, he said he was on the way to a friends to drop of the handgun since he could not have it on base.

Are you basically saying that the deputy decided at some point he wanted to arrest the guy and was just going to find something to base an arrest on since on the surface the guy wasn't doing anything wrong? I've rease several post on here that most LEOs wouldn't do anything like that. It is another debate, but it is being carried out in this thread as well. I agree that had he showed his ID it may have went down differently. He probably would have got a preaching to while his ID was being held and then released as if he had been given some favor. But the point is, he wasn't legaly obligated to. If people want to do whatever a LEO says no matter what...that is ok. The trouble is, some LEOs forget those people are doing it by choice...so when they come across someone like this, that chooses not to they forget the person is not required to.

There is no TN state law of Federal law that prevents carry. However Federal Law does allow rangers to issue "special orders" for the Forest under their care. Some rangers have used this to ban handgun carry. The only way to know for 100% sure is to contact the ranger for the area you are going.

The OP in this thread is not the solider involved, if you'll notice he just reposted this from another forum. So if by using "you", you meant to address the actual person involved, that can not be done on this forum. As has been said "contempt of cop" is not a actual crime. Although I admit...it has caused people to go to jail. In this case the person didn't need sympathy from the deputy, he just needed the deputy to follow the law. Of course LEOs can ask anyone for ID or anything else for that matter...they can ask you for a drink of your soda, but if you don't want to do it and you are not legally obligated to, then there shouldn't be any adverse consequences. If you want to do what ever they say...then that is fine and is your choice as well.

A good example of playing it cool, knowing your rights and being willing to follow through.

Decatur County holds it's county commissioner meetings in the General Sessions courtroom and the courthouse is not posted.

Sounds like a very professional guy. Had a trooper stop me several years ago when I was still pretty young. Gave me a ticket...but he was still so courteous and professional about offered to buy him lunch. ...of course needed the money to pay for the ticket instead...lol

Done and this thread reworked. I had originally planned on both threads being a place to just report postings or non-postings. However discussions got started in both threads. I think started this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/23924-discussion-posted-restaurants.html to have a place to talk about places. I closed the other thread and asked members to send PM's to make additions so it would be just a list of posted restaurants. I decided to leave this thread open. If anyone was wondering why....

Good discussion....but I don't think she was going to be staying at the motel, just visiting the spa that happens to be within the motel.

To be honest....I almost wouldn't mind losing the case. Then legislator could fix it by simply repealing 39-17-1305 all together. That would make it fairly simple to interpret and not vauge at all. Then any place that serves alcohol, regardless of whether they are a bar, restaurant, bowling alley or whatever could just post a 39-17-1359 sign or not.

Posted restaurants should go in this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/25149-listing-user-reported-posted-restaurants.html. As far as seeing if a place has already been reported as posted or not, the search feature of the board is working.

That is not always legally true. Courts have ruled that if one LEO sees something and relates it to other LEOs then the other LEOs don't have to observe what was related to them for themselves. But that doesn't necessarily hold true if the report if from a non-LEO. If someone calls and says they see someone driving wreckless...I think we all want the police to try and find the car. However the LEO should observe the vehicle himself. If during the officers observation the driver/vehicle doesn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't be stopped just because someone who is unknown and is not going to testify said they saw something. If the officer sees the same reported behavior for himself, then by all means...make a stop. Remember most traffic violations are misdemeanor, LEOs can only arrest or issue a citation in lieu of an arrest for misdemeanors that occur in their presence.

TMMT....you must be wrong.....there are thousands of post on here stating that LEOs would never do any such thing. Of course most come from Non-LEOs and they are told they are just bashing....so not sure what to make of it coming for a LEO... Ok...I was being sarcastic...

I'd like to read more about the case. One thing is the LEO apparently didn't stop him, but found him already stopped. So not the same as making a stop based solely on the tip. If during the course of the investigation the officer had PC based on the drivers demeanor etc...then ok. But the statement of the justices ....that an anonymous tip in-and-of-itself is enough to make a stop is disturbing. I believe SCOTUS has already ruled in case out of FL about a tip of someone having a handgun, that just a tip without specific info or some observation by the officer is not enough to detain someone.