Fallguy

That is not true anymore....there was a short time they required Birth Certificates to renew, but the AG issued an opinion that nothing in the law required them to renew, only to get one in the first place. http://tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op106.pdf

That's basically my understanding. So since a check on HCP holders is only done ever 4 years when they renew, it doesn't count. Overall I guess it is money, of course I'm sure if they ran them annually the renewal would go up from $50. Depends on how much and how many transactions you do in a year/4 years time if worked out in you favor.

Nope can have as many as you'd like for $5 a pop. Handgun Carry Permit Duplicate or Change of Address

LOL...so true. My main concern (after protecting my life of course) is to avoid criminal charges....after that while I'd rather not be sued I don't overly stress about it. As some may or may not know, several days ago was the anniversary of when Bernard Goetz shot the thugs on the subway...and he was eventually found liable in a civil trial brought by one of them (the paralyzed one). Can't remember the amount awarded, but anyway....he was asked a few years ago about it and he said, "I don't think I've paid a dime on that." I know this is probably a foolish attitude to have, but you can't get blood from a turnip. Plus a thief was ordered to pay me restitution for an item stolen...I have yet to see a dime. Or my mother in a similar situation....so........

Glad all turned out well.... Even without more details I think many can take away a few things from this... 1) Call the Police!! Even you don't think you were the aggressor, report the incident. Nothing may come of it, but then again it might. If you don't call they only have one side of the story before they arrive. 2) Always good for your significant other to have a HCP, even if they don't regularly carry. 3) Duplicates of your HCP to be left in your car etc... really aren't a bad idea. Thanks...

IMO (FWIW) as long as it's a good shoot, you shouldn't have anything to worry about..at least for sure on the criminal side, on the civil side...who knows, but again if it's ruled a good shoot, then you are supposed to protected civilly too.

Ah yes Due Care...that is what I was thinking of...thanks. But have to agree with Jamie...in this case could almost cut both ways.... guess that is why no one got a ticket...

I really don't think educating them about "free-fire" zones would do much either to be honest. I believe (as a guy with a User ID almost like yours [???]) that vast majority of places post due to liability issues, not any real anti feelings. If it was clearly stated that a business owner could not be held liable for the actions of HCP holder just because they allowed them to enter armed, then I think that would help things a lot. But right now if HCP holder goes in a place...is attacked and fires a round and hits little Suzy by accident....not only is little Suzy's family going to sue the HCP holder but the business as well. Although IMO the business owner doesn't or shouldn't have any responsibility in that situation.

I can't really argue or disagree with any of that...

I have sort of have made the reversal of above. Used to think that since the Gov has already "force" business owners to do some things what is wrong with them forcing them to allow firearms. But have come to the personally belief that they (government) shouldn't be able to force them do anything.

Couldn't it fall under the catch-all of "operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner"? But I think assault is a bit of a stretch.....

There is a member that should be able to give you some first hand advice. Hopefully he'll be along shortly....

You're right.... What has said by most is, no one wants to do away with permits, just be like AK/AZ. Allow carry without permits, but issue them (same process as now) to those that may want them for reciprocity or other reasons.

Got ya, but doesn't have anything to do with the abilty to make an arrest or protect others, again just what may happen afterwards. If you are not in the area where you work, why should have any more concern than anyone else when seeing a crime committed? Some non-LEOs would get involved, some wouldn't. I do agree about the possibility of "sharks" afterwards. About the same as me being an EMT and rendering medical aid outside the scope of my employment.... They are certified by the state, but so are many other professions, but they are not employeed by the state. Sort of back to my Armed Security Guard example... If a guard works for Company A he perfroms his duties anywhere Company A does business. But if Company A doesn't do business with X Merchant he can't walk in there under Company A's authority and be a Security Guard. So instead of Security Guard, Company A and X Merchant subsitute LEO, City A and taxpayers. A LEO emplyoed by City A is responsible for City A's taxpayers (customers) He isn't responsible for City B's area or taxpayers. Probably not the best example, but I'm not feeling well and haven't had much coffee yet....lol

