Fallguy

Yep...saw that earlier. Added it and 09-99 to http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/13408-reference-material-some-basic-questions.html Can't help but to wonder what was behind asking for the opinion....

Whatever the reason...good to see the Metro Council appears to have come to it's senses.

I agree with both statements.....

I don't think so, I think they could only be denied entry. Parts (a) & ( say they can carry anywhere at all times, except the places listed in ©. Part © doesn't say anything about the guy at the 7-11 or other private property owner's in genreal, being able to require them to disarm.

If, IF the proposal was to deny beer permits to establishments that didn't post to prohibit carry, that might, MIGHT have a slight chance. But to me the above would blatantly violate 39-17-1314, since it is attempting to prevent firearm possession.

I agree.. Also at one point it says that TN Supreme court said, that even though cities, etc... have wide authority to impose restrictions only so long as it is "in good faith and not . . . in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner," IMO if they say the will give permits to those that post, but not to those who don't, that is discriminatory.

Welcome

From what little bit of looking up I've done...here is what I've found. First TN law on this gives different amounts of authority to Class A counties (Counties with no metro government) and Class B counties (counties with a metro government) Incorporated cities and towns. It appears that in Class A Counties they can only enact restrictions on beer permits as provided in 57-5-105 as backed up in AG opinion 05-024 However in 57-5-106 Class B counties, Incorporated cities and towns can in addition to the restrictions allowed in 57-5-105 may "impose additional restrictions, fixing zones and territories and provide hours of opening and closing and such other rules and regulations as will promote public health, morals and safety as they may by ordinance provide." In AG opinion 06-082 the AG opined that a city could prohibit anyone convicted of DUI from getting a permit or even working in a place that has a beer permit. However they said that if someone had a ABC (liquor) server permit (issued by the state), they could not prevent them from working in a place with a beer permit. It also goes on to list court cases where many local ordnance were upheld upon challenge and one that wasn't. However I'm not sure if any of the restrictions upheld could possible be in violation of state preemption law like firearms in 39-17-1314. With all that said...it would seem that Class B counties, incorporated cities and towns do have wide authority to attach restrictions to beer permits. Whether that includes being able to regulate the possession of firearms, in possible violation of 39-17-1314 is to be determined I guess.

From what little bit of looking up I've done...here is what I've found. First TN law on this gives different amounts of authority to Class A counties (Counties with no metro government) and Class B counties (counties with a metro government) Incorporated cities and towns. It appears that in Class A Counties they can only enact restrictions on beer permits as provided in 57-5-105 as backed up in AG opinion 05-024 However in 57-5-106 Class B counties, Incorporated cities and towns can in addition to the restrictions allowed in 57-5-105 may "impose additional restrictions, fixing zones and territories and provide hours of opening and closing and such other rules and regulations as will promote public health, morals and safety as they may by ordinance provide." In AG opinion 06-082 the AG opined that a city could prohibit anyone convicted of DUI from getting a permit or even working in a place that has a beer permit. However they said that if someone had a ABC (liquor) server permit (issued by the state), they could not prevent them from working in a place with a beer permit. It also goes on to list court cases where many local ordnance were upheld upon challenge and one that wasn't. However I'm not sure if any of the restrictions upheld could possible be in violation of state preemption law like firearms in 39-17-1314. With all that said...it would seem that Class B counties, incorporated cities and towns do have wide authority to attach restrictions to beer permits. Whether that includes being able to regulate the possession of firearms, in possible violation of 39-17-1314 is to be determined I guess.

From what little bit of looking up I've done...here is what I've found. First TN law on this gives different amounts of authority to Class A counties (Counties with no metro government) and Class B counties (counties with a metro government) Incorporated cities and towns. It appears that in Class A Counties they can only enact restrictions on beer permits as provided in 57-5-105 as backed up in AG opinion 05-024 However in 57-5-106 Class B counties, Incorporated cities and towns can in addition to the restrictions allowed in 57-5-105 may "impose additional restrictions, fixing zones and territories and provide hours of opening and closing and such other rules and regulations as will promote public health, morals and safety as they may by ordinance provide." In AG opinion 06-082 the AG opined that a city could prohibit anyone convicted of DUI from getting a permit or even working in a place that has a beer permit. However they said that if someone had a ABC (liquor) server permit (issued by the state), they could not prevent them from working in a place with a beer permit. It also goes on to list court cases where many local ordnance were upheld upon challenge and one that wasn't. However I'm not sure if any of the restrictions upheld could possible be in violation of state preemption law like firearms in 39-17-1314. With all that said...it would seem that Class B counties, incorporated cities and towns do have wide authority to attach restrictions to beer permits. Whether that includes being able to regulate the possession of firearms, in possible violation of 39-17-1314 is to be determined I guess.

No, But IMO, unless they have official business on private property, the owner of that property can deny them entrance in general. But if they allow them to enter they can not require them to disarm.

Here Here

Hasn't an AG opinion already been asked for? If so, with any luck, that may put an end to it right there. If not maybe the Metro Council will wise up...ok, ok...but maybe. Lastly, even though it could mean a problem for a while, if Metro is able to do this, I am fairly confident the legislature would take care it when they come back.

Welcome

Have a great and safe trip

Already posted http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/22256-here-we-go-let-games-begin-not-good.html

Have to wait 40 days. Effective 07/14/09 More in this thread, http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/22192-official-thread-tn-house-senate-override-hb0962-gubernatorial-veto.html Starting about post 785

Haven't really heard much about it to be honest. Although it really wouldn't directly affect me, I would like to see it passed.

No changes from the above I know of. That is correct....2/22/10 I did here that the sponsor of the amendment said he would try to add it to ever bill from now on until it was effective right away. But that was a few weeks ago and haven't heard anything about since then.

Wish all mis-informed people could end up like this... Had a good friend of mine, that unfortunately I haven't talked to in a while, call me earlier. He was all fired up about the override of the veto. Started repeating some of the mis-information that has been in the media, etc.... He thought you could carry in a bar and drink. Once I told him no drinking and that it is really restaurants (although there could be some places that some may not think of a restaurant that you can carry) and that you still can't carry in the Honky Tonk that doesn't serve and food etc.... He didn't have any problem and said that it all makes sense. No telling how many of these out there spouting of about how bad this is, really just don't know the facts.....

I don't disagree with that info, but..... What might be better is no liability and/or immunity from any liability for property owners for any actions by permit holders on their property. That would probably have a better chance of passing and would remove that as a reason for any place to post.

LOL..only about 5+ hourse after it was posted on here.....

I'm afraid you're probably right. The one thing that will help is for parks they have to post signs that with stated minimal measurements and are exactly worded per 39-17-1311©

State parks are legal in this bill and AFAIK can not be posted. However any signs already posted in state parks will be left up.

The bill that passed makes it legal by default to carry in local parks. Local government by a resolution prohibit may carry in a park. It would have to be the entire park. If the do that they must post specific signs.