Fallguy

The cost of the class is not that bad...the free market keeps them from costing too much. It's the cost of the pemit itself from the state that I think is too high.

As of now there is no direct evidence that a violation of 39-17-1359 would affect the status of your HCP. Yes, there is a provision that says any violation of 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360 shall cause it to be revoked/suspended. But there are several steps that would have to occur before it got to that point. Also as we've said....we know of no one that has ever been charged with 39-17-1359 let alone convicted. Also many times those charged with a crime are found guilty of or plead to lesser charges. Also I still maintain that if you are drunk and in a place that serves alcohol and armed...and it is only a 3 year suspension....that a violation of 39-17-1359 should not constitute revocation. Plus...and I could be wrong...I still think even you are made past a legal sign that 99.9% of the time you'd just be asked to leave. But..even with all that said...I'd still like to see it changed....it's just not that I"m in great fear until it does.

Well I was going to say this is one instance where the law does see the difference between private property like my house and private property open to the public based on subsection (a) below 39-14-405. Criminal trespass (a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner. Consent may be inferred in the case of property that is used for commercial activity available to the general public or in the case of other property when the owner has communicated the owner's intent that the property be open to the general public. However....I went on to read subsections ( and © that deal with denfeses to the above. ( It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner's consent to enter had been granted; (2) The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and (3) The person immediately left the property upon request. © The defenses to prosecution set out in subsection ( shall not be applicable to a person violating this section if the property owner posts the property with signs that are visible at all major points of ingress to the property being posted and the signs are reasonably likely to come to the attention of a person entering the property. Subsection © deal with posting "No Trespassing" signs.....and if he does that then you are indeed trespassing the moment you go past that sign. So I guess a reasonable argument can be made that a proper "No Gun" sign is the same thing. The biggest difference is a violation of 39-14-405 is a Class C misdemeanor while violation of 39-17-1359 is a Class B misdemeanor.

Well I admit I still struggle a bit with the difference between Private Property like my home and Private Property that is open to the public. I used to feel that if a property owner chose to open his place to the public, he was willing to let the rights of his patrons supersede his (at least to some degree) to gain their business. However I am starting to back away from that a bit and do a feel he should have more control. But...this is all academic really when it comes to the current laws.

Could be, I didn't follow the legislature as closely then as I do know. But there are others on here that have been involved since Day 1 and may can enlighten us. Would be good, but really don't see it happening anytime soon. I did read where KY has introduced such a bill though.

I understand...while I didn't like it, I decided the cost was worth the benefit....other's haven't yet...or won't. I'm not sure, but I didn't think any of the class fee went to the state. Other than whatever an instructor has to pay to the state to become an instructor in the first place. Where I think the money making is going on is $115 fee to the state for the HCP.

Ok...even if it is not illegal...it very could be unpopular in some areas, maybe not in others. So that goes back to the belief that a property owner "should" be able to do what he wants and customers can choose to patronize or not. If a business owner post a No XXXX sign and it hurts his business, he may remove it....or he may leave it and not worry about it and be happy he can choose who comes in. But either way it should be his choice not the governments.

Not exactly the same thing...you are choosing to use the private property (jet) of someone else. Even without the TSA I'm sure airline owners would put restrictions/conditions on flying on their plans. If you don't want to be searched, don't fly their plane. But it should be the owner, not the TSA/Gov that does such things. I think we all agree that in reality things aren't the way they should be. Completely agree the majority of postings are because of a liability reason, not so much an anti- belief.

I think he (and you) know that sign would probably be found to be illegal or unenforceable for civil rights reasons. He said he "believed", not that it was his legal opinion. But his point is it shouldn't be. That a property owner should be able to put a sign that says "No __Fill in the Blank__" But again we all know that legally that is not allowed.

I have to disagree, the initial ~$200 (class & permit) to get a permit is pretty good hill to climb. Sure some people have money and burn through ammo etc... But for many $200 is half-weeks pay or more. You can run a background check on someone on the state's website for $29, how much more does the other parts of the permit process really cost the state?

At some point I think that is something else that needs to be addressed. Although as of now a moot point I guess. My argument would be that if being intoxicated in a place that serves alcohol dictates only a suspension (3 years) No way should carry past a 39-17-1359 sign be cause for revocation.

As I know you know of course (and agree with I think)... An owner can put a sign that says ANYTHING, but doesn't make a crime if you ignore it. It's only a crime if you don't leave after being told. Should be the same for firearms.

My answer is going to be No on getting rid of the Gun Buster signs anytime soon. I think the best we can hope for is that at some point in the future is removing the criminal penalty for simply carrying past a sign.

At least I don't feel so blind now...lol I doubt I get a response but I sent an e-mail to the TLETA/POST commission asking about this. If I get any response I'll post it.

