Fallguy

Welcome

I did too....

I am as well. But how many times should you have to ask them to post it?

LMAO....touchè

Also you don't need a HCP or written directive to have a firearm in your place of residence. Which is what a rented apartment is. As said before, I think all agree that a landlord can restrict/limit what goes on within the property he rents to you, including not allowing firearms. But if you violate that agreement...it is not a criminal act.

That only covers weapons carried under a written directive issued under 39-17-1315 not HCPs issued under 39-17-1351

Sounds like the way it should be done. It's not always funny....but laughing at it pretty good tonight....

Ok...the Jack is making me post one more time. You are the one saying something is illegal. If I say it is illegal to were a red shirt. No one can post a statute that says it is legal to were a red shirt. The only proof that it is legal is that there is no law against it. So many of us have said we don't think it is a criminal violation because we can't find a law that says it is. YOU are the one that keeps saying that is illegal and you know the code that can prove it. Don't know if you play poker or not...but your bluff has been called. Time to either show your cards or fold.

All in favor.... AYE!!! Motion carries. Time for a cigar with and adult beverage and not worry about this anymore...

Correct. But you are not breaking a law.

Now you're just being mean........

If they signed a lease that says no firearms and they have a firearm. They did violate the terms of the lease. (Which is a civil, not criminal matter) They can be evicted. However they did not break any criminal law. Of course we're still not sure which law you think they have broke since you have not said yourself or confirmed when I or others have asked if you mean 39-17-1359.

Hmmmmmm, Yes, interesting. Not sure why they would take one for an address change or a name change. Of course wouldn't be the first time I've heard of the people at the DL station doing something wrong either........

Oops....I was editing to add the text of the amendment as you responded. Here is a link to the Senate amendment that makes the bill.

No The bill would simply add a new group of people that can carry in a place that serves alcohol. That new group is HCP holders, but only within a restaurant. You can see the current law in post 14. The bill would add a Subsection (3) under © that says..... (3) (A) Authorized to carry a firearm under § 39-17-1351 who is not consuming beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage, and is within the confines of a restaurant that is open to the public and serves alcoholic beverages, wine or beer. ( As used in this subdivision ©(3), “restaurant” means any public place kept, used, maintained, advertised and held out to the public as a place where meals are served and where meals are actually and regularly served, such place being provided with adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room equipment, having employed therein a sufficient number and kind of employees to prepare, cook and serve suitable food for its guests. At least one (1) meal per day shall be served at least five (5) days a week, with the exception of holidays, vacations and periods of redecorating, and the serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted.

I have no doubt that a place that serves liquor is a restaurant by law and in this bill. My point about %'s is a bill that would allow carry in a place that makes less than 50% of it's revenue for alcohol would allow carry in more places than a bill that allows carry in a place that makes 51% or greater of it's revenue from food sales...or a bill that allows carry in restaurants. It's not that hard to make a living at place that only serves beer and not liquor if no other establishment for several miles around can sell liquor either. It's not that I don't like the bill I do. ...and if someone's main goal was to be able to carry in a restaurant, this is a perfect bill. My only point was that I had noticed it wouldn't help to allow carry in any other place that serves alcohol except restaurants. BTW....let me know which bowling alley's serve liquor...a Jack and Coke may be a nice change.

Ok...let us know what code we need to follow...... Again, if you are talking about 39-17-1359 that in no way applies to a contract between landlord and tenant. Now if the landlord had a sign(s) posted that met the requirents as laid out in 39-17-1359 that would be different.

I'm a bit confused. If your current HCP did not expire for a year, you can not renew. It has to be within 6 months of expiration. If you were simply doing a change of address that could be done online and simply print the page at then end with your new address on it. Not sure what would happen if you went in to do a change of address, but not sure why they would take your current HCP since you can not carry legally without it. The receipt they give when you renew is only valid with your expired HCP still in your possession. So if you don't have that, you are not technically legal. If you went back to get a duplicate, (meaning you already turned in a renewal) they should have already had proof of your citizenship on file from the time of renewal. I was told when they copied my birth certificate that I would not have to show it again (for that purpose at least).

I haven't looked up, but I don't disagree that the wording for what a restaurant is came from the ABC's (or elsewhere) definition of what a restaurant is. My point was though that allow carry in only restaurants that serve alcohol may not cover all places that serve alcohol. I would disagree about many of those places having any type license to sell liquor. There are still many dry counties in TN. Even in some of the ones where liquor is sold it is is package stores and not is restaurants for onsite consumption. So I don't thing any place that just sells beer with a beer license issued by the local beer board would have a state issued restaurant liquor license.

A few of us on here know how to look up T.C.A. and regularly do. That is why we believe there is no law that says what you are claiming and are asking you to provide us with what you are saying so we can all eat a big plate of crow..... As KWW67 said, if you violate a contract (lease) the person violated has civil remedies they can pursue. But that is not criminal and has nothing to do with the carry of a handgun. Also if you violate 39-17-1359 you could have your HCP suspended or revoked, but that statute has specific posting requirements and would not include a paragraph in a contract or lease.

+1

I don't think they are able to (computer system won't let them) at the local office, even if they wanted to. Other than duplicates, which aren't that many I'd guess, they'd not even have a need to print them locally since new and renewal appilcations have to go to the HCP office in Nashville.

This thread closed.

I'm really torn, but I'm afraid I mostly agree with you. I would hope that at least some local goverments would allow it. But then there would be a such mess as to knowing which parks in which counties and cities allowed and which didn't and so on.

State parks and local parks are two different bills.