Fallguy

If an officer took/confiscated a firearm without cause...that would be theft I think. I don't think a LEO can take something just because they want to...at least not legally. But I really don't see them not allowing armed people to be disarmed if "anyone" maybe armed. So I think when/why they can be disarmed is what needs to be addressed. Perhaps only those being legally detained and only if the LEO can reasonably articulate a safety need to disarm the person. It seems now that some people are disarmed simply because they are armed and it is more or less policy of the LEO/LEA. Yep..if this passes as is....you could walk down the street with your AK-47 Rifle or 12ga Shotgun...although not sure I would.... I'd also like to here what they feel the meaning of "with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man". I'm pretty sure that would cover someone says, "I'm going to go kill so-and-so." to someone and that someone calls the police. But does it have to be that plain?

That's what I'm waiting to see at state parks.....

Something else that seems that it may need to be addressed is disarming by a LEO. Sec 5 creates a new sub-division stating you must answer truthfully if an officer ask you if you are in possession of a "concealed" deadly weapon. So it seems you still don't have to inform unless asked. Also I'm assuming if you are carrying openly or the rifle/shotgun/etc... is in plain site in your vehicle the officer should see it and you only have to tell them about a weapon they may not see. If this bill passed I can see are you armed being a standard question on every encounter. But to this disarming...the new bill doesn't seem to address that anywhere. Currently disarming is only mentioned in 39-17-1351(t) and only applies to permit holders. So to make it apply to all or none. it would seem 39-17-1351(t) needs to be removed or something added to the bill to allow for this disarming of anyone. Personally I think 39-17-1351(t) should be removed. I see no need for an officer to disarm anyone unless they are violating the law.

One interesting thing to note....this would seem to only apply to a "Resident of Tennessee" as it is worded now. So those from other states would still have to have permits unlike in AZ, AK or VT.

Yep.....if the no permit required bill makes any headway...will be interesting to see how it could affect this bill.

This does seem to be a "Constitutional Carry" bill. Sec 2 of the bill would seem to also remove the prohibition of carrying knives with blades over 4" and clubs. I think those 21 and over would still be able to have loaded long guns in their car...even with one in the chamber. It seems to only apply to those under 21. As far as changing the wording of 39-17-1311 it just seems to be cleaning it up a bit if people are allowed to carry without permits. Sec 6 is because people maybe carring other weapons besides handguns and would allow city/counties to ban those weapons as well. Sec 7 & Sec 8 are just so the ban would apply to everyone, not just permit holders. It does say "under the influence" not "consuming" per 39-17-1321 it is currently illegal to be under the influence and in possession of a handgun, even in your own home. There is even an AG opinion to that point 98-151 They are not doing away with the class, test finger prints etc...for those that still want to get a permit. If they did away with that TN permits wouldn't be honored in very many other state. By leaving the permit process in place, TN permits should still be honored in all the states that they are now. That way those that travel and want a permit could get one. Also it appears that once a permit (actually just an endorsement on your DL per this bill) is issued, it would never expire unless suspended or revoked. But the new 39-17-1313 created in Sec 1 would allow carry without a permit. So it would be like AK and AZ that still issue permits as well and not VT that doesn't issue them at all.

Bills are often amended along the way, so substituting firearm for handgun very well could happen. As far as those that don't live in TN but have permits form their states...I think they are still covered. It says "possesses a valid handgun carry permit pursuant to §39-17-1351" Well 39-17-1351®(1) says A facially valid permit/license from another state is valid in TN. So as long as the employee has a facially valid permit, shouldn't be a problem.

Your observation to the outcome is more or less correct....but more or less for the reason I stated I believe...

But is that the fault of the person that simply asks a question or those that respond to it not with an answer to the question but with opinion as to why the question is silly and/or shouldn't have been asked in the first place?

