Fallguy

Here is the Federal law about orange tips. It does seem to only apply to toy and look alike guns. But from what I've read the tip is fairly easy to remove or paint over. Unfortunately the things we did as kid...walking around with a BB/Pelet gun is for all practical purposes illegal now. Although I have moved from there, the city ordnance that prevents the discharge of firearms in the city limits, even applies to BB/Pellet guns. Time have changed...

Popular thinking doesn't concern me as much as what is legal.....

In the situation given, I don't think the felon would be in trouble with the law (as long as the HCP holders keep actual possesion of the weapon at all times) But....if there was to anyone in trouble, it would be the felon, not the wife. So...if she is going to be armed (I would be too) it is up to him as to whether he wants to take the ride or find another way.

Considering the bill has already passed the House and the Senate (which has basically passed it several times already) will vote on it Monday.....Not sure how much the poll really means...lol

I have followed bills of another interest in past sessions, but not quite to this degree and definetly not with as many other people following it. It definetly has been a learning process.

Ummmm....are you reading the post? He never said the PO said his wife couldn't carry a gun. If fact he did say the PO told his BIL that he couldn't be anywhere near a gun in the first post and in the post you first quoted. The OPs whole question just had to do with that even though his BIL would be around his wife's gun that as long as she had direct control of it would there be any problems. NEVER EVER was anything said about the Parole Officer telling the OPs wife she couldn't carry.

Seminole, I see what you are saying...and reading the article I think I watched that session and I'm trying to remember it. Not sure if what he said was because he was surprised by the others actions and/or it was an attempt to keep the bill as-is at that time to keep things going toward what I was talking about. I'm not so sure the plan (if there was one) was to fool people as much as just "politics" and/or a course of action. Being a little cynical is probably good though....and I'm just being a little optimistic because I think I've become aware of somethings I wasn't before. Together it may be a good balance.

The trouble will be the ones in dry counties that can't serve liquor. But the ones that are in those counties and are "iffy" as to whether they are a restaraunt are probably fairly low.

I think that wipes away a little gray........

Well it can send you e-mails, but not necessarly. It depends on what you set in your user Control Panel as the default and you can override that when you make an actual post. Click on User CP > Edit Options This is where you can choose default thread subscription choice when you make a reply to a thread. The choices are : Do not Subscribe No e-mail notification Instant e-mail notification Daily e-mail notification Weekly e-mail notification So it depends on which opition you choose how soon (or if) you will get an e-mail when a post is made to a subscribed thread. When you reply to a thread though, you can scoll down to Additional Options >Thread Subscription and override you default for this one particular thread.

Handgun Carry Permit Application Requirements Mississippi Doesn't mention a time limit.

Ah....well that answers that... Thought you may have been Sen Jackson there for a while. Hope you saw my clarification on an earlier statement I made.....and I appreciate all your father's work.

(Moved to Handgun Carry) IANAL but I would think as long as she is direct control and keeps it on her person everything would be ok. However if the weapon was in the center console of the car, in her purse close to him or in any other situation where he could get to it....then there could be trouble.

Awww....come on, you didn't want to read all of the nearly 400 post? But yes, June 1 in what passed today and what the Senate will vote on Monday.

IMO This even unclear in the currnent law. Does the license to sell beer apply only to the consession stand or to the whole place? But anyway...the new law does nothing for this one way or the other. Yes...with this bill you could carry there (the age-restriction has been removed from the bill) Which is the main thing some wanted...and it is better than we have now. True enough....

I hear ya... I need to contact Rep Todd soon myself. While I never contacted him directly about the restrictions...I sure gave him a hard time on here about it.

Umm....changed what?

Oh I know....I think it's been a long day for all of us....lol

See this thread for that.

Well I could un-merge them....but I'd rather you didn't. I think it is two separate things entirely......and I am just curious if others saw the process...at least to this point the same way I did

I'd like you to read this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/political-issues/21011-story-hb0962-i-see.html and hear your thoughts.

True that

The only real gray area I see is...What does "and the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted" mean. It doesn't really define that term anywhere. I think pretty much any national chain will meet that requirement though and there shouldn't be any problem there. The doubt could come in a local place that happens to serve liquor and has a restaurant license but also have dancing, pool and other activities. One could make an argument that "serving meals" is not there primary purpose, but that they just happen to serve meals. ...and in fact those that don't like this bill may very will use that part of the code to prosecute some. This is sort of reminding me of the current 39-17-1311 that prohibits "restricted weapons" in parks...on the surface it wouldn't seem to prevent handguns, but the AG says it does...and in the end a judge would probably decide. So probably the same thing here... carry in 412 Grill, Parsons, Tn. and Road Hawg Saloon - Dyersburg Tn - BIKES-BABES-BEER and the judge may be the one that decides if their primary purpose is to serve meals.

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding. When we are talking about the "restrictions" we were talking about the restrictions in the House bill (curfew and age-restriction) not the restrictions in the current law of 39-17-1305 This bill leaves all the restrictions in 39-17-1305 in place, it simply adds and exception for HCP holders within a restaurant as defined in the bill to the list of those already exempt. On Duty LEOs Armed Forces personnel in their official capacity The owner and his agents responsible for protection.

Let me say I have no "inside" information about anything. This is just from my observations of the legislature, things they said while watching videos and communications I have had with them and seen between others and them. As most of you know, HB0962 was one of the 4 bills to come out of the summer study committee related to firearms and carry. Just as with what we saw in the conference committee, the final version of the bill was what the majority of the committee agreed upon, not necessarily how each individual Rep would have liked it to be. Rep Curry Todd agreed to carry bill HB0962 through the House process. From what I've seen him say today and in the conference committee, he personally never wanted any restrictions on the bill. However he agreed to carry it and that is what he did. So if he would have ever agreed to having the restrictions removed, while it was still going through the house, he would have more or less been going back on his word. However...when House voted not to recede on their non-concurrence of the Senate Bill and the bill was assigned to the conference committee the act of carrying that exact bill was over and Rep Todd no longer had any obligation to the bill that came out of the study committee. If you watched the video of the conference committee...there was no doubt how Rep Todd felt. He also seemed to act with due diligence to move along the process on issuing a committee report and getting it to the floor of the house. Of course we all know that the conference committee reported was adopted and passed in the house today. To me...it seems like this was the plan all along....to get it to a conference committee and have the restrictions removed. If you watched today, you saw where it was mentioned that former Speaker Nafieh was the one that assigned members to the summer study committee. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I assume the majority of the people on that committee supported his view point and that is why the version that came out of the study committee was the way it was. This would also explain why some of the votes were they way they were on the motions to not recede and non-concur. So while it seemed like a long haul and was ugly to watch at times....I think it went exactly like those that were responsible for it wanted it to go.