Fallguy

The tour guide when I went said that Moore county could probably become a wet county, but didn't really want to. The irony of Jack Daniels being made in a dry county is a bit of PR thing. Also the county is so small most residents can easily drive a short distance to purchase liquor. The distillery can sell it packaged in certain ways, but they are the only ones in the county that can do so.

It is still illegal to carry or even have anyone with you that is armed while bow hunting. The bill (HB0770/SB0842) that would have changed that law (70-4-123) is still in committee.

Very cool Len

That is sort of my point..... Now private clubs, those who restrict entrance to members, can place almost any condition upon people for entry and you accept those restrictions if you want to be a member. But (again just IMO) a place that is open to the public should not be able to deny anyone entry to someone, unless they have caused past problems or will obviously cause a disturbance by entering. Remember...carry has always been legal (unless posted) in places that are not open to the public that serve alcohol for onsite consumption. So at least in some cases the law does see a difference between private property open to the public and that which isn't.

Reminds me of my days working at the Sonic and people would order a large cup of slush base, with no flavoring.....

Welcome

Welcome

LOL....when I first saw the time on the post I was like what? Then remembered your location. Love some Jack and Coke myself....

I'm not saying he doesn't have rights, I just feel that if he is open to the public that as long as someone is not disrupting his business they shouldn't be barred for a legal activity...or definetly not supposed consitutional right. But I know you and aren't going to see 100% eye-to-eye on this, and that is ok. Yes, you sign the waiver on rafting, although 90% of the times waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on, but that waiver is saying you won't hold them liable for actions outside of their control. The waiver would not protect them if they had faulty equipment, not enough life jackets, were untrained, etc... Also....let's say there was a heavy rain the night before, that caused stronger than normal rapids on the river, the waiver may not protect them if you can show they knew, or should have known, that a more dangerous condition than normal exsisted and they did nothing to protect you. Of course you could have just not gone rafting, but you expected them to provide a resonable safe experience. My argument is by disarming you they are creating that more dangerous than normal (at least normal for you) enviroment. Again...I know today that a lawsuit based on a posted sign would probably be thrown out right away...I'm just expressing my view on the situation. But I admit I am a stong advocate of personal responsibilty as well and if you don't feel you can safely go somewhere or be able to defend yourself as you see fit, then you probably shouldn't go. Also I agree that frivilous law suits are an issue and large problem overall in the country.

Yep... From http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/23693-restaurants-have-not-will-not-post.html Remember this a statewide board, so what holds true (posted or not) in one city for a restaurant may not hold true for every location in the state, or even every location in the same city, that is why I suggested including the address or at leat the street/area of the restaurant. Also you may notice...I gave up a while ago of trying to keep this thread to post of just which restaurants have posted and keeping discussion in the http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/23924-discussion-posted-restaurants.html thread.

I think Muttling is right. A handgun with a barrel less than 4" is prohibited for hunting, but if you aren't carrying it to hunt (so you would need to have a hunting gun with you) then it would be legal as your carry weapon.

Thanks Muttling...I think you did say it bit better than me. Not hard to tell which one of is the hunter.

I don't think that is what it means. I think one example of what it means is if a WMA is closed you can't carry there just becuase you have a HCP, since it is closed. In other words, just becuase you have a HCP and can carry on WMAs don't mean you can go onto the WMA and carry regardless of other wildlife laws. From the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - WMA Regulations link. So that is saying that just because you have HCP you can't carry in the those areas, unless you are authorized to be in those areas.

I think we are actually pretty close on our thinking. I agree...this country is definetly as free as it should be. I also understand what you are saying about property owners rights. I'm just feel that if a private property owner opens his property to the public, then to some degree he should accept others who are simply exercising their rights (being armed). As far as liabilty goes...when I say there are cases that the property owner should be held liable....I'm not talking he should be held liable just because a BG showed up and did bad things...I agree, he has no control over that. I'm saying (although I don't think currently it would be this way) that the property could/should be liable for his action of disarming you and then something happening. Again I know you can simply choose not to enter if you have to disarm. I'm just feel that if you legally carrying you shouldn't have to make the choice to either disarm or not do business with a place. Remember...several states don't allow private property owners to post or at least a posting does not carry the weight of law.

