Fallguy

The law we are discussing is for LEOs specifically. 39-17-1305 is what keeps HCP holders from going into a place that serves alcohol, but 39-17-1350 deals only with LEOs. It is the law that allows LEOs to generally carry everywhere. It says "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any law enforcement officer may carry firearms at all times and in all places within Tennessee, on-duty or off-duty, regardless of the officer's regular duty hours or assignments, except as provided by subsection ©, federal law, lawful orders of court or the written directives of the executive supervisor of the employing agency." Subsection © says. © The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer: (1) Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office; (2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance; (3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while within the confines of an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-the-premises; or (4) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding. For those with a HCP ©(1) Is close to 39-17-1309 ©(2) Is similiar to 39-17-1321 Although ©(2) says "consuming" and 39-17-1321 says "under the influnece" (Right or wrong we all know that one word can make a difference in what a law means) ©(3) Is like 39-17-1305 and we are talking about. ©(4) Is like 39-17-1306

NP canynracer. I also understand whay you are saying, it is just IMO I think discharge of duties means more than just being on patrol or subject to being called. Otherwise there would be no real need to remove that restriction like they tried to do in SB3853/HB3622. But...really it doesn't matter what either of us thinks, only the court. ...and I don't ever really see a case of this type going to court. So in the meantime all of us airmchairs get to discuss it until the law changes...lol

Well....I'm not even 100% sure what "Summer Study" even means. Because this is an election year some of the same legislators may not even be there for the next session. Also a bill can carry over from one year to the next in the same 2 year legislative session, but 2009 starts a new session and AFAIK bills can not carry over from one session to the next. So really about the best that could come out of the summer study is a new bill being introduced in the 2009-2010 session that all sides could agree on. But don't hold your breath.

I may not have explained myself well. To me since the law says in the discharge of his duties...it isn't the old argument of "on duty" or "off duty". The law already says that a LEO can go armed anywhere (other than the places listed) in the stare regardless of his "duty hours". So it seems to me (and stupidly, I agree) that they (law makers) were trying to make a distinction between being "on duty" and "discharging" official duties. But who really knows. Also I didn't mean when he is working that 8-5 shift and "checks out" to eat that he is by any means off the clock or off duty. So if he is Applebee's, then yes he would be expected to help someone...the whole question is, should he be in Applebee's in the first place if they serve alcohol? Or that responding to a call for assistance actually meant being dispatched to call. If a LEO is at the 7-11 and sees a purse snatching the lady yelling HELP is way of being called for assistance I would say. Again just let me say in my opinon I'm not trying to say LEOs or anyone for that matter should have to disarm to eat at a place that serves alcohol, the question is if that is what the law says or not...and if so it needs to be changed.

Well said. I never want to discourage anyone from contacting their legislators, but in this case it really want help that much. From what I can tell the VAST MAORITY would vote in favor of this bill, but it has never made it to the floor...and for the very reasons you stated.

I agree with all that. I also agree that the both laws should be changed. You talk about not going off duty when you eat....and I agree that an officer while working is really always subject to call, even when he is eating. The real question is what does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean? I think we all would agree that a LEO that is not in uniform, not clocked in, not in his patrol car can not legally carry in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption any more than someone with a HCP. So does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean when, 1) He is simply in uniform, clocked in and in his patrol car or 2) Does it mean actually responding to a call for assistance? If you think... 1) then it is fine for him to be in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption having a meal while on duty. 2) then technically it is against the law. AFAIK there has been no legal definition or AG opinion of that phrase.

Welcome

I personally feel someone could have a drink with dinner and still be ok to carry, just as they can still drive. However I know no bill would ever pass that allowed any consumption while armed. Although many states actually have BAC limit for carry just as they do for driving. In some it is the same as for DUI in some it is less. The bills that would remove the restriction to carry in those places for both HCP holders and LEOs both stipulated the person could not be consuming any alcohol.

The bill to remove the restrictions for HCP holders is SB0023/HB0702 The bill to remove the restrictions for LEOs is SB3853/HB3622 I'm really not familiar with the procedure of a bill that has been sent to a summer study committee. Also since this January will be the start of new legislative session....the bills may have to be reintroduced from scratch. But if not it is up to the sponsor of each bill to put it on the calendar to be heard in whatever committee it is in.

The new legislative session will not start till January.

Yep. Units from all over up here trainging all the time. Again...I have no way of knowing for sure, but I think if you tell them that use the bag as a range bag at times....you may get a closer check, but as long as nothing funny is going on, you should be ok.

Depends on which law you are trying to get changed. Media coverage might change the law for LEOs, but I don't think any amount of media coverage would help change the law when it comes to those with a HCP. FWIW there are bills to change boths laws still in the summer study commitee of the house. Maybe they can work something out.

I agree with OS

That is not correct.

It's not that a LEO can carry in a restaraunt that serves alcohol and that I can't. Because by law neither of us can....unless the LEO is "in the actual discharge of his official duties". It is more the law would be rarely, if ever enforced against them as opposed to those with a HCP. Just as with those that a HCP, it's not like the LEO can't eat somewhere else, even if it has to be McDonalds or Burger King. If a druken idot starts trouble at Chili's etc.... then when the LEO responds he will be in the actual discharge of his duties. But I do agree that most LEOs would simply ask the person to go outside and disarm instead of actually charging someone.

I fully agree with your reading of the law. It does say "in the discharge of official duties" not simply on duty. ...and I don't think being out of service eating a meal is in being in the discharge of official duties. There has been discussions about the definition of "in the actual discharge of official duties" by top LEOs of the state and legislators in Nashville. There has been no definite answer ever come of it. To my knowledge the AG has never issued an opinion on it. The trouble is....who are you going to call if you see an officer eating a meal at a restaurant that serves alcohol? Even if it is another agency that responds, do you really think they will do anything? Also....do you really want to be the guy that single handily eliminated the majority of places that your local LEOs can eat?

Good question. Even if any residue showed up it should show it as "regular" gunpowder. You'd think once the bag was thourghly checked and no explosives or weapons were found you'd be ok. I work where it is possiable that military grade explosive residue could be on clothing or bags. They have a letter that they can give us to give to 'em at the airport. I know of a few that have taken the letter with them, but none have ever had to use it.

Does not do it for me at work (IE 6 on Windows 2000) or at home (IE 7 on Windows XP)

I think that is a good idea...

+1 I would agree with that as well....

If only our opinions counted.....lol

Welcome

Welcome

LOL...ok ok But seriously...I have read enough AG opinions that he says if something is not defined within the statute then you look to the common meaning of the word. Looks like most of the relevant definitions I see refer to one giving something to another. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3AServe

The Great Outdoor store offers classes for $85. http://jacksonisr.com/Classes.html Looks like the next class is Oct 4th. I have never been there so can't comment on quality of the class or range.