Fallguy

I'm not saying an owner can allow someone to break the law...I am saying he can control his property. A permit issued per 39-17-1351 allows me to carry in general. However a property owner can post per 39-17-1359 to prevent me from carry. The burger flipper can carry at work per 39-17-1308(a)(3)(. But a property owner having final say can say, "No, you can't carry here." Again...there is no right to carry in TN.

Although not mentioned specifically in the law...I too go with the "permission of the owner" of place of business. At the end of the day the owner of the property has control of his property and as long as it is allowed by law he can choose what he allows and what he doesn't. But I admit I am not 100% sure....and also with a strict reading see how one could see it as only the owner. But also (about the burger flipper)....no one really has a "right" to carry in TN....only defenses to unlawful carry/possesion. If it was a right...it couldn't be denied by anyone...

Ok...but I thought we were also talking about business posting. If a place of employment doesn't want you to carry...all they have to do is tell you not to. But I also think some places post because even if a patron shoots someone in there, they fear they maybe sued...since they are the "deep pockets" Opening statement by the attorney..."This would not have happened if Company X would have simply posted a sign preventing carry." Yes we all know that a sign doesn't stop criminals and possibly even some HCP holders...but the line could/would sound good if little johnny is in a wheelchair because of your stray shot.

I'm a little confused....are you saying you'd be ok if Pizza Hut wanted me to have liabilty insurance before I went in there to have a pizza? But even if I did....as Dave said, that wouldn't stop them from getting sued (or at least orginally named in the suit) for something I did while in there having a pizza. When a permit system first passed in TN you used to have to be bonded. I'm glad they got away from that. I'm all for you being held liable for your actions...that is they way it should be. I just don't think a business ought to be liable for my actions just because they allowed me to go in their armed.

As others have said LEOSA, so he can carry in any state or territory. Although he does have to have an ID that shows he is a retired LEO. However they are still subject to state laws that allow private property owners to prohibit carry and laws that prohibit carry on state or local government property. TX is one of the few states that does not allow OC...I would say that also goes for LEOs carrying under LEOSA. But as OS said...I could be wrong...

There are many threads on the OC v CC debate if you want to do a search and check them.

Yes

One thing Dave and I completely agree on.....

Hmmmm...well I've still felt the employer could prevent you from carrying even without a posting. Since "place of business" is a defense and not an exception, also since possesion is illegal in general. Sort of like the AG has said that a property owner can say No OC or No CC or no carry at all, even if not posted.

I tend to lean toward if you work there...it is your place of business. But I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that that isn't the case. ....and i for sure wouldn't be surprised if asked for an opinion the AG would say that isn't the case.

Actually it was all the way back in 2001, so over 10 years ago. Public Chapter 345 (2001)

39-17-1305 was the law that prevented carry where alcohol was served for onisit consumption (as said carry for off-site consumption was changed around 2000) Here is the Public Chapter that repelaed 39-17-1305 and also removed the law requiring the posting of the signs... Public Chapter 1009 (2010) Other than giving him a copy of this if you'd like....there is much you can do to change someones mind. Some will not change their posistion no matter how is shown to them, short of someone they respect of think is knowledgeable telling them.

Not too far off.... First I was just interested to see how many thought it was ok for some guilty to go free so that innocents didn't go to jail period...then if they felt like that "margin of error" is a good way to put it on the number. Something I never really put out there is....this doesn't mean the guilty will go free forever necessarily. There is more than a decent chance that a criminal will re-offend and perhaps when caught that time there will be no doubt of guilt. An innocent is not going to re-offend as he never did in the first place. So if you're unsure...isn't it better to let someone go so as not to risk an innocent going to jail? Of course...I guess that is what we are supposed to have now... ..and you're welcome. As you know I enjoy a good debate/discussion...

LOL...yeah. Beer and Liquor have all kinds of different laws and regulations. Also beer permits issued by local beer boards, liquor licenses issued by the state. Who knows...

Well the way I read it, they are still supposed to ask. But if you can't produce ID and look over 50 they can still sell it. I may not ought to say this, but one benefit of going to a regular out of the way place....I am never carded... (...and I don't think I look over 50...lol)

Yeah...I tried to word it like the quote I've heard, but change it a bit to make it more clear...but in the end may have made it worse. I did try to clear it up in post 4. I even used the "x number" phrase... Agree with your last paragraph...

I actually wondered if NY, NJ would go so far as do scrap their permit system....

I'm not sure how to feel about this...seems like totally opposite information coming from different groups. If it simply says that any state that issues permtis must recognize permits issued by other states (other than the feds being involved) I don't think it is that bad. But if does much of anything else besides that.....not so good.

Threads merged

Got ya It's been a while since I dispatched, when I left they were just starting to add the digital picture to your DL info and such. So I am glad you mentioned it. As I said there are times you will have to ID yourself to a LEO...being charged with a misdemeanor is one of them of course. So I had thought if I give you my name, DOB, address and so on most of the time you should be able verify my ID with that info. As long as the network isn't down as you say.... I guess it is also worth mentioning that not all officers in all cities have computers in their cars...

You have to have commited some misdemeanor offense first before identifying yourself. Not having ID is not a crime itself. Also it says "satisfactory" ID, not state issued picture ID. That being said though...I don't think most LEOs would take anything less...

LOL...I did think of that too

Well that time of night and with it reasonable that he appeard under 18, I can see asking for the ID. But it still sounds like a bigger deal was made out of it than necessary...

They have modifed the law a bit, if someone who reasonably appears over 50 and doesn't have ID, you can still sell it to them. 57-5-301

I couldn't disagree more....