Fallguy

Well I think I remember the same thread, but I can't find it right now either. There is a setting under options of the User CP, but I think that has to do with viewing, not posting. If I can't find something soon, maybe someone else will post later.

I would say those that feel there shouldn't even be a permit system and don't like to jump through the hoops the state has places on a supposed right would be the ones that think a 2 day class is a waste of time. They want the minimal class that is required to make the state happy, since they probably feel they shouldn't have to be there in the first place. Those that are truly wanting to learn more about firearms and shooting probably enjoy a longer class and may and/or should take additional courses. Just for the record...I lean more toward the first group.

You are reading it wrong. The first part says. That part is saying that a TN LEO can carry anywhere and everywhere at anytime. On-duty, off-duty or no-duty. Then second part places restrictions or conditions on that carry. That part is giving 4 main restrictions/conditions. 1. The 4 places/situations in subsection © 2. Any place off limits by federal law. 3. He/She must follow any lawful orders of the court in regards to carry. 4. He/She must follow any written directives of the executive supervisor of the agency they work for. Since the first part already lets them carry anywhere and everywhere at anytime, the only real thing a written directive could address is places they could not carry. I mean I don't ever see a chief of police or a sheriff really placing any additional restrictions, but they could. Such as issue a written directive saying they did not want their officers to carry in a church. If he did that, they would have to abide by it. Before 39-17-1350 many agencies issued written directives that allowed their officers to carry 24/7 but since that law has passed there is no need.

I am ok with many things...but because I am ok with it doesn't mean it may not be against the law. I'm ok with anyone over the age of 18 carrying a firearm without a permit. It should be up to the government to prove they are disqualified for some reason instead of us having to prove we are. 339,000 sounds like a lot of people, but you have to remember it is only about 3% of the state's population. If you owned a business and only 3 out of 100 complained about something, how much would you really care? That is assuming those 3 were even regular customers. Don't get me wrong...I'm all for not patronizing a business and telling them why if you feel strongly enough about it. But in this case I don't think it would make a huge impact. I also encourage people to contact their elected officials, but again...as long as one particular persons remains as Speaker of the House in TN, it won't make much of a difference. If you checked with each member of the house and asked them if they were in favor of Restaurant Carry, I guarantee you that a majority would say yes, but...they will never get the chance, because it is always killed in a stacked committee that will even get an extra vote if needed. ...and you're right I guess in that most people would rather bitch than do something about it...but if you can't come on the internet and bitch about stuff...where can you go? Forive the rant... been a long week.

Welcome

Did you see post 49? A LEO does not need a directive from his/her department to always go armed. 39-17-1350 does mention a written directive but what it says is that the executive supervisor of his/her department can issue a directive that restricts carry. But regardless of any directive LEOs are subject to the restriction in 39-17-1350©

Welcome

One thing to remember about malls, that each individual business could chose to ban carry in their business. If that is the case they would only have to post at the entrance(s) to their part. Not sure if the food court is run separately, but it could just be the intention of the people the run the food court to ban carry in that area while the owners of the entire mall and other business have not chose to. See AG Opinion 07-43 Question 3

Well if the gazebo is in front of city hall, it is city owned too. About all I'll further say on this is "I" will carry in any non-posted library (and have) in the state and not be worried about breaking the law. What others want to do is up to them. Remember the late Marswolf was on his local library board and it was his opinion also that libraries are not off limits unless posted.

Well almost anything you do away from your house could be considered recreation by that same reasoning. For some smoking is recreation, does that mean a gazebo set up for smokers is recreational building?

It is good to know that the study committee is still at work. Rep Todd is a good guy and has always answered all of my correspondence to him.

LOL....

IANAL but as I said IMO you would be fine as long as it not posted. However...city owned is goverment owend.

I read on another board, that one of the problems has been a new electronic scanning system they are using. They take all the documents: Application, safety course certificate, etc... and scan them in and then discard the hard copy. Apparently there is a problem at times and the scanned copy is lost. That is why they have asked/told some to fax/send another copy of those documents. It is my understanding they are now keeping the hard copies of the documents as back up.

While I don't think there is a definition of recreation in the code, IMO a library wouldn't be considered recreational property. Remember this thread? If it is was already covered under 39-17-1311, why post etc...?

There is no law against carry in a library or any goverment owned building. So as long as they don't have a sign(s) posted in accordance with T.C.A. 39-17-1359 then it is legal. Maybe someone from the area who knows if it is so posted will post soon.

Welcome

I'd like to read any updates. Reading LEOSA some more, it does say to be covered by LEOSA the LEO must have a photo ID issued by his department...so if the guy didn't have that with him...then maybe, but anyway. I still wonder that at this point, if it is still really a challenge to LEOSA? I mean if they have dropped the charges of carry without a permit and it is only about the shooting, I don't think that has much to directly do with LEOSA. Also....I wondered something else about LEOSA, like I said above it only has to restrictios on carry, but, as we have discussed in another thread TN has restrictions on LEO carry in certain places, it would seem LEOSA trumps those laws, right? I mean I need to read it a little more, but surely LEOSA wasn't meant to do that, I thought it was mainly so LEOs could just carry in all 50 states and US territories.

Welcome

Well after further reading of the law, it would seem that statement is incorrect. There are only 2 restrictions on carry. 1. If a private property owner prevents or restricts carry. 2. If the State or Local goverment prevents or restricts carry on property, installation, building, base, or park owned by the agency. ...and those two only apply if the state has laws in place that address those restrictions. I also read the second article about the shooting. So it is the shooting itself that is being challenged as legal or just that he was armed or both? I think he's being armed (as long as he wasn't drinking) was 100% legal. As far as the shooting, well more details are needed and that will be up to the grand jury and/or trial jury I guess. It'll be interesting to see how tihis turns out.

Interesting. I didn't read in the article about the weapon being used though. If the Washington's LEO is arguing that he can carry in a bar in South Dakota because of LEOSA...well if South Dakota bans carry in bars, that is incorrect. My understanding is that LEOSA does not allow officers to carry anywhere and everywhere. It does allow them to carry in states like IL that do not issue permits or in other states that might not otherwise recognize a permit/license issued by another state. But the LEO still has to abid by any restrictions placed on carry within the state he is in. Right? LEOSA did pass on a federal level, but has been up to each state to figure out how to comply by it within in their state.

Can you elaborate?

I don't think so by law, but he may by directive of the department he works for. I am an EMT, I have no legal duty to act when I am not working, but of course I would do whatever and whenever I could if needed.

....and I do think they are stupid.

Sort of my feelings...