Fallguy

Well you can ask a judge to review the TDOS decision. I mean if you are intoxicated in a place that serves alcohol and it will cause your HCP to only be suspended for 3 years, hard to see how carry past 39-17-1359 would result in life revocation. But I agree there are lots of things that need fixing....

I'm going to guess one reason he may have been OCing is that KY is an OC without a permit state like several of the states out west. As far as your permit and carry past a 39-17-1359 sign....as has been said, no known cases of someone charged with that so penalties beyond the $500 fine unknown. I admit it says in 39-17-1352(a)(6) that any violation of 39-17-1351 - 39-17-1360 is cause. But it says to suspend or revoke....so it doesn't have to be revoked...could just be suspended for a short time.

Good deal.... Seems like it was about this time last year.

Everyone needs a hobby

Yep....

Fair enough...

The penalty if convicted may be the same, but I bet the odds of being charged if found out aren't the same....

....and why not just keep it in the supertuck under your control and it shouldn't matter who else is in the house?......

Same place as on my and LaxyAce's glock... At the end of the palm, between the thumb and and middle finger. As long as it is not in contact with the trigger....the safety is on.

+1

No

LOL...well you know how I am.

I wouldn't expect anyone to admit to violating federal law on a public forum. I really thought this was a settled issue..... To my knowledge, carry in a Post Office, (technically even the parking lot) is illegal. Seems like I once heard that technically they are not a "federal facility" that is required to be posted per the CFR. As DaveTN pointed out 39 CFR 232.1(l) says... Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes. Seems fairly clear....

Probably would have been better to check ahead of time, but not sure the question should have caused so much scrutiny. Also it does seem the couple was trying to "pin them down" on an answer. I would have take the "we prefer if you didn't" as a signal that Yes, it is legal, but if becomes an issue we may ask you to leave. As far as the response "City ordnance says....." someone need to re-read 39-17-1314 sounds like. Normally I would say this was just a normal question....but it seems this couple was intent on stirring the post just a wee bit at least.....

........and did it?

Oh I don't know.... My dad used to spank me and my brothers....nothing out of line, but nothing you'd want every day either. I ran once, don't even really remember why....ran to the back yard, neighbor came over and everything. Was sort of big production for a few minutes... So at least IMO (and experience) a child may might run from a "normal" spanking.

I agree it is legal and has been established....and I don't have a particular problem with it. What more could anyone ask far.....

I think the courts have ruled that if a LEO reports his observations to another LEO (IOW He saw X car doing Y action) then that is enough for the second LEO to make a stop....but still pretty sure misdemeanors have to be witnessed by a LEO first and not just reported by a non-LEO citizen. As far as making a stop on a reported vehicle if you observe a violation, even a minor one, that is fine....no problem with that. My main discussion has been about if no violations are observed.

I see what you are saying.....but if it is a state law, shouldn't what is considered legal enforcement of it be the same statewide? But I know it's not because most people don't ever push an issue past the local level, for various reasons, one being money. Shoot I remember when Steve McNair was stopped for DUI and possession of a handgun while intoxicated (He had a HCP). It was thrown out because he never swerved (actually I think he did, just didn't cross either line) or did anything in the judge's opinion that gave the officer PC to stop the vehicle in the first place. So if a driver can be drunk and have it tossed because something illegal wasn't witnessed, I'm not sure how a passenger doing something legal can be enough PC to stop the driver. But as you said...I guess that is why there are lawyers...and also why I didn't think it funny or a very good attempt to lighten the mood.

Open Container is a misdemeanor, I didn't think LEOs could act on a misdemeanor unless they witness it themselves....so even a citizens report shouldn't be enough to stop and detain the vehicle without some illegal activity being observed by the LEO, which the passenger consuming is not. Otherwise what stops people from falsely reporting vehicles for things all the time just so they can get their jollies by having a LEO stop someone not observed by LE doing anything wrong.

I'm going to guess you have done this before and all has went well procedurelly and through the courts....so no sense in arguing can you do it and/or if the court system finds it legal. But as has been said, even if the driver has consumed (do not condone or recomend), that is not illegal in-and-of-itself only his possession of an open container, that you did not see or his being under the influence which absent some difficulty in operating the vehicle you could not know from seeing a passenger consume. I never thought observing a single individual conducting a legal activity was enough PC to detain everyone in a certain area with him...but hey, what I do I know? ...and all those amusing me is not required....it has been achieved... Of course I was willing to leave it at I didn't find it funny......

No, I meant illegal...I thought a LEO needed to see illegal activity to stop a vehicle. But if you can observe a passenger drinking and stop a vehicle, then apparently illegal activity is not required. If the courts have ruled that seeing an open container in the possession of a passenger is enough PC to stop a vehicle even if one is not observed in the possession of the driver, then shame on the courts. Just because something is "just the way it is" doesn't make it right or legal. But hey...why not stop it and see if you can take someone to jail just because you can.....even if they weren't otherwise bothering anyone or had any other reason to interact with the vehicle.

Nope....and apparently observing illegal activity is not required to stop a vehicle and go fishing either.....

Well since it was said in "jest" I'll keep most of my comments to myself....but I will say I don't find it funny.....