Fallguy

I don't doubt that is what she told you. I'm just not sure she is right...lol What else is to be added? It has already passed out of the house. AFAIK the link to the amendment I posted is the exact version that passed.

Agree The bill doesn't apply to Restraining Orders, those and Orders of Protection are two different things. But you sentiment is right in that it could be done vindictively as well.

I believe that is right. Current law "state of emergency" bill would also include times of "martial law" Pretty much what it says...if you are the subject of an order of protection, you must turn over any all firearms you have to LE within 24 hours. Even on ex parte order. If you don't, it would be a crime. If ex parte orders weren't so easy to get, it wouldn't be as big a problem. But the bill also says the LE agency can charge you a reasonable fee for storage of the firearms. Considering a hearing on ex parte order can take up to 10 days....who knows what that could add up to. Also it seems some standard advice from some divorce lawyers is for a party to seek an order of protection, even if it is not really warranted. But that wouldn't matter. When the Order of Protection expires...you don't just get your guns back either...you have to file for another hearing.

Hmmm....it may not be the intent of the sponsor of the bill or theAmendment for you to have to get up and leave before 11:00, but the wording of it sure makes it appear that once 11:00pm arrives it is illegal to have a handgun regardless of what time you came in.

The bill only applies to handguns, not long guns. Also it still lets a "governmental entity or agent thereof" to post including the parking lot.

True, but it detracts from the argument many of us use that Permit holders are law abiding and not the ones you have to worry about.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

I believe that is what I posted from the state's website. Which means the house, including Nafieh, wouldn't get a change to vote the whole bill down again (what the person I quoted was worried about) but only any changes made.

Not without outside lobbying by citizens anyway... True

Good post JLowe The only thing I'd ask about is...there doesn't seem to be a law that specifically says a License Plate must be illuminated and/or the Tag light be operable. Also...there seems to be conflicting case law on it. In one case the Appellate court said that since the officer couldn't see the tag at all it was enough PC..even if the driver may not have had his lights on and even though he may not have had to have his lights on legally. Also once he was able to see the tag and ran it, it came back to a different vehicle. In the other case the Appellate court said, a tag that is merely "hard to see" is not enough of a reason to make a stop. But the also said that in their opinon the facts behind the stop were not the same as in the first case.

State parks are not part of HB0960 any more. Carry in State Parks will be determined by HB0716. Under HB0960 the law prohibiting carry would basically stay the same as it is currently under 39-17-1311 Unless the local government opts to allow carry in Parks. Carry in Civic centers and other publicly owned recreational property would still be off limits and could not be allowed. Local governments could Could leave things as they are, therefore prohibiting carry in all of it's parks. (Signage: they could or could not post, like current law) Could allow carry in some of it's parks, but not in other parks. (Signage: again, could or could not post, like current law) Could allow carry in part of a park, but prohibit in other parts of the same park (Sinage: If the do this, they must post a sign that states where carry is and is not allowed) One other note as razorback noted somewhere, the new 39-17-1311 would specifically address firearms as in 39-11-106 instead of a list of prohibited weapons under 39-17-1302(a) like now.

I don't think they could kill the whole bill. Only vote as whether to concur or not concur with any changes made to the bill in the senate. From How a bill becomes law

All the amendments except Number 1 either failed, were tabled or withdrawn. The bill that passed did not have any of them. There were all attempts to either kill the bill or make it practically useless. I believe that is why none of them passed. So seems like a bit of a moot point.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

It did pass the House. If it passes in the Senate with the same restriction and then becomes law, no amendment can change it. There would have to be a new bill introduced in a new session to change it. Of course which if that happens.....is better than nothing. However...there is at least a slim chance the senate could remove restrictions from it's bill. If so then the bill would go to a conference committee of the two chambers for the differences to be worked out...which could include the restrictions being left off.

Good find Ggun. I couldn't find a T.C.A. Specifically about a light for the license plate when I first looked. 55-4-110( does say the license plate shall be "...in a place and position to be clearly visible..." Also here is a link to the court case above. In this case the officer said he couldn't even tell if the vehicle had a plate. I found a second case though that said a license plate that "hard to see" is not enough reason. State of TN v. Kevin Hall So who knows.....

Yeah...I'm afraid HB0960 is screwed up beyond repair. The trouble is, it is one of the 4 bills to come out of the summer studdy committee. It seems that on those 4 issues, the house only wants to consider those bills and not any others that deal with the same issues. I admit, I am one of the few that thought allowing locals a choice would be better than the whole bill being killed. But that is also when state parks were still attached to it instead of now letting them go on their own bill. However, my idea was to make it legal to carry in local parks by default. But allow the local goverments to opt out if they chose and to also have to post if the opted out. But now I think it would be better to either fully allow carry in local parks or not at all. Also as razorback noted...this bill would only allow carry in parks and clarifies that carry in civic centers or any other publicly owned recreational property is off limits. As far as National Park carry, I guess it is up to the judge that issued the injunction...at least right now.

Welcome

Welcome

I don't think any station "normally" covers the legislature live.