Fallguy

I have had things stolen from me...I work too hard for what I have to just stand by and watch someone damage it or walk off with it. But that's just me....

You have the right to use force to protect property, just not deadly force unless self-defense circumstances were to come in to play.

She's wrong..it's just that simple. Just because she is a LEO doesn't mean anything she says is the gospel truth.

These signs used to be required by law and by the ABC. They warned of the consequences of violating TCA 39-17-1305, thing is 39-17-1305 has been repealed. The same law that repealed 39-17-1359 also removed the requirements from the law that these signs be posted. It seems the ABC has been lax in changing its regulations and have even instructed some places to post the sign back up after having removed it. But these signs never prevented carry (like a 39-17-1359 sign) only warned of the consequences of illegal carry. Well know if you have a HCP and the place is not posted per 39-17-1359 there is no illegal carry in the place. However I admit the signs are still confusing if seen. I keep hoping some state legislator will get on someone at the ABC and have places remove the signs....

Yep...and that definetly is one advantage..

The information in the first post is still valif AFAIK. It is what handgunlaw.us still shows on their TN page for LBL

That would be my guess...

Yeah....I think there is a big difference between if you accidentally cut someone off and they come after you as opposed to cutting them off on purpose and flipping them the bird or something. Or even if you accidentally cut them off and they flip you the bird and you respond in some aggressive manner.

It's California.....what do you expect? lol

FWIW 39-13-202(d) As used in subdivision (a)(1), “premeditation” is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation. (www.michie.com/tennessee) However one may also want to see 39-11-611 (www.michie.com/tennessee) But IMO (and I am nobody) general statements that you intend to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary comes no where near premeditated murder. You may want to see 39-13-201 also. It says to be charged with any level of Criminal Homicide it has to be the "unlawful" killing of another. If it is self-defense, it is not unlawful...again IMO.

Done. ..and post edited to comply with http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tn-gun-owners-announcements/58333-notice-do-not-re-post-photos-written-content-you-do-not-own.html

You would hope by now. Of course they may not be so quick in telling places to remove them....if they would even tell them at all.

Well yes, the law has changed, but best I remember there is some question as to whether the ABC has changed it's regulations. So it's possible that the ABC is still WRONGLY requiring them. Didn't one place in another thread take them down and a ABC inspector made them put them back up?

Not sure, is there any that it isn't though. No case is not as good as finding a guess where someone was charged and the court ruled that it wasn't.

Worriedman probably has more contact with the legislators, but my feeling is No. Even with Republicans in the majority in both chambers and a republican Governor, there doesn't seem to be any desire to address anything firearms related.

Since intent is part of the crime and would have to be proved I'm going to guess that is why people aren't being arrested left and right for carrying their pocket knives on school grounds as long as it stays in their pocket and nothing happens. Of course students, even in colleges, may face more scrutiny. Also if anyone has ever watched Campus PD on tv....it seems sometimes campus police can be a bit more strict......

Most pocket knives I've seen have sharp points and edges. So in my reading...which could be wrong....unless it is carried without the intent to go armed or for instructional, school-sanctioned ceremonial, preparation of food or maintenance purposes it is technically illegal to carry on a school campus.

Not just knives, but pretty much anything can be taken from you and used on you, so I wouldn't let that be a reason not to carry a knife. But as OS pointed out knives are just as illegal on campus as firearms are. TN really needs to revise the laws for college campuses as opposed to K-12 schools. That being said... Pepper Spray is not a bad idea. A key chain Kubaton could be useful. A small "tactical" flashlight.

Although this thread was posted first...it seems the other has had more responses, so closing this one. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/58491-handgun-permit-class-50-ammo-included.html

Yes, they are... Carry on reservations is determined by tribal law, not state or federal. http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/tribal_law_ccw.pdf From the above... Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina Sec. 14-34.11. Aggravated weapons offense. (a) It shall be unlawful to carry a dangerous weapon concealed on the person or to threaten to use or exhibit a dangerous weapon in a dangerous and threatening manner, or use a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel; or to possess a shotgun or rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in a length or an altered or modified shotgun or rifle less than 24 inches overall length. ( Aggravated weapons offense shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, by a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year, by exclusion for a period of not less than one nor more than five years, or by any combination of them. (Ord. No. 117, 3-3-2000) http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/ebcicode/index.htm

Correct.

Well I'm a little torn I guess. In general I don't like creating different classes of citizens either, but of all the places where we can't carry, a room where a judicial proceeding is taking place is one I didn't have a lot of problem with. Emotions can run VERY high in there sometimes. Also, in all honesty, I guess I sort of thought judges could already carry in their own courtroom, without a HCP or additional training. So where I'm coming from I guess this is more confirming something I thought was already being done instead of allowing something new.

From reading the amendment (here) passed on 5/2/11, it seems all it does is change 39-17-1306 to allow them to carry during judicial proceedings as long as they have HCP and meet certain other requirements. Not to carry anywhere that LEOs can.

^^^What he said^^^

My son's truck is in his name and mine. I have a HCP and he doesn't...how would that work? If they want to take the time, they can already take the name they get when they run the tag, run the name and see if that person has a HCP...but again that doesn't mean the registered owner is the person driving the vehicle. I have let my daughter drive my truck, she doesn't have a HCP. I have drove other people's vehicles, running their tag isn't going to tell them that the driver (me) has a HCP.