I understand trying to prove a negative, but still not sure that is the case here. Nothing in TCA restricts where an Armed Guard can work, but that doesn't mean if they work for company A they can go all over the state and operate under company A's authroity on their own. If a LEO truly had authority state wide, then why even mention the 1 mile extension for city officers? There would be no need, right? You may have a point though that it more means enforcing city ordnance etc..... So the kid w/ the loud stereo on the parking lot just outside the city limits could still be cited for a noise ordnance or something. As far as an "off-duty" officer in the same jurisdiction he works for, I don't argue that at all. But again, I go back nothing stops them from making an arrest as a citizen. The powers of arrest are all but the same for LEOs and citizens, so not sure what "police powers" one needs outside of their home area. I have discussed way before TGO when I was dispatching etc... and at that time it we were really talking more about carrying a firearm not arrest. Of course we all know now, the law allows LEOs to carry 24/7 anywhere in the state, so that took care of that discussion. However...one could argue that it round aboutly addresses this, if carrying a firearm is part of being a LEO and a LEO was anywhere in the state, what need was there for a law to allow them to carry anywhere? Of course as you said, would be nice if things were a bit more clear in the TCA, but then what would you, DaveTN, JayC, I and other talk about?... lol I admit 39-17-1350 was probably one of those things to just clarify a things a bit better.

He can still arrest them and even use force, but just as a citizens arrest....what special "police powers" does he need?

Yes, I'm familliar with the "Police Team" doctrine. It is Opinion 08-181 Nothing in the opinion mentions about different agencies or jurisdictions, only "officer". The court cases cited may have more info, but not where I can look them up at the moment. Of course as I said in my e-mail an citizen can arrest anyone anywhere in the state, so a LEO from town A could still arrest someone in town B. And possibly with the "Police Team" Doctrine an officer from town B could arrest/cite someone just based on officer from town A's word. So like I said, not sure how much it changes in the end.......just how things are handled.

I sent my e-mail to the General e-mail address for the TLETA. I got a response from Instructor Dale Robinson who teaches the Legal class at the TLETA As I said this is from the guy who teaches the Legal class at the academy. So it seems either a lot of LEOs are not paying attention in class or are otherwise badly misinformed. I addressed Officers of a Judicial Drug Task Force and Special Deputies (which is what I think a deputy from another county is considered when he crosses a county line and ask for permission) in my original e-mail and said I understand those officer have powers outside of their normal place of employment. I know in the grand scheme of things this probably changes nothing....but well.....

Got ya.... and can't really argue with any of it. ....and if no one ever stated the obvious it may not remain obvious....

Felons, wife-beaters etc... can't legally own/posses a handgun. So if they carry they are violating the law whether TN issued permits or not. So instead of making a note on our DL that we can carry (basically what a HCP is as far as a computer check goes) how about just making a note on theirs that they can not? That way if a LEO checks them they can know they are not allowed to carry/posses a firearm.

I don't think many on here have said that those who carry shouldn't have any training, just that it shouldn't be state mandated. Out of curiosity, does the place you took you class offer a cheaper class without the additional NRA training? Also, if you were taught that "courthouse" are off-limits that is incorrect. It is only "rooms where a judicial proceeding is taking place", not the whole courthouse and not even the court room if a judicial proceeding is not taking place. I don't think you can compare a DAL and a HCP. There is no right to drive in the constitution. There is a right to Keep and Bear arms in both the US and TN constitutions. No one wants someone to be unsafe with a firearm, but just because you haven't had state training doesn't mean you are either. Me too Does to me.... It was a $115 even when the DOS did the fingerprinting themselves. But granted now that they sub that out I'm sure that has eaten into that $115. But as far as the equipment to produce permits, it was already in place wiht our DLs. What higher risk does the state have? Also as OS has pointed out, more people are injured in auto accidents than firearms accidents. I'm not sure how just lowering the fee would change anything in reciprocity agreements. Also as long as TN still issued permits with the same requirements as now, I don't see how allowing carry within the state without one would affect any reciprocity agreements. AK/AZ still issue permits that are good in just about as many states as ours, but both allow OC/CC without a permit within their state. Hope I haven't seemed to nit-pick it was just easier to break the post down to try and address each issue.... Also in the end I think we have the same view on a few things, just different ideas on how to get there...

Interesting....

I'm afriad you're probably right.

Done... Almost put the single quotes (') on either side, just for fun...

I think the point is, even without 39-17-1359 they do have the right (with the force of law) to tell you to leave if they don't like what you're doing. Whether it is carrying a gun or picking your nose. They can tell you to leave and if you don't trouble.... It's just that 39-17-1359 makes it a crime to enter in the first place for something you have got a permit for. If a place puts up a "No Nose Picking" sign and you walk in digging for gold you're not violating the law at the moment, they can ask you to leave though (with the force of law) Also as mentioned 39-17-1359 doesn't only apply to private property, but public property as well. The same people who have given you a permit to carry in Wal-Mart can restrict you from carry in a place that you have to go to do business.