Fallguy

Why would removing old signs the never prevented carry cause them to post new ones that do?

Not 100% sure...the use and location of commas (,) semi-colons ( and other punctuation makes a difference and I'm not always able to follow sometimes.

If the higher ups need a refrence tell them to see Section 5 and Section 6 of Public Chapter 1009

Apple - iOS 4.2 Software Update Locate my iPhone (or any iDevice) is now free. New SMS tones and can have custom tones for different entries in your address book. Among a few other things...

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/ Really doesn't say anything about hunting or even having a weapon. Basically if you just shine a light to find or try to find the deer it is technially spotlighting. Would a TWRA officer cite you? Who knows....

Even more glad I moved this out of the Posted Sub-forum now. Those signs are not 39-17-1359 signs and never were intended to prevent legal carry. They only warned of the consequences of illegal carry where alcohol was served/sold when that was the case. As others have said the restaurant carry bill also removed the law that required this signs to be posted

You can carry in National Parks, but not in a Federal Buildings within the National Park. Federal buildings are supposed to be posted that they are such. Other than the signs on the buildings I have not seen signs at National Parks. In TN anyone with a HCP or valid license/permit from another state can legally carry in a State Park regardless of any signs.

Sounds good

Not a real big surprise.....

I'm fairly sure most lawyers know anyone can sue for any reason. I also figure they know if someone voluntary enters a place and disarms that absent any proof they knew of a specific threat and the HCP holders ability to prove that being armed could have prevented any damages caused to the HCP holder, the likelyhood of such a suit prevailing is minuscule.

I could be wrong (and agree it wouldn't work) but I think some places post so that if they see someone with a gun they don't have to wait for them to do something illegal with it before calling the cops etc.... The person has committed an illegal act just by possessing the handgun. Now unless a LEO happens to be in there at the time...it's still not really going to help or even stop anything, but I think they think it might.

By law the signs have remained at state parks. This was done because if the signs had to be removed or changed it would have added a fiscal note (cost money) to the bill and most likely have caused it to fail. If/when sings are replaced due to normal wear and tear etc.... new signs do not have to included "No Firearms"

I moved this thread from the Carry Prohibited Locations forum. OP this is not direct solely at you...there have been other threads as well..... Just wanted to remind everyone that the Carry Prohibited Locations sub-forum is strictly for reporting posted locations. It is not for asking questions or making commentary...remember no on can respond anyway. Only the OP or Mods can post to threads in that sub-forum. Try to follow the procedures in this post http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/carry-prohibited-locations/41564-faq-how-sub-forum-works.html before posting in that sub-forum. Thanks

I believe that is 100% correct. It's just like the SD law "presumes" you were in fear of death etc... if someone forcefully and unlawfully enters your home. So the DA would have to prove you weren't to convict you...but it could happen. So w/ a BAC 0.08% the law assumes you are impaired, you would have to somehow prove you weren't. Under 0.08% it's not assumed you are impaired, but you very well could be and could be charge and convicted.

On National Park Carry Federal Law does not follow State law...at least not like that and not like the law was first purposed... If you can carry on "main street" in a state you can carry in a National Park in that state. Never seen GB signs in a National Park anyway.

Guess I meant more on statements he made while running for governor. I agree I don't see him promoting or even publicly supporting any pro-2A bills, but I don't think he would argue against them or not sign them. Of course I could be wrong....

Here is the text of the law... So, what is under the influence? It is as other's have said, pretty much up to the LEOs discretion. There is no BAC level.

The wildlife laws are under Title 70. I think you're looking for 70-4-117(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person with a handgun carry permit pursuant to § 39-17-1351 may possess a handgun the entire year while on the premises of any refuge, public hunting area, wildlife management area or, to the extent permitted by federal law, national forest land maintained by the state. Nothing in this subsection (d) shall authorize a person to use any handgun to hunt unless the person is in full compliance with all wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

You don't actually have to have a "license" just something that shows you've had training with it. Since he says he was a LEO I assume he has had such training.

Well I agree in that it's not good news at least. But as far as Haslam dictating his views to the legislature...While maybe not a strong 2A supporter, he didn't strike me as overly anti either. Or are there other issues you are thinking of?

The law doesn't stop at a private property line....

I understand what you are saying...but sometimes, some people want to be legal even if there is little to no chance they may get found out.

You've summed it pretty well. The more I've thought about it over time I do think the misdemeanor section © would require the weapon to be unloaded and the ammo stored seperately to avoid the "intent to go armed" part. But that is just my opinion. However in a "Carry in Parks" AG opinion he did say HCP holders could leave their handgun in their car while at a park being used by a school and did not mention it needing to be unloaded. ...and thanks for the return compliment OS....

I agree..."He" will not push any firearms issues. As far as whether he'll sign such legislation...I think he will based on earlier statements.