Fallguy

39-17-1307 makes no mention of hunting. AFAIK there is no wildlife law that prevents you from having it loaded minus one in the chamber while in the vehcile (as long as it is ok to have it with you in general). But Title 70 laws aren't my strong point and they would still apply.

I don't think so. I think he was just riding his bike w/ a helmet cam and was maybe speeding or something when the off-duty, out-of-uniform officer who then pulled in front of him, blocked his path and drew his weapon without indetifing himself as a LEO.

If they passed a resolution (under 39-17-1311) to prohibit carry, then yes, legally they are supposed to post signs per 39-17-1311 to prohibit carry. However their is an AG opinion saying that you coudl still be charged even if no signs are posted. I think he uses flawed logic in that opinion, but I have gone on about that in other threads. No Knoxville doesn't have to post signs, because there parks are off-limits per a pre-1986 ordnance. When the new HCP law went into effect they allowed any local ordnances in effect at the time to remain in effect.

Merged

The gunbuster sign alone is now a legal posting. If wording only is used it must include: 1) That the property is posted Under the Authority of TN law (Basically saying per 39-17-1359) 2) It must say what is prohibited and where it is prohibited 3) That violation is a criminal offense. A sign that simply says "No Guns" does not tell you that is posted per the law, where guns are prohibited or that it is a criminal offense if you do have a handgun. As far as knowing for 100% sure only the judge will. But as has been dozens and dozens of times, no one on here knows of a single court case involving carry past a 39-17-1359 sign.

Well just showing your HCP is not incriminating yourslef, but it is obvisouly going to tell the LEO you are armed and then you may find out you're not on a public road but on Univeristy property, that the handgun you just bought is stolen, that a clerical error has caused your HCP to show it is expired or any number of reasons that could come up and you find out your ilegally carrying when you didn't know you were. I'm not saying don't and definetly not saying lie, but I can see how bringing up the subject on your own could cause more trouble than if you didn't and it wasn't brought up at all.

I think hunting from the road concerns was one reason for the "no round in the chamber" part of the law.

Just being in the military or even "weapons" training doesn't meet the requiment. 39-17-1351(e)(4) says..."Successfully completed all handgun training of not less than four (4) hours as required by any branch of the military" and that has to be within 5 years of the application for a HCP. 39-17-1351(e)(1) says..."Been certified by the peace officer standards and training commission" and 39-17-1351(e)(2) says..."Successfully completed training at the law enforcement training academy" Both of those have to be within 5 years of the application also.

Oh, thought you meant weren't taking it just because you are flying the way you said that. Didn't know if you knew you could check a firearm in your luggage. Have a safe trip....

Flying is no reason not to take a carry gun with you if you want.

Source: OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ...

I haven't used it to check a firearm, but that is one reason I got it and is good for other times as well In Car Gun Safe

It has been generally the attitude of the Admin not to delete accounts but to advise simply not to log on as has been suggested already. I see no longer use for this thread, the Admin can delete the account if he so chooses.

I have always said poor concealment can draw more attention that OC. Will the only reason I address some of your post is that you don't always refrence you are talking about NC where you are. (Not everyone will look to see your location) So I just try to clarify the way it is in TN.

I haven't ever flown much and been a while since I last have, but seems like I locked my checked baggage.

Not sure how you can get in "big trouble" in TN or other states that do not require concealment..... Yes it could get a LEO called and you have to show your permit, but not sure what could happen beyond that.

Not that it has changed anything, but some are trying... http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/doj_doc_nyc_air.pdf

Well no...I meant refering to Sec (a) you can not have a handgun and be under the influence no matter where you are, it is illegal. There is an AG opinion saying that you could even be charged with that at your home. You can be considered under the influence anywhere... I could have clarified better, but I don't blame you either...I have left out words...important words at times lately. Long story on that but anyway....lol

Maybe, but whatever it takes so that they leave me alone.....

That's about the size of it... If you are "within the confines of an establishment open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages" are served for onsite consumption then you can not have a single sip. Otherwise "consuming" is technically legal so long as you are not "under the influence". However it only really only takes the LEOs own impression for you to be considered under the influence. Here is the actual law. 39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty (a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance. ( It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both: (1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3- 101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for consumption on the premises; and (2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection ( . © (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if the violation is of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in subdivision ( (1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with § 39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years. Or.. Sec (a) you can not be "under the influence" no matter where you are. (Violation Class A misdemmeanor) Sec ( you can not comsume if you are within the confines of a public place that serves (Violation Class A misdemmeanor) Sec © if you are under the influnece within the confines of a public place that serves you are not only guilty of a Violation Class A misdemmeanor, you will have your permit suspended for 3 years.

Have to somewhat agree with the above

It must have got better, because there are several threads on here with many people stating they have checked firearms with no trouble at all.

But if the shooting is ruled justfied under self-defense it is not supposed to cost you a dime in the end...in theory at least. The party that brough the suit is supposed to pay your legal fees and all other cost (including lost time from work) you incurred in defense of the suit. But if my life is truly in danger....I'm going to worry about the law book first and the check book later......

If this is going to be or inetneded to be a national webpage, then state specific info like not consuming while armed may need to be left out. As has been discussed in other threads, some states do not prohibit consumption while armed.

Well I give them credit for taking the time to write. Of course his arguments against carry could be used to allow carry....so a lot of it just depends on you mindset to start with. What I'm just a little bit worried about now is that between this and the incident someone posted about in Nashville, that the legislature may be pressured to add banks/financial institutions to the list of places off-limits by statute.