Yep More below Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - WMA Regulations* TWRA GIS - Wildlife Management Area Index * Has info on some of the regulations you still need to comply with to carry your handgun legally.

I work that day, but I will see if I can make arangments to be off or trade part of a shift.

It appears by their website Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area - Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service) that Big South Fork is under the control of the Naitional Park Service. Nationaly Park carry will not be legal until sometime in Feb of 2010. So No...I don't think carry would not be legal there as of this weekend.

Won't have to imagine...I'll see ya there again...

Well...right or wrong, private property owners don't have sole control over their property. They can not allow smoking even if they want to. They can't deny service/entry to persons based on color, religion etc.... IMO they should not be able to deny entry to those lawfully carrying firearms. So I don't think they should be liable for the lawful use of those firearms either, just because someone carried them in. But if they have no liabilty for the firearms being in their place, and still ban them, I feel they should be liable if another's actions harm you because you were unarmed. I understand as things are now, you pretty much assume the risk of disarming if you choose to still enter a posted place. Just as you assume the risk of prosocution if choose not to disarm. No law can bar someone from access to the courts. Even in the self-defense law you mention, someone can still sue you for using your weapon in self-defense. The law just says if it is determined to justifiable, the person who brought the lawsuit will be ordered to pay your attorney fees, lost time from work and any other expenses incurred in defending the suit. I would argue that it is neglect on the property owner's part if he disarms you and something happens to you. However I know that probably wouldn't hold up in TN as of know...since as already said, you can simply choose not to enter and disarm. I think a "loser pays" lawsuit system in general would be good. I mean as it now, many times someone really has nothing to loose by suing someone...so why not give a try...maybe they'll pay just to make it go away. But if they had to pay for the other persons expenses if they loose, it may make them think twice about how good the case is before the proceed. I mean thankfully that is they way it is for us, civilly, if we use our weapon in self-defense. I agree it should be the same for the property owner or anyone else that may be named in a lawsuit. I don't think anyone should recieve blanket immunity before the fact of the situation are known. As you said, there are times that a propety owner may be liable for their action or even the actions of others. But not if they simply allow a lawful action (permited handgun carry) in their place. Sorry...got a bit long winded and probably repeated myself a few times...lol

Welcome

You can carry your handgun in a WMA as long as you are "in full compliance with all wildlife laws, rules and regulations" and can legally be there at the time. You can see the new law here.

Of course 4473s are when you buy a gun from a dealer. Not necessarly any paper work when you sell them one, is there?

On each point in the OP 1. No other property owners have the abilty to "opt in" why should they? All other property owners where it is legal have to post a sign to prohibit carry. You're not going to make them all happy. There is a letter from a restaurant owner in onther thread upset that the state left the decesion to him. He sounds like he would rather have been forced to allow handguns in his place. 2. Although I too agree the law could have maybe been slighty better, I in no way think it is too vauge to be understood. But if they want to make it really simple, just take out the restaurant part and make having a HCP a straight exception to all places just like for LEOs and owners. 3. Restaurant owners or no more or less liable for the actions of HCP holders than anyother business. Yes, they do serve alcohol and I guess there could be a question in some situations if they served alcohol to someone they knew was armed, but I don't think any would. Overall I think the law should exempt all property owners from the independent actions of HCP holders on their property as it to pertians to using the handgun. On the flipside, I think if a property owner does post against carry, then they should be held liable for anything that happens to you because you were disarmed.

I don't get some of these restaurant owners. Could you imagine the stink they would raise if they couldn't post? "We are the only private property owners having guns forced into our business when other places can simply post a sign to keep them out." On....second thought....not a bad idea....how about we just do away with 39-17-1359 and not allow any place to post...

Welcome