Fallguy

Welcome

Very true.... and fair enough.

I was just going by below. Those are the cases I'd like to see. I have at least posted the T.C.A. code and other things as to why my opinion is what it is...and yes, it could be wrong. But all you have is what those you work with have told you. Which doesn't make it wrong, I was just asking for some reference to the cases so I could read them and maybe enlighten myself. I have also asked for the lawyers name you reference, I would have no problem calling him and asking him as to how he came to his conclusion.

Maybe you don't need to blindly trust people just because you work with them, believe it or not, some LEOs don't know the law either. Not to say state legislators are supreme source for law information either, but if you doubt them not sure who else to cite about something. I have not seen any of these cases posted.

Wow..maybe we shouldn't even carry period with so many chances to go to jail....damn maybe we don't even need to have guns in our homes. As far as 39-17-1322 protecting you if you carry or use a firearm in self-defense while in an off-limits place, it is not just TGO popular opinion, but also the opinion of state legislators and lawyers on here. As far as the manslaughter charge that would have to do with the reasons for the shoot, and not anything to do with where you were carrying. Also not every violation of the law leads to jail time.

I'd really like to know what lawyer told you this. You can PM me his/her name if you'd like. Did you show 39-17-1308(a)(9) to them?....and they still said civilians can't carry?

There may, MAY be some that carry in New York, because they do have a permit to carry system even though it is near impossible to get one. But there is NO permit to carry in D.C. for non-LEOs. The rule change only allows carry in parks that are in states that already allow carry. What a really great scare tactic. :rolleyes:

I have sent an e-mail to a state Rep that has helped me in the past with laws and even obtaining AG opinions. I will post in a new thread his response. But to me "any person" simply means "any person" Also looking back, another difference between (a)(8) & (a)(9) is that in (a)(9) you have to meet the requirments of being able to purchase a firearm to be able to carry the baton.

I have sent an e-mail to a state Rep that has helped me in the past with laws and even obtaining AG opinions. I will post in a new thread his response. But to me "any person" simply means "any person"

Yes!!!! it is the same thing!!! 39-17-1307 makes it illegal to carry both a firearm and "club" (among other weapons) in TN PERIOD. 39-17-1308 has DEFENSES for each for carry of handgun (Having a HCP) and a "club" (Having a certificate of training in the use of said "club") ..and YES!!!! Expandable baton carry is legal for ANYONE that has the certificate of training from a certified trainer.

I'm still for hearing from a lawyer, but when I did a search on goverments Code of Federal Regulations page here. I found this see § 478.38 I think it says the same as from post 2 above

I thought the law said "lawful purpose" not "domicile".

+1 Remember TN Code is Has Titles, Chapter and Parts. Weapons are in addressed in Part 13 of Chapter 17 of Title 39 (i.e 39-17-13xx) So when it says "this part" it means any law in Part 13 of the above. Of course that only covers state laws. An ex-con in possession of a firearm is violating federal law and can still be convicted of that regardless of state law.

That's about it

Welcome

Welcome

As far as getting a suspicious e-mail that you are not sure is from PayPal, you can forward it to spoof@paypal.com They will tell you if it was from them or not. Also if it is not, they say it helps them to track down who sent it by forwarding it to them. So I forward those e-mails even when I know they aren't from PayPal.

It doesn't sound like the place you are talking about is compliance. My points were that the parking lot doesn't have to be posted to prevent carry in the buildings. Also not every entrance has to be posted. Meaning if you find a door that hasn't been opened in years, or is only used by a delivery guy that comes once every two weeks, that wasn't posted, it wouldn't matter if the 4 main ways in to the place were posted. Since the other one is not primarily used to enter the building, even though it can be. Just a reminder IANAL and this IMO

The parking lot doesn't have to be posted, unless the parking lot is to be off-limits as well. Also "every single entrance" doesn't have to be posted. Only those "primarily used by persons entering the property/building" 39-17-1359

They may, but it's not a guarantee. Most managers would tell you to leave I think. But even if they call the police, it is a misdemeanor, the officer has to witness you committing the crime, if you are already outside then you are no longer breaking any law or even violating a policy. The manager would have to be the one to press charges. If he is sheepish enough to call the police instead of telling you to leave is he really going to follow though if he has to make the charges himself? But even if you are still inside, before the officer can arrest you he would need to determine a crime has been committed, for their to be a crime you have to have walked past a legal posting. More and more officers are familiar with carry laws (or at least check with those that may know more) and know what is a legal posting or not. If the officer determines there was no legal notice, then you have not violated the law, no arrest. Now could an officer just arrest you and let it play out in court, sure. But it's not a for sure thing you will be arrested for carry past just any old sign. Also...a good reason to carry a copy of the law with you, if you think it may be a problem. I think OS has it right as well.

I don't think so...it's just that the generally doesn't denote sarcasm. Especially when you quote someone else's post, then offer a counter point. (See below) I think most would take it as you saying the other persons position was screwy....as it seem most did.

I'm with you...in the two situations I stated, you know at that moment when the person takes possession they will be violating the law and you helped them. But if you just lend you car in general to someone not sure how you could be liable for speeding, running a red light and the like.

If you knowingly allow your vehicle to be operated by someone under the influence or who does not have a proper license you may be somewhat responsible for their actions, but in general I don't think so.

LOL..since we are "going there" I used to wonder if I could carry my Nunchakus if I got a certificate from some martial arts instructor saying I has been trained with them..... The Bo Staff is definitely a good martial arts weapon to study, as you said practically any handle can be substituted for it.

On the "White Light" thing.....I think it is better that there is interaction with a live person and the person in the car gets the ticket. But if the LEO simply sees the light and not the actual infraction....is it really better? I mean to me, it's no different than if I go up to a LEO and say "I just saw that Blue Cavalier run that red light." Now do you think most LEOs would stop and write up that person based on my say so? I think not, the only difference here is a little white light is flashing saying the same thing.