Fallguy

Good idea. The place I'm renting know actually had a "No Motorcycle" clause in the lease. The landlord said it was what her parents had on there before she ever started running it. I got her to strike that paragraph out, initial it and sign it, before I rented the place. I have kept that copy just in case. As others said, it wouldn't be "illegal" but it would violate the lease and could get you evicted unless you can get them to make an exception.

Sent to summer study. So guess it is done for this year.

Ummm....well not every state park has a firing range. I just know for sure that Natchez Trace state park close to me does. It looks like the Amendment that would have created firing ranges in state parks was tabled, therefore did not pass as part of the bill. Something else I just noticed....it appears this bill would only allow TN residents to carry in state parks and not those from other states. Anyone know why?

Guess the pigeons need a new place to

There are lot of places that you can hunt, but not otherwise have a firearm, especially a handgun. There are also shooting ranges in state parks, where carry is prohibited, for now anyway. To be honest I'm not 100% sure about carry in National Forrest in TN either. I have talked with the guy at handgunlaw.us about it. Neither of us can find a TN code against it, but he says if ever post it is legal, he gets countless e-mails saying it is illegal. Plus it wouldn't be the first bill introduced to make something specifically legal, that is general accepted as legal already.

Basically the bill separates parks from civic centers and other recreational facilities into two different sections of code. It also, as razorback said, makes firearms specifically illegal in both places. But in the new section, it says local governments, by majority vote can allow carry in parks (not civic centers etc...) that it controls. By default, it remains illegal per state law. They can allow carry in all, some or none of the parks under their control,. They can even allow carry within certain areas of a park while prohibiting carry within other areas of the same park. If carry is allowed in all or none of the park the may or may not post. (Current law requires posting, but then says they can vote themselves exempt) However if they allow carry in some parts while prohibiting in others of the same park, the must post explaining the details of where it is allowed and not allowed.

Correct. Also they are not required to post unless they allow carry in part of the park, but other parts. Actually I work with a county commissioner of the county I used to live in. He is a HCP holder and said he would vote to allow carry in his counties parks if it ever comes up. It may be a good idea to go to your city council and/or county commission meetings. Get to know the people. Talk with the head of the parks department. Just in general first. Then at some point bring up this issue. Granted in some places it may not make a difference, but it is worth a shot. Remember the bill gives them practically full discretion. They can prohibit carry at the little league ball fields (if they want) but still allow it on the walking tracks, camping areas, etc.... Don't know the bill number right now, but I believe there is a bill to allow carry in National Forrest in TN. Not sure of the status...

Good deal!!

Correct. If you have applied for a HCP or renewed since 2005 it should be on file. I have heard of some sending in their birth certificate and getting it back, but not sure I'd want to bank on that.

To me, it seems the restaurant definition is comparable to other states "51% rule", without causing restaurants here to actually have to keep up with and report food sales. Something that restaurant group has uses as a reason to be opposed to this legislation. But rather than saying revenues of at least "51% from food" or "restaurant as defined in the code" I thing it would be better to say "< 50% from alcohol sales" or greater that "51% from non-alcoholic sales" Don't get me wrong I think this bill is good and I hope to see it pass. I also believe that 100% clean bill would have have passed. These are just things that might be kept in mind for future sessions of the legislature....

There is always hope. True. Admittance has to be restricted to 21 and up to allow smoking, even though 18-20 year old can legally smoke. However there are other reasons than smoking to restrict admittance to a certain age. Funny thing is before smoking was an issue, some of the clubs around here restricted admittance to those 18 and up even those only 21 and up could drink. Haven't been to any those in a while so not sure what they are doing now. A lot of this goes back to whether you are legally and adult at 21 or 18, but is debate for another thread. My point was/is that there are different starting points for age-restricted places and a law that uses the term "age-restricted" instead of "21 and up" covers them all. It also prevents someone from trying to bypass a "21 and up" law by restricting admittance to those 22 or 25 or whatever and up. But hopefully this all moot when it comes to carry in restaurants and the HB0962

Current law says you can not carry within the confines of a building that serves alcohol for onsite consumption. It does not distinguish between different types of business. It doesn't matter if it is a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, theater or hot dog stand you can not carry inside if they serve alcohol. The bill will add a new exemption under © for those that have a HCP, but only in restaurants as defined in the bill. Which is... ....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.

You know...some states even allow that....... Personally I think the only place we should be restricted from carry of our handguns is any place that a BG has never commited or will commit a crime. Now...that being said, I know TN and most states will never let a armed citizen carry anywhere and everywhere. So "foot in the door" laws are at least a good start.

Welcome

Looking at Texas Admin Code about carry licenses I really dont' see anything about transfering a permit/license from another state. You may want to see this page. As far as transporting the weapons to TX, shouldn't have any real problem. I would just make sure that except for your carry weapon they were all unloaded and the ammo not stored with them.

You know..... I guess I hadn't really read the Senate amendment that close before. For some reason I was thinking that with the age-restriction and curfew parts removed, it would pretty much allow carry ANYWHERE alcohol is served. But it still has "restaurant" in it and the definition of if would still prevent carry in a lot of places like a theater or any place that doesn't serve meals. But anyway......not really a big problem I guess, just pointing out something I was slow to notice...lol

The word in another thread is that Rep Todd will recommend accepting the senate version. Also may loose about 10 votes from the total that passed the house version, but that would still be enough to get it passed in the house (again).

It is showing you as a Benefactor now.

For whatever reason, some places choose the cut off age at 18 others 21. By using "age restricted" it covers both places or any place that may even come up with an odd age to by pass the restriction. Say like if I owned a bar and restricted admittance to those 22 and up.

I'm not sure a LEO would take carry without your HCP as lightly as he may driving without your DL. Even if he can check the status by running the number. Some may, most may, but all it would take is one that wouldn't.

Welcome

Welcome

Sort of like others have said...the only thing I've done to "prepare" for such a situation is resolved myself to the idea that if it is "him or me" I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it's not me. ...and to actually give a little credit to the OP's friend. If you truly feel that you could not take a life, no matter what, then it is probably best not to have a firearm around.

Seminole you're probably right. I just hope Mike Bell is right as well in that there are enough votes to support the Senate version even over the objection of the sponor of the bill, Rep Todd

Not 100% sure, but I think someone said Monday.