Fallguy

I think a lot of the problem is, the law itself. For the sake of argument I will say that "On Duty" and eating lunch is in actual discharge of duties.... If the legislature trust a LEO to be armed and in a place that serves alcohol while he is working, then why not when he is not on duty? Why did they feel the need to make a distinction? Again...I hope all of this academic in a few months.

Between both AG opinions I can see your way of thinking. The both say that "off-duty" is not in the actual discharge of duties, thus implying "on duty" is in the actual discharge of duties. I can't say I have completely changed my mind, but I definitely can't say your position is wrong either. Maybe with a little luck the law will be changed for both LEOs and HCP holders though and this will all become moot.

Welcome

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Boy that is another soapbox I could climb pretty high on...lol

Welcome

Yep old news. Thread Closed

I agree on all points, especially about AG opinions. I agree, but the opinon really doesn't address "On duty" at all. Like I said the very fact that it says when the off duty officer "responds" he is in the discharge of his duties. I take that to mean responding to something is what constitutes "discharge of duties" and that would apply to On or Off duty. But..that is just my view I admit. Good questions. LOL...and to me it doesn't. Why can't things be more simple? I do agree with that statement.

Interesting, but this is a fairly old opinion and was issued before 39-17-1350 was passed. You notice all the questions ask about an "off duty" officer. The part you mention seems to be saying that just because an officer is armed he may or may not be situations he is in the actual discharge of duties. What I find interesting in the Footnote is... "An officer not currently on duty who witnesses an incident where a crime occurs would normally be considered to be acting in the discharge of his or her duties in going on site to respond to the incident" To me that would seem to imply responding to a crime is what actual discharge of duties is. I would agree that even if an officer is "off duty" if he responds to an incident then at that moment he is "on duty" and/or "in the actual discharge of his duties" but up to that point he is not.

The way I read ©(1) it does not say anything about "in the discharge of duties" like ©(3) and ©(4) does. So it would not seem that is not part of the restriction. Also it says "during regular school hours" so to me that means there is no restriction after school hours. The reason being is, there are NO restrictions on LEOs except the 4 listed and ©(1) only mentions during school hours, so since there is no mention of after school hours, that would mean there is no restriction. Now whether school activities even after "normal" hours would still be considered "regular hours" I don't know for sure, but not IMO. But even during the "regular school hours" restriction all he had to do is notify the principal or some other authority that he is armed and he can still carry. As for as the out of state officer, was he a full-time officer? 39-17-1350(d) says... For purposes of this section, “law enforcement officer” means a person who is a full-time employee of the state in a position authorized by the laws of this state to carry a firearm and to make arrests for violations of some or all of the laws of this state, or a full-time police officer who has been certified by the peace officer standards and training commission, or a vested correctional officer employed by the department of correction. So if he was a reserve or something like that, he would not be covered by any of exceptions in 39-17-1350©(1)-(4) As far as 39-17-1359 goes, Yes he can ignore those signs...I believe that to be one of the main intents of 39-17-1350. Remember...in general 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry 24/7 anywhere as I said, the ONLY limitation are those in ©(1)-(4) and 39-17-1359 is not mentioned. Now....IMO though, if he is not on official business, he still has to respect the wishes of a private property owner, even that which is open to the public, as far as being on the property period, but that was a long debate on another thread.

That's it exactly That was "part" of the problem last session, there is no such thing as a Bar/Tavern/Beer Joint in TN...at least not as defined in TN Code, so there was no easy way to distinguish a difference between those places and a restaurant as far as to allow carry in on and not another.

There were two separate bills, one to remove the restrictions for HCP holders in 39-17-1305 and a separate one to remove the restrictions for LEO in 39-17-1350. Did you see the info I posted in Post 19? There are different rules for LEO carry and HCP holders. In general LEOs can carry 24/7 anywhere in TN, except for the places and circumstances listed in 39-17-1350©. ©(1) Is similar to schools for those with a HCP, but it allow LEOs to carry as long as the notify the principal, and that is only during school hours, after hours like at a basketball or football game, they don't have to notify at all. ©(2) is similar to 39-17-1322 for us. ©(3) is what we have been talking about ©(4) is similar to 39-17-1306 for us.

Let me rephrase, "To My Knowledge" (which what I think I said the first time) there has been no ruling on it. There is a stick thread in this sub-forum about looking up court cases if anyone wants to try and check. All I know for sure is, I can not find any AG opinion on it. (Not saying there isn't one) Also there was a bill introduced last session to remove the restriction for LEOs in 39-17-1350©(3) and some of the others, I watched a committee meeting about it, there was a discussion between Metro Nashville's Chief and one of the State Representatives who was a former LEO as to what the "in the actual discharge of duties" meant and they disagreed. The chief thought it meant it was ok for them to eat lunch in a place that served alcohol the Rep thought it meant they couldn't and that is one of the reasons he wanted to remove the restriction.

Laws apply to all just the same, whether you are a LEO or not. But TN laws make certain exceptions for LEOs. The biggest is 39-17-1350, in which the legislature obviously intended for there to be times LEOs could carry when other's could not, but also times they couldn't either. This whole debate is more to whether the law applies in certain situations. Not if they are allowed to break the law. It is obvious your interpretation is that simply being "on duty" does not mean "engaged in the actual discharge" of their duties. I happen to actually agree with that position. Others do not see it that way. There are valid arguments on each side. But, as I said before, there has been no actual ruling on it, so who really knows.

The link to the new form no longer works either.

I'm afraid you'd be in trouble if you're gonna count on me to keep 'em on. Might could generate enough to keep a flashlight going for ya. AMEN on the video and other issues!! Did I read in one post they are going to change the form and not require ANY information about the handgun? If so it sure will make that other thread I stirred up a can of worms in interesting.

Maybe it would be easier to just do away with the safety class requirment?

From what I read about an audit, I agree this was probably done to be able to somehow follow up and make sure things were done as they are supposed to be. But I don't think this was the best way to go about it and don't think the additional information should be recorded period. Really I'm not sure why any information about the handgun needs to be recorded, but anyway.

And there you go. The big difference is in our interpretation of the law. I have even seen LEOs disagree on this very subject and with no legal ruling it is simply unclear. At the end of the day...I think most of us agree for the most part. Unfortunately it is easy for other LEO related issues to creep in to this debate.

If one was going to be cold for a moment....I would agree this is more "Natural Selection" than "Darwinism"

http://www.naturalreflections.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=001&Product_Code=cc-trucker

Yep at the intersection of Hwy 100 & Hwy 104

Also...that's not the way it is pronounced...it is pronounced with the "e" sound and not the "a" sound like in Ronald's last name.

Never been here or talked to anyone that has taken a class from them, but here is a place that is closer to Regan. http://jacksonisr.com/Home.html