Really not trying to start an argument here, just a honest question...... But you know the state issues permits and licenses that aren't valid statewide or 24/7 (Security Guard is one that comes to mind). It simply allows them to do whatever within the scope of their employment. Of course LEOs don't have a permit/license but rather a commision/certification issued by the state. But still, isn't their scope of employment to enforce the laws within the legal boundries of whatever state policital sub-divsion hired them? I don't argue that LEOs can arrest statewide, but any resident of the state can arrest someone statewide. ...and of course if a LEO observes a violation within whatever "jurisdiction" they work for they can pursue the violator outside those boundries to make an arrest. But where exaclty does it say a commisioned LEO in this state, under the color of authority, can enforce state laws anywhere within this state?

All 3 points taken...

Not sure about in this case, but there are times when Dept Policy trumps state law, per state law. Just like the law that allows LEOs to carry anywhere within the state. That same law says any policy the CLEO of the agency the LEO works for issues supersedes that law. ....and even if it is legal arrest per law, it still doesn't mean the officer didn't violate her agencies policy and therefore the suit could have some merit.

The more I think of it Jamie....I think I see where you are coming from. Basically only when a majority of any population have the same belief or view of a right, is it recognized by that group as to apply to everyone and/or addressed in the law that governs that group. What I believe is just that and no one else is legally bound by that unless there is a majority that also do and make it law. If that is the point you are trying to get across (or at least close) again I don't disagree that is how things are. I guess all one can do, is to do the best the can to balance their personal beliefs with the laws of the land. And where those two are in conflict choose witch to follow and accept the consequences of that choice.

I agree that there are laws that violate rights. Again I know there are ways to take away those rights and many already have been. I can not help what others believe. Someone could believe that black is actually red, but that doesn't make it so. But I do agree that times have changed in that yes, the insecurity of many has, by law, superseded other's rights to go armed an other rights for that matter. Which is what has happened in many cases. Of course as I first said, I know many of things I believe are rights will probably never be widely accepted, but that doesn't change my opinion.

Completely agree...

I believe I have a right to my life and to defend it (not talking about by any certain means), I believe I have a right to do to my body anything I want, I believe that two consenting adults have the right to do to each other or with each other whatever they mutually consent to. Basically so long as what I do does not harm you, I believe that I should be allowed to do it. I know this is not now the way of things and probably will never be, but it is how I feel. As you can see what I believe really doesn't force anything onto anyone else. Although this isn't exactly what I was talking about...I really don't see how my choice to carry a firearm adversely affects anyone. Sure my choice to use it could and then I would be bound by the laws of the land and my belief that I have affected another. The circumstances would/should define what the consequences are. But if I am willing to accept those consequences I should be able to have the chance to face them.

While I know many others may not think this and it just as hard (if not harder) to prove as above...I do think some right do come from the simple fact that I exist. But that's just me and a few other of us crazy libritariens....lol

Well still not 100% sure this is what I was thinking of, but it seems to confirm kb4ns information. There was HB1230/SB1888 (that didn't move) that would have effected how fines were distributed in a cities with a population of less than 5000. But it references 55-10-308 (that was amended by Public Chapter 966) that says... Where chapter 8 of this title and §§ 55-10-101 — 55-10-310 apply to territory within the limits of a municipality, the primary responsibility for enforcing the sections shall be on the municipality which shall be further authorized to enforce the additional ordinances for the regulation of the operation of vehicles as it deems proper; provided, however, that any municipality having a population of ten thousand (10,000) or less, according to the 2000 federal census or any subsequent federal census, must exercise the authority conferred by this section in full compliance with the rules promulgated by the commissioner of safety to regulate enforcement of chapter 8 of this title and §§ 55-10-101 — 55-10-310, on the portions of any highway designated and known as part of the national system of interstate and defense highways lying within the territorial limits of the municipalities; provided, that this restriction shall not apply to drug interdiction officers employed by the municipality while the officers are actively serving with any judicial district drug force. If I am reading it right...it seems cities with a population of 10,000 or less can not enforce city ordnances on the interstate, but only what it mentions in the TCA. (Except for Drug interdiction officer while actively serving with judicial drug task force)

I'll see if I can find it, but seems I remember a bill in the legislature last session that was directly on this topic. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a PD and it's officers had to meet certain requirments before the bould "run radar" on the interstate. Will see what I can find and get back...

Handgunlaw.us now includes whether "No Guns" signs have the force of law in a state on the state's information page. According to their Ohio page, signs there do carry the weight of law. Lawriter - ORC - 2923.126 Duties of licensed individual. There doesn't seem to be any requirments for the sign. So guess I would have disarmed as well. Things I may or may not do within TN I'm much less likely to do out of state.