Fallguy

Post above and responses moved to the thread below. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/48428-parking-lot-carry-exemption.html

With the time and money involved many may not see getting a HCP as trivial....especially if it is not required in the place where they intended to posses the handgun.

What he said..... With OS around I don't worry that I don't get on as much as I used to....lol

My normal mode of carry is pocket carry. While I know it woldn't allow me access while on the bike, most of the time I just leave it in my pocket. If I'm going to be on an all day ride, I have used a shoulder holster and wore my vest over it. But still...it is setup for a right hand draw which would be hard while moving on the bike at least. If 100% concealment isn't an issue, OWB is a good way.

Oops...I meant without a HCP, but guess you figured that out...

OS is correct again....

Been there, done that.

See the post above yours...

There is NO law that requires you to inform an officer you are armed. All the law says is you must present your HCP upon the demand of an officer. (T.C.A. 39-17-1351(n)(1)) As others have said, check of your DL will show if you have a vaild HCP or not, but just because someone has a HCP doesn't mean they are armed. Whether you choose to notify or not (many threads already on that subject) is up to you, but in TN it is not required.

Well Yes and No. Technically carrying a handgun with the intent to go armed is illegal period. Having a HCP is a defense against that law. The handgun being unloaded is also a defense. However I'm not sure a encounter with Law Enforcement would turn out the same for either. Not saying I think you'd be charged, just a bit of a lecture about carrying like that. The difference between a defense to a law and something being legal is, that a defense you may have to prove in court. In other words a defense in the law means if you can prove that point you were not breaking the other law. If you can prove it to the LEOs satisfaction that is the end of it, if not...it may go to court. Usually showing a HCP is good enough. Saying I was carrying my unloaded handgun to see what it was like before I got my HCP...may or may not.

I sat next to him at that hearing remember. While I only met him that one time, I would have to agree with everything you said.

The constitution as a whole is a set of rules for the government, not private citizens.

I agree... I don''t think anyone means to be offensive, it's just if it is a right (which it truly isn't at the moment though) then if there is protection many think it ought to be included, regardless of whether it is a choice or not. One could argue religion is a choice, but it is still protected.

Dang I hate it when Dave is right.....

What should they do to prevent themselves from being robbed? I'm sure they would do it if they could. Allowing you to go armed in there is not going to prevent a robbery. In my non-legal and under informed opinion....that fact would still constitute a general threat and not any specific threat to any location. Especially if it is not the same place over and over.

True....and it may be the morally right thing to do business with anyone regardless of skin color, creed or disability, but it still doesn't really explain why the government should force a private property owner to do so.

Had the law been different and the that place posted, IMO the only argument Nikki could have sued on is that she did warn them of a potential danger. As I said in the other thread. A bussines does have a legal duty to take reasoanble steps to protect you from a known or should have been known threat. But not from a general threat......or the just the everyday danger of living on this planet. If a comet randomly falls out of the sky and hits you, I don't think you'd prevail because there is not much of a way the business could have known about that threat. Now if a place is robbed at gunpoint every Friday at 3:00pm for the last 5 weeks and the robber always shoots one patron and the business has done nothing to inform and/or protect their patrons, I'd say you'd have a real good case in a civil suit.

You probably would, but not if I was on the jury. As far as the current legal standard, a place of business does have to take reasonable steps to protect you from a know or should have reasonably know threat, but not a general threat. That is about the extent of their responsibly. If you do not think they have taken those steps, then it is your responsibility not to enter or do business with them, not enter and hope for an opportunity to sue. There is a case where Wal-Mart was sued successfully for an incident that occurred in their parking lot. This was because there had been a rash of incidents that had occurred and nothing was done to try and prevent future occurrences or to protect the patrons. But within that ruling the court stated there was no duty to protect from a general threat. Again, if carry is supposed to truly be a right (which it really isn't now) then I don't think a place should be able to stop you from it, next best thing, would be for it not to be a criminal offense, but again that just isn't the way things are now. So as long as there are people looking to sue at the drop of a hat, I imagine places will continue to post until they are given some type of protection under the law.

+1 No deuces in public unless super-dire emergency...

I always have to laugh a bit when someone wants to sue a business that has posted if something happens to them when inside, but then I feel a bit sad. Why, because whatever happened to personal responsibility? You have a choice whether to enter or not/whether to disarm or not. If you disarmed and entered, then you made that choice and therefore should be responsible for your own actions. Don't get me wrong, I still think "public accommodation" properties (look-it up) should be able to post or at least a posting shouldn't constitute a criminal offense, but that is the law for now anyway. I believe one reason places post is because everyone is so sue happy....if you shoot someone in their store the store is going to be the "deep pockets" in any civil suit. And even though they more than likely have nothing to do with your actions or those of the person you shot they have now found themselves in the middle of it. I think another reason some places post, especially after a robbery or the like is so they don't have to wait to see what a person is going to do with a gun, just the mere possession of it is enough to throw them out, have them charged or so on. Like many laws now, they are not designed to punish illegal behavior or prevent it by fear of the punishment, but prevent criminal acts by making any preceding actions illegal.

...and y'all have been seen/caught. Please do not continue to discuss illegal activites on TGO. Thanks....

As pointed out that is completely wrong. The new law did allow a "gun buster" without any words to be a legal posting, but it went on to add that if a wording only sign is used, what "must" be included within the substainly similar.

Ok...think I've confused myself....(nothing new) I can't tell for sure from reading the law or the AGs opinion if it means LEOs from other counties don't have the authority granted in 39-17-1350 while in Rutherford and Bedford counties or if it means any LEO that works in Rutherford and Bedford counties, but not for the county or city law enforcement agencies, doesn't have have the authority granted in 39-17-1350 in the rest of the state. I think it is the later....

Just read the law... 39-17-1359((1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision ((3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted. As you can see it allows the property, building or portion of the building or portion of the property to be posted. 39-17-1359((3)© A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited: Again refrers to a buidling, property or portion of a building or a portion of the property and says proper posting includes entrances to those area where carry possesion is to be prohibited. Can be found at http://www.michie.com/tennessee/

It has to be at all entrances, used by the public, to the area where carry is to be prohibited. In otherwords, if a place wanted to allow carry in the foyer but not inside the building, only the entrance(s) to the buidling would need to be posted, not the entrance to the foyer. If it is only a single room where carry is to be prohibited, then only the entrance to that room would need to be posted.