loaded gun in glove box with no CCW?

[Guest bkelm18]

So a single/double shotgun could be legal with ammo laying right beside it? Since it isn't loaded and no "clip or magazine" is nearby?

Semantics. You understand the spirit of the law.

[Oh Shoot]

Semantics. You understand the spirit of the law.

Yeah, I don't even know if that definition was what they intended; could have even left out the word "loaded" in front of "clip or magazine" for all I know. Pretty safe to say that you're not going to get rousted for having unloaded mags with your unloaded guns, as long as ammo is well separated.

The more pertinent real world parameters are in the actual unlawful carry statutes, not the section with definitions. Abide by those, and you'll be okay.

- OS

[Jamie Jackson]

With all respect to the OP (Joe), the best thing, under current law, is to jump through the hoops, pay the fees, and get a HCP. imho.

Obviously, the ideal thing would be for TN to go the route of several different and change the law to allow any non-felonious resident, at or above the age of 21 to carry concealed without a permit as an exercise of their Second Amendment, God Given and supposedly Constitutionally protected, Right.

At the very least the law needs to be changed to allow lawfully aged, non-felonious adults to be able to carry a readily accessible, fully loaded firearm...rifle, shotgun, or handgun... in their vehicle as an extension of their home.

As usual, just my

Link: 11 States Push for Permit-Free Concealed Carry Laws

Edited March 14, 2012 by prag

[Guest GregK]

Haveing a reg cab pickup is kinda tricky, well it was for me being new to handguns, vehicles, laws and without haveing a HCP. I was just going to the range and back but I would hate to get in trouble for something like that. I think its mostly the way you are acting, what mood LEO is in, why you were pulled over. You have gun under your seat and ammo in the console and dont have a HCP and your pulled over at 2 am, obviously the range is closed, and its too dark to shoot outside, wonder what police would think?? I had ammo in a bag behind passenger seat and gun case behind driver seat. Thats the best I could think of, but I could still easily reach both.. If a person can meet all the requirements by the state, its worth the money and time for the class, and money and time for the application even if they dont want to carry everyday. Like its been said on here before, the laws make it difficult or whatever for us people, we know the gangsters dont have HCP's and dont seperate ammo from their guns... In order for me to do that without worry I had to leave work early 2 nights for class and the go in late after application the next day plus have a clean background history and stay clean. I dont want no part of handcuffs and jail!!!!!

Edited March 16, 2012 by GregK

[Guest Wildogre]

Somewhere, probably on this forum I have heard of the "three step rule". it must take three steps to load the firearm. If the firearm is in a closed case, the ammo in a separate closed case the magazines in another pocket in a case you should be good. Example gun in a case behind the seat, ammo in a backpack, with magazines in a separate compartment in the backpack would be good.

I am not a lawyer nor a LEO but i did play one on stage years ago.

[Guest GregK]

Wildogre, My HCP instructor said that in the class.

[Oh Shoot]

Somewhere, probably on this forum I have heard of the "three step rule"....

Wildogre, My HCP instructor said that in the class.

While that type procedure would almost certainly keep you safe from all but the most rabid LEO who had some axe to grind on you, note that the actual laws speak only in terms of physical space:

exception to unlawful carry:

- "Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon"

definition of "loaded" is even stricter, and I've always wondered if they left out the word "loaded" in front of "clip or magazine":

- "Unloaded" means the rifle, shotgun or handgun does not have ammunition in the chamber, cylinder, clip or magazine, and no clip or magazine is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon."

"immediate vicinity" of course is not defined. Depends on what the definition of "is" is, eh?

Just another case of where actual LEO practices generally differ from actual statutes (thankfully), as it would be pretty out there to arrest you for having unloaded mags in same bag as unloaded gun on seat next to you, with ammo separated elsewhere, but the language nonetheless exists to stick you for doing exactly that if push came to shove.

- OS

Edited March 22, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 270win]

Intent to go armed is just that carrying a weapon as a weapon for offense or defense purposes. Transporting a handgun for the purpose of going to the range is not intent to go armed because you are not using it for offensive or defensive purposes. You are carrying it to shoot targets.

[Oh Shoot]

Intent to go armed is just that carrying a weapon as a weapon for offense or defense purposes. Transporting a handgun for the purpose of going to the range is not intent to go armed because you are not using it for offensive or defensive purposes. You are carrying it to shoot targets.

That's a cool definition, but it's your own via your interpretation. It's not found in TCA. Exceptions to unlawful carry must be shown with preponderance of the evidence if push comes to shove, including going to and from range.

For example, you'd be guilty of unlawful carry, even going to the range, with a permit, with a round in chamber of long gun.

Failing other exceptions, you're guilty of unlawful carry with a 5" blade, regardless of your intent of offensive or defensive purposes. But you're not guilty if it's a 4" blade, regardless of your purpose.

- OS

Edited March 23, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 270win]

The courts seem to have viewed intent to go armed as carrying a weapon for offensive/defensive purposes, but taking a gun to the gun store, hunting is not intent to go armed. Simply possessing a gun is not a crime in itself, it is a crime to possess/carry with 'intent to go armed'. It is a purpose/intent statute, not a possessing/carrying statute.

A knife that is over four inches can be carried as a tool, butchers, cooks, chefs, construction. A club can be used as a tire knocker on a big rig. A firearm can be used for hunting, the range, display, instructional. None of these purposes are using knives, clubs, and firearms with intent to go armed.

Edited March 23, 2012 by 270win

[Guest 270win]

"Intent to go armed" has been defined by the State Supreme Court's decision that "....Not every removal (from the home) constitutes intent to go armed.

[Guest 270win]

Moorefield V State 1880 :

The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen, or wantonly to go armed.

[Fallguy]

That's a pretty old case.....are that not any that are more recent?

I mean there is a SCOTUS ruling where "seperate but equal" was ok...but has since been reversed.

[Guest 270win]

Bennett V State 1975:

Without the intent or purpose of being or going armed, the offense described in this statute cannot be committed. Liming v. State, 220 Tenn. 371, 417 S.W.2d 769 (1967). It is necessary in such cases for the State to prove the accused's intent and purpose in carrying the weapon was to be and go armed, because the mere act of doing so may be lawful and does not establish criminal intent and does not create a presumption of guilt and does not deprive him of his presumption of innocence. Liming v. State, supra.

Bingham V State 1988

T.C.A. § 39-6-1701 does not make the ownership of or carrying of a weapon unlawful. The essence of the offense is carrying the same with the intent to go armed. See Biggs v. State, 341 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. 1960).

The defendant and a witness on his behalf testified the defendant had placed the pistol in the truck when he went fishing the day before the accident. His stