Fallguy

Correct....39-17-1359 (General posting law) uses the "language substantially similar", but 39-17-1311 (Parks posting law) gives exact wording to be used on a sign. I think mainly that it seems not necessarily all federal laws apply to TVA lands....and in those cases where it may not, what, if any, state laws apply.

Cool that would help a lot. Thanks Dave!!

Correct

I agree 6"x14" is small to read from a car, but that is all that is required by 39-17-1311©(1) However in addition to the entrance it is supposed to be posted in other "prominent locations" which 39-17-1311©(2) says "includes, but is not limited to, all entrances to the property, any building or structure located on the property, such as restrooms, picnic areas, sports facilities, welcome centers, gift shops, playgrounds, swimming pools, restaurants and parking lots." As far as the last sign 39-17-1359(f) says "This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311." So a 39-17-1359 sign is not a legal posting for a park. Just to note TN AG opinion 09-158 Question 6 says a person can still be convicted of carry in a park even if signs are not posted. However this is just an opinion and in my opinion, if very flawed.

The blue TVA sign seems to be a "standard" sign they use as it looks to be the same as the one at Beech Lake in Lexington, TN. To be honest not sure if that sign still applies after the new park carry law or not. I mean I know it doesn't meet the requirments of 39-17-1311, but could it still be off-limits anyway? The sign in the 2nd pic (closeup in 3rd pic) is a legal sign for parks, assuming it is of the proper dimensions. (6"x14") The sign in the last pic would be legal for any place except parks...they must post signs as described in 39-17-1311

I get what you are saying as well...and admit many may mean not answering as an insult, however some would not. It is bad that lawful action could be used and/or taken that way. As far as not any slack...I understand as well....at least when it comes to the reason for the stop. If you were doing X...and got caught at it....well...you got caught. Until last year I hadn't been stopped in many, many years (so before having a HCP) and back then I rarely didn't get the ticket...but I didn't complain. One trooper was so professional and courteous, wanted to offer to buy lunch for him after he gave me the ticket.

Back to my point...of not wanting to lie, but not wanting to (and actually not having to) admit you are in violation of the law. So if the simply choose not to answer.....what next? I know it is rare and J5684 and Pain103 y'all don't strike me as the type to do this, but there have been times when someone with their HCP (not expired) have been handled "roughly" after informing the officer they are armed even with the officer having their HCP. So I could just imagine those same one if the person did not have their HCP on them. Just as a LEO doesn't know who they are pulling over...the citizen doesn't know what type of LEO is doing the stop......

Pretty much the way I've heard it.

What if they don't want to incriminate themselves and say they'd rather not answer? Because I agree that one should never lie to an officer, but not so sure about admitting to violating the law either, especially when it comes to a weapon.

Seems like before the change when you clicked the Quick Nav bar it would take you back to the head of whatever forum you were in, couldn't choose on...even though I guess that was what you were supposed to be able to do. I am getting used to the scrolling though....

Iowa will be "Shall Issue" and recognize TN permits on Jan 1, 2011

The thing is...the parking lot is set aside for employee parking...that is the very intention of that area. So as long as an item is legal and remains in the car, why should an employer care what is in there? There is a difference between company policy and the law. Yes, for it to be legally off-limits the entrances to the parking lot would have to be posted. But you don't have to commit an unlawful act for an employer to fire you. If you violate company policy, you may very well be terminated.

Interesting. ...and makes sense in some situations at least.

LMFAO.....if you only knew how many times I have corrected others for the same thing you caught me on. Guess that is what happens when you're not paying attention. ...Got you're right....

The legislatue is out until January 2011. Also since that will start a new 2-year session I think Volzfan is correct that it will have to be re-introduced as a new bill.

You mean non-emergency personal.....since all non-military LEOs, Firefighters and Paramedics are civilians as well.

No one is telling you that you have to disarm...they are telling the felon he can't ride with you to the Dr.'s office if you are armed. I agree that it is probably slightly exagerated....but only slightly. I also think the felon would have to know or suspect you are armed. Plus still think that if you have physical control of the firearm (literally on your person) the felon may be ok.....but anything where he could have constructive possession could be bad for him. Just my

But since I think the OP has been answered...I'm just curious to see where it goes from here.....

I'm not the one that can pass the DL exam without my glasses.....

I too most of the time have just relied on my eyeglasses, but I agree some side shields would be good. You may want to check on prescription safety glasses. Where I work I can get them with detachable side shields. Also Optics Planet has some Results for prescription safety glasses - Sorted by Best Match, on Page 1 (20 Items) - OpticsPlanet

Just my opinion.....as long as the weapon is physically on your person, probably not. But if it was in the center console or anywhere where he could reach it, it is very possible.

Going to close this thread....

I think not being allowed to posses would include not having one in their hand. As we've talked about in other threads, you don't even have to actually have it "on you" for it to be considered in your possession.

Glad your ok OS!!

Hmmmm....maybe it isn't so "simple" to make laws....or at least not ones that everyone can agree on...