Fallguy

Well picking up and dropping off is not the only exception in 39-17-1309 & 39-17-1310. But that is why I did say may... I do hope the bill by Rep West that would clear this up will be introduced again next year and hopefully passed.

Wonder if he would get him as our AG in a few months....

Still not required to answer.....

You're right on a few counts... Those signs never constituted (and still don't) constitute a legal posting. They were simply to be informative of the consequences of illegal carry. They were required by law to be displayed in places that served and sold alchohol until this new bill removed that requirment. I doubt there was a mad rush to remove them after the law passed. The only thing that makes me wonder about it at Cheddar's is the location. Everyplace I have ever seen the sign in the past it was in a out of the way place. So in short, No it's not a legal posting, but whether it is their attempt at one or not....can't say for sure.

I assume a pistol and rifle purchase would be the same... A few months ago ordered a rifle and all I paid the FFL in TN was $10 for the TICS check and $10 for his troubles.

That has been in 39-17-1359 since day 1. All it means is posting doesn't change any liabilty (civil or criminal) they may or may not have had.

It says if you get a TN one you are supposed to give up any you have from another state.

Actually it's illegal to have more than one DL at a time. - 55-50-301(a)(3)

Not to say they would....but since the laws does require you to have your HCP in your possesion while carrying, you could be charged with Illegal possesion of a weapon (39-17-1307) if you don't have it. Now the LEO can take your Name and DOB and run that to see you have been issed a HCP and/or DL but the law still requires it to be in your posession. I've heard it go both ways on someone not having a DL....so figure it could on not having your HCP.

Would be nice Amen to that!!

Well there is not total agreement by the members here on it. However if you have unloaded and locked up, legally you may be fine. But if the school/board of ed has a policy against it.....then you probably would not be as far as your job is concerned.

I generally don't hand over my DL till they ask for it either. It's been a while, but I really don't do or say anything until they ask me to do it, or speak to me first.

Yep....this is not exactly new.....

The law that allows you stay armed while picking up or dropping off students has been on the books since the HCP law was first passed. "Laws" apply equally to all. School "policy" would only apply to school employees, and while not illegal a violation of policy could cause termination. This has been discussed several times, so for more info try a search on "school carry"

Of course the same as with new applicants, one variable on how long it takes is on how long it takes the sheriff to get back with the state. Some may get it in and send it back the same or next day. Some may never respond at all so the state waits until the 30 days the sheriff has is up.

Oops....sorry about that. Maybe they figured out what they were doing and stopped it....

I've always figured one reason renewals take so long is there is no time limit on them like the 90 days on new permits. So add the fact that you can still carry and that new applicants must be processed in a certain amount of time...no wonder renewals get pushed to the back of the line. One thing I've noticed from this though, is I actually git a bit longer than 4 years on each permit. Karhman..you said previous permit expired 01/14/10 right?...Well 4 years from that would be 01/14/14, but I bet the new expiration date is later than that by a few months. Mine have always shown 4 years from the new issue date, not what the old expiration date is. Now I know it's not much and definitely not a reason to delay starting the renewal process, but at least it is a little bit of a bonus.

Merged with http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/42081-mcdonald-v-chicago-scotus-opinion.html

Am I correct in that the "new" part is that they can also store them in the housing area now? As long as they are stored securely, is that right?

You might be interested in this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/36341-public-accommodation-properties-have-no-right-block-fundamental-right.html

Here is the case I was talking about... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/27259-nm-judge-tell-police-leave-ocers-alone.html

Actually driving without a license is not a "criminal" violation I don't think. But anyway...there is not a law that says "You can not drive" but that having a driver's license that is a defense to that law. However there is a law that posession of a firearm is illegal. IMO, yes Perhaps.. I don't think so, but again just my opinion. Of course I'm not saying every LEO will engage every person they see armed....I'm just saying I think they can (legally) if they want to.

There is a little thing called the 4th Amendment that prevents LEOs searching your car just for the fun of it. That is not to say there are times they can lawfully search you care for reasons that may not be apparent to you, but they can't compel you to allow them to, just because they want to. However if they ask you voluntarily give consent...then it would be fine.

In TN you are breaking the law by carrying a firearm. It is simply a defense to that law if you have HCP. So right or wrong, I think in TN LEOs have enough reason to detain you and ask to see your permit based solely on seeing you with a handgun. Now in the states where OC or other carry is allowed without a permit, it is different. There is a thread somewhere about a case in NM I think (Where OC without a permit is legal) where a judge said a openly carried weapon alone was not enough reason to detain someone. But as I said, that is not the law in TN.

I agree with you in that if the non-HCP wife/girlfriend/etc... is just sitting in the car, there is no real reason to expect that the car would be searched and the weapon found. But that doesn't change the fact of it is found whether they could be charged or not. I personally think they could, not to say they would though. It seemed that you said based on my reasoning then that a person could charged by being in the same house with a loaded weapon, if they didn't have a HCP. My point simply was because it is their residence, they do not need a HCP.