I humbly disagree, however it could be as simple as we've had different experiences. At least I haven't seen that on this board or the OC board that I linked to. I agree that there is a difference between Not OCing and being Anti-OC. My post wasn't directed toward any one person or about just this thread. I almost always CC, in fact have only OCed once or twice and wasn't that comfortable, but I feel those that want to should. I also feel those that want to ask questions related to it should be able to without having to defend it as their choice. Again...I have to humbly disagree...

I didn't read every post... To the OP and others that may want to ask Open Carry questions on TGO....it really can't be done without starting a debate, no matter what you may put in your post. You may want to ask, "What holster do you use to OC?", "When you OC do you stay even more aware?" or just any OC topic....and 9 out of the first 10 responses are going to be why you shouldn't OC and/or that OC is bad. The Anti-OC feelings here are a thousands time more strong than the anti-gun feelings any "Brady Bunch" member may have. If you really want to ask OC questions I suggest OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

One might think of OC like putting "The Club" on the steering whell of your car. If someone is just looking for any old car to take, they are liable to pass yours up for an easier one. If they really want your car and are professionals, the club isn't going to stop them. If a crook is just looking for any old soft target, if they see someone with a firearm, they probably will move on. If you are in a place they really want to rob no matter what or they really want to target you, then you OCing may not be a deterent and could cause them to be more agressive.

Hmmm, well that definition could fit. There were rangers down there to help guide/answer questions. Also a souviner shop at the base of the elevator. If you take the elevator down you have to go through the visitors center first anyway.

I was at Carlsbad Caverns last year and it was my understanding you weren't supposed to carry in the cavern. Something about the workers being in there or something like that.

You do need a hunting license and whatever game to be in season to be legally hunting though....

You can carry in any state park and the buildings are not off-limits. Any "No Firearms" signs do not apply to permit holders. The law that allowed carry in state parks said these signs must stay in place. This was done because if the signs had to replaced etc... it woud have cost the state money and the bill/law would likely have been defeated because of the fiscal note.

Sounds like OS and BEARMAN have covered TVA/TWRA land as well as, if not better, than I could. Of course without a HCP carry would be illegal period. I also have to agree with JayC on private property away from your Residence, place of buisness or premises, in that technically no other private property is mentioned. However firiring ranges are not mentioned either..and I've never heard of anyone being charged for carry at a range. So seems like another grey area. You probably "could" be charged, but I would say it is unlikely.

Don is right. While carry in National Parks is legal, carry in Federal Buildings is still illegal. So many of the buildings in a National Park are still off-limits. However all Federally owned buildiings are supposed to be marked that they are such and that carry is illegal.

I'm not 100% sure, but the way I read it is the 5 years only comes in if you have been convicted twice within 10 years and the last time was within 5 years. In otherwords only one conviction, no matter what the time frame, isn't a disqualifer. But I admit I could be reading it all wrong.

He was unable to follow the Code of Conduct and when called on it wanted to argue. He was given 30 days vacation think about it.

It would appear you are right...at least about who owns them. External Links - Pei Wei Asian Diner® PFCB P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc.

My guess is if one loaction is posted, but not others, it is the local manager's decision and not a corporate one. Could be worth contacting corporate. Also as most of us know the "Gun Buster" sign alone is a legal posting, however it is a bit hard to tell from the pic, but it doesn't appear to be on the door (entrance) and appears to be small. So whether it is "clearly visible to someone entering" is another question. However it is a question that a judge could be the one answering. it is just whether you want to be the one asking or not.

Ok...well I sort of got that from what I read. Just wasn't sure why they couldn't lift the general ban and allow 39-17-1309 to prohibit carry only while in use by a school. But I don't know the logistics of it all, so perhaps it is easier to just leave the general ban in place. However signs that say No Firearms during School use are just as easy to post as 39-17-1311 signs.

I got a NRA-ILA alert on this and mentioned that some parks were excepted... What is the reason that carry is still not allowed at those parks?

Someone say Post Count?....lol I've let OS get a bit ahead...got some catching up to do...