Fallguy

  It's been a while since I was dispatcher, but when I was doing it the only info you could get back by checking a tag was the registered owner,  There was also a code to use to check if it was stolen or not at the same time.   Of course you could take the information from the tag check and then run separate inquiry for DL info, but AFAIK there never has been a way in TN to get DL info from a tag in a single step inquiry. 

  :wall:  :shake:  :wall:  :shake:  :wall:  :shake:  :wall:  :shake:  :wall:  :shake:

  I think that can vary from state to state, but otherwise I believe you are correct, I know of no law that requires you to carry a government issued ID.     If you are in a situation where you must indentify yourself to a LEO there is a minimum amount of information you must give (can't recall details at the moment) like name, DOB, but that can be given verbally. 

  Quote button in lower right corner of post

Jack & Coke with Swisher Sweet cigar.

  Yep   <biting my tongue> 

  I agree the law is open to interpretation, that being what constitutes under the influence.....but consuming and being under the influence are not the same thing, or they would not be addressed differently in the law.  

Oh and just to note....apparently it's legal to be drunk of your a$$ and have a long gun..... :shrug:

First let me say I am not advocating one way or the other the consumption of alcohol or the carry of a firearm.   Here are the applicable laws.   39-17-1321.  Possession of handgun while under influence -- Penalty.   (a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance or controlled substance analogue.   (b) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both:   (1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for consumption on the premises; and   (2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (b)(1).   (c )  (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.   (2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (c)(1), if the violation is of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision (b)(1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.   Part (a) deal with "being under the influence" and applies anywhere, there is an AG opinion saying that you can you be charged even if in your own home.   If you read Part (b) both subparts (1)&(2) have to be met for "consumption" to be illegal. So if you are at home (not open to the public) or not in the confines of a building "consumption" itself is not illegal.   What constitutes "under the influence" is strictly up to the LEOs discretion though.  IMO and I think the general consensus of the group has been, if you are legal to drive you should be ok to carry.   I think a LEO would have a tough argument saying he thought you were too intoxicated to carry a firearm, but let you drive off in a vehicle, or vice versa for that matter.

...and even if it was a school there is a specific defense that allows carry in your vehicle while dropping off or picking up children.

Bud Light

  Just because you OC doesn't mean you are looking for a confrontation or showing off.   For the ZILLIONTH time your HCP info is NOT connected to your license plate.  When your license plate is checked the only information returned is the Name and Address of the registered owner (a check if it is stolen can be run with it also or separately).  Now, Yes, you can take the name and address information and run it to get the DL/HCP information of the Registered Owner who may or may not be the current driver of the vehicle.    What makes you think they didn't know the law in MO?  You can OC without a permit in MO.

I watched all the first video and part of the second, what it boils down to is LEOs being asked to enforce a stores policy or request again.   If the business wanted them to leave they should have just told them to leave, if for whatever reason the business representative did not want to "confront" them and chose to call the police, the officers could have simply told the patrons to leave.  There was no reason to detain them or check IDs unless they were suspected of some crime, which I did not hear or see mentioned.

  Well seems I also recall some preambles having an actual intent stated and not just "whereas" but none come to mind at the moment.   Did find at least one instance where intent was codified: 39-17-1602

Many now do.

39-16-301.  Criminal impersonation.    (a) A person commits criminal impersonation who, with intent to injure or defraud another person:   (1) Assumes a false identity;   (2) Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization;   (3) Pretends to be an officer or employee of the government; or   (4) Pretends to have a disability.   (b) A person commits criminal impersonation who pretends to be a law enforcement officer for the purpose of:   (1) Engaging in an activity that is ordinarily and customarily an activity established by law as a law enforcement activity; and   (2) Causing another to believe that the person is a law enforcement officer.   (c)  (1) Criminal impersonation under subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. However, if the criminal impersonation was committed to falsely obtain a driver license or photo identification license, the maximum fine of five hundred dollars ($500) shall be imposed.   (2) Criminal impersonation under subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor.   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Granted that "perhaps" OCing with a badge "might" meet 39-16-301(b)(1) but to be convicted you have to also do something that could be covered under 39-16-301(b)(2)   So what else did he do beside just OCing and having the badge?  

  Yes I feel a property owner should be able to tell anyone to leave for any reason,  But in other cases it is not a crime until told to leave and refusing to do so and these are for things not acknowledged as "rights" by the TN and US constitutions

  Well guess you could still technically be charged with a violation of the city ordnance no matter the reason, unless there is an exception in the ordnance.   But I have to say, I too thought it was pretty much a standard that every incorparated city had an ordnance against the discharge of firearms.

  Yep, law has changed from 5 years ago

Yeah, definitely shouldn't take that long on non-renewal you wouldn't think.

Not advocate anything, but it wouldn't have been a felony

  If all you did was a change of address you won't get a new HCP unless you request a duplicate and pay $5

The city I live in has an ordnance against the discharge of firearms for as long as I can remember.   11-503. Weapons and firearms generally. It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to discharge a firearm within the municipality. (1970 Code, § 10-212, modified) http://www.mtas.utk.edu/public/municodesweb.nsf/5cde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/a28d9b2efe39f1ce85256c6300633ad6?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,parsons   can remember But opinion says the ordnance can't prohibit the discharge of firearms that would be allowed by other parts of state law.   The AG doesn't cite the entire AZ law http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03108.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS   13-3108. Firearms regulated by state; state preemption; violation; classification; definition A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, a political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, gift, devise, storage, licensing, registration, discharge or use of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components or related accessories in this state.   F. This section does not prohibit a political subdivision of this state from enacting and enforcing any ordinance or rule pursuant to state law or relating to any of the following:   5. Limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves except: (a) As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title. (b) On a properly supervised range as defined in section 13-3107. (c) In an area approved as a hunting area by the Arizona game and fish department. Any such area may be closed when deemed unsafe by the director of the Arizona game and fish department. (d) To control nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish and wildlife service. (e) By special permit of the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision. (f) As required by an animal control officer in performing duties specified in section 9-499.04 and title 11, chapter 7, article 6. (g) In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.   The way I read it a City in AZ can have an ordnance against the discharge of a firearm so long as is doesn't criminalize any of the acts in 13-3108(F)(5)   Like many TN firearms laws, it is something really needs to be cleaned  up.

      An unsecured firearm around children, it should be unloaded not just minus one in the chamber.   When my kids were younger that is the main reasoned I carried on my person even at home.

  Not trying to start anything, but you don't "have" to answer, but I agree if  you do answer it should be truthfully.    As far as what s/he means by "weapon" that is about as broad as it is long in practicality. I mean a baseball bat is just a baseball bat until it is used as a "club" to bludgeon someone.