Fallguy

You know after looking a bit closer at this bill, really all it does is prevent confiscation. It says that can still regulate and control the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition. So they can still keep you from going out in public armed, stop gun and ammo sales and the like. ...and I'm not saying that is bad, just noting that although they aren't supposed to confiscate them from you, they still retain a lot of control over their display and use.

I agree....never really thought he was anti at least not to the level of many. It shows (here) he got that bill on the 12th so even on that he waited till just before his 10 days were up, so.

Well...a thrown gun is pretty dangerous...remember Superman? He would hold out his chest when they were shooting at him, but then he ducked when they threw the gun.

Welcome 1) Only to people who live out of state that work 30+ hours a week for 6 consecutive months in TN. Also only to those people whose state of residence doesn't have a written reciprocity agreement with TN. (Pennsylvania and TN have a written agreement) So I'm guessing with that answer, the other two questions are moot. But just in case you were to move here. 2) Yes, If you can show you have had specific pistol training. 3) First time applications have to be in person, Renewals can be done by mail.

I think he may be talking about something like this that is available to NRA members.

Repeal of Gun Ban in National Parks Won't Take Effect Until February - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com Ok...so it looks like as of now it is 9 months. With a little luck it could be sooner. Also it looks like state law can prohibit carry in National Parks if the choose to.

Welcome

But then what would we call Chlorofluorocarbons?

Good summary midtennchip. Ah...ok

LOL...well think they just wanted to start their holiday weekend ASAP. I mean if I could set my own work hours I might have Memorial Day Month instead of weekend.

Can't say I know for sure. ....and you may be right. But carry in National Forest is already controlled by state law. Also even though this is being done by law and not the original rule change done by the DOI, it seems the intention has always been to allow states to prohibit or regulate carry in a National Park in their state. I believe a crime committed in the Smoky Mountains National Park would be handled by the Park Rangers. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe Federal Officers can enforce state laws with permission. Plus the bill that passed says "in compliance with state law"

A business can use the "slash and gun" symbol along with a properly worded sign, but not instead of. You can see http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/21580-tca-39-17-1359-tennessee-prohibition-carry-notice.html for more info. I have never seen an actual court case where someone was prosecuted for carry past a properly posted sign. So not sure if the exact wording has ever been legally defined in court. But I agree with you in that 39-17-1359 needs to be mentioned along with the fact is a punishable crime per the law.

Yes, parking lots can be posted. The property owner can choose to post at the edge of his property or just a single room within the building or any amount of area in between. If all the entrances to a parking lot are properly posted then you can not legally carry anywhere past those signs, even in your car. Technically you would be breaking the law, but if you proceeded through with no incident, not sure how anyone would ever become aware of it. Public roadways are just that, public so even if they pass through a WMA or other off-limit places, as long as you stay on the roadway and/or right away you are not in the WMA. Where I work is Federal Property with a state highway passing right through the middle of it. You may find security on the highway because of getting from place to place, but they have no authority on the roadway. But, even if just cutting through, a parking lot is private property.

That is my understanding as well. I hope not. He could be just trying to let things calm down a little. Also since his day 10 is only a day or two before the effective date he can sort of keep both sides in limbo till the last moment. Who knows...he may sign in Monday hoping the holiday and the like will keep a lot of media attention from being drawn to it.

Completely agree!!

Here is the bill summary page. The majority report is what was finally passed. In that it recommends Senate Amendment 1 as to what should be adopted. June 1 is at the bottom of that amendment.

Well there are actually several threads on this, but as I am having trouble finding the most recent one I am thinking of... It is 10 consecutive days (except Sundays) there is no mention of Holidays. But regardless of when he signs it or the 10 days pass it does not go into effect until June 1.

AFAIK CCW = Concealed Carry Weapon. (AFAIK stands for As Far As I Know BTW) (BTW stand for By The Way) I do know CCW (as are other acronyms*) is sometimes used to describe citizen carry and relative laws and is 100% accurate in some states (just like it is illegal to carry in a bank in some states) however I thought we were trying to be specific about TN and accurate. I mean accuracy seems to be everyone's main problem with the instructor. * CHL = Concealed Handgun License * CWP = Concealed Weapons Permit * CPL = Concealed Pistol License * CCH = Concealed Carry Handgun

Sort of like it's not rocket science to know there is no such thing as CCW law in TN since the state issues a Handgun Carry Permit that doesn't require concealment.

LOL...well I think I even saw 15 and 9 in the same document...so I no longer feel I need to comment on the effective date...lol Hopefully it will be annonced by the NRA, NPS or someone on a Federal level.

LOL...while I think you are being sarcastic.... Being in a gang is not illegal in-and-of-itself. So apparently he had not been convicted of anything that would prevent him from getting a HCP at the time he applied. Even if his name was published in the paper (which is not actually what the CA did) not sure what difference it would have made.

While it's not a legal posting per 39-17-1359, there isn't a doubt what their wishes are. So no doubt you would be told to leave if you were made. Also possibly banned from future events as well. As far as the selling and consuming of alcohol goes, it's irrelevant since it is not within the confines of a building.

As far as Mr. Span (The guy with the knife) it says in the appellate court ruling that he was charged with possession of weapon on school property and later pleaded guilty. But I don't know what his sentence was. On how I would have handled it.....hard to say. Without being there it is real hard to know all the exact particulars. But, for the most part I am a non-confrontational person. Depending on what the other person said about me or my son I may have just got on in my vehicle and drove off. But, if it escalated to the point where a knife was pulled on me it would depend on how I felt at the moment and what my tactical situation was. If I could get in my vehicle (which you would have to do to retrieve your handgun, if you abide by the law and left it there) and the guy was just standing there looking at me....I'd probably drive off. If he was rushing me, raising the knife or anything else that appeared immanently threating, I feel I would have at the very least drawn and aimed my weapon, if not fired. On a side note....I have a feeling the first responding officer only charged Mr. Clark because he was not aware of 39-17-1309©(1) (being discussed in this thread. Also which is what he was eventually convicted of since it was a Class B misdemeanor and not a Class E Felony as in 39-17-1309((1) that he was originally charged with.) because in my opinion Mr. Clark was not breaking the law by having the handgun in his vehicle, until he handled it and then he only did for the purposes of self-defense. Which if that was the case he would be protected under 39-17-1322. He even testified to that in the first case. (Not sure why he didn't in the second one) Which it seems the first judge agreed, however the second one didn't. The appellate court didn't really rule either about that issue, it just said the trial court couldn't make the finding of self-defense and dismiss the case at the point it did. Anyway...just goes back to what I've said about the law.....You never know what a LEO, the judge or a jury is going to do.

I agree someone taking money and providing a service for that money should deliver a quality product which includes accurate information. But they can be misinformed just like any of the rest of us and doesn't mean they are purposely deceitful or otherwise inherently uneducated. But mainly I was just trying to keep the board above petty name calling...

No reason to call someone names that is not here to defend himself. Yes, the instructor was misinformed and gave out wrong information, but again I think that can be addressed without resorting to name calling.