Fallguy

The law doesn't cover just restaurants. In addition to the places you mentioned, there are also bowling alleys that sell beer at the concession stand, but allow you to carry back to the lanes. Not sure if there is 100% clear legal answer. I think it might be whether the place licensed to sell alcohol is the same premises as where they maybe drinking it. More than likely Yes for the Theater and Bowling alley. But at the motel, if the license to sell alcohol was issued to the bar within the motel as if it is was it's own establishment, maybe No. Just another thing that really needs to be addressed in the Summer Study Committee about the Restaurant carry bill.

Sorry...never been there. Just remember WA does not honor TN carry permits.

I think they all can have a directional quirk in them at times. One of the best quotes I've hear on the GPS board I'm on is... "Think of your GPS as 'co-pilot' not and 'auto-pilot'."

True...and while I can't find it right now. I remember someone in another thread forwarding a copy of bill in another state to a pro-gun Rep here and he said it was interesting and he would look into it. I think it may have been Ben West who has been very friendly to us, might be worth following up with him next session.

We aren't? But I guess true to some degree. We are debating if people can choose to do what they want to do. People being LEOs and Citizens. I say both can as long as they play by the rules (laws). In the above case from AR, it looks like the Citizen played by the rules and the LEO didn't. Not when he asked him for ID (a LEO can ask anyone, anything at anytime), but when he arrested the guy for not answering, which apparently the Citizen did not have to do. Now the LEO may have to pay the price for his actions, just like a Citizen does if they don't play by the rules.

LOL...quick edit there.

Welcome

Sounds like he is just trying to create a "linear water fowl situation". (Getting his ducks in a row)

My weapon is no more easily exposed when I ride than in general. If I'm going to be riding several miles, many times I'll use a shoulder holster so as long as I don't remove my vest or jacket, shouldn't be a problem. But if the hospital or kid with cancer doesn't want my money because I choose to defend myself I can easily keep my registration fee in my wallet and ride on my own. ...and I really could care less what I look like to the sheepel. I have been parked at gas station waiting on other riders to show up and have seen people go out of their way to not park in the spot next to me. Who cares...if they want to judge me without knowing me, that's their problem, not mine.

I really don't see it happening for either anytime soon. Just on my wish list.

Closed and removed from sticky.

True, but that door swings both ways. Of course the board has seen it's share of strong, spirited debate lately and overall I'd say it's a good thing as long as personal attacks stay out of it. What seems to happen in some cases is someone makes a post asking for an opinion, people post their opinions, people with a different opinion may ask another why they have the opinion they have* (so far so good) and most of the time the other simply states why they feel they way they feel. (*Sometimes they don't ask why...sometimes they can attack the others opinion first.) But sometimes the other person may see this as somewhat of an attack on them and responds back with an attack of their own. Other posters join the group with the opinion similar to those. Then we get 15+ pages on a thread that sort or starts going in circles. With just enough new ideas thrown in to keep it going. Got to love TGO members...

Exactly. If when someone is pulled over and they roll down their windows, open all the doors, pop the trunk, hand over all paper including their itinerary for the previous and next 3 days....fine, if that's what they want to do. But why, if someone is a private person, may not want to engage in idle conversation with an officer for what ever reason, does not want to volunteer information about themselves not relevant to reason for the traffic stop, but cooperates in they ways required of them, branded a trouble maker and a$$hole?

This does not say a property owner is responsible for injuries because of banning weapons. It just leaves in place whatever liability a property owner MAY have for injuries on their property like from wet floors, etc... What I was talking about was specifically making a property owner liable for injuries/damages occurring to someone in the event the could not use their handgun because the property owner banned handguns.

Welcome

Welcome

Yep... ...and if someone is pounding on the glass to a vehicle I'm in he's going to see my gun, at the very least.

This thread is NOT about whether to voluntarily handover your HCP or not, that has been discussed in several other threads. What I am curious about is those times when you have interacted with a LEO and he knew you were armed, did he disarm you or not. The law says he can disarm you if he feel it reasonable necessary for the safety of the officer, the HCP holder or the public. On other boards I have heard many stories of a LEO disarming someone, but not sure I remember any threads on here about someone being disarmed.

I do think the barrel has to be at least 18" AND the overall length at least 26". I did a search on the ATF website www.atf.gov and while I never found a page with the actual regulation on it, those are the measurements it refered to several times. Search results

Property owners are some what responsible for the safety of patrons on their property, if they know a dangerous condition exist and don't take corrective action. But not sure the law would say that posting a property creates a dangerous situation (although I know most of us feel that way). What wording in the posting notice do think makes a property owner responsible for injuries to patrons?

Short of places that are open to the public (whether publicly or privately owned) not being allowed to post... The two changes I would like to see are... 1.) The sign not carry the weight of law. As it is now, if it is a properly worded and placed sign and you carry past it, that is a violation of the law at that moment. In many states if you carry past such a sign it is not a violation of the law, but just of thats company's policy. 2.) A uniform size, coloring, wording of "proper" sign so that it is somewhat obnoxious in appearance. Maybe that way property owners would think twice about posting one. If one was posted it would be obvious to even those that don't carry that the particular property owner was an anti-. While not exactly related to posting of sign requiremnts.... Two other changes that might help is: 1.) Something that would exempt property owners of any liability of the actions of a HCP holder on their property. 2.) Something that would hold property owners liable for injuries to patrons if the do ban HCP holders from the ability to carry on their property.

LOL....true, until the first time you hit reserve and don't know where the nearest gas station is.

I've always thought that was one of the weirdest parts of that law. That it requires a sign (even has specific measurements) to be posted, then goes on to say that the legislative body or committee appointed by them for that park can exempt itself from having to post a sign. Too bad HCP holder can't pass exemptions to the off-limits places of their choice.

Got ya.

It's not up to what he like or dislikes. T.C.A. 55-9-107 Motor vehicle windows with tinting, reflecting or sun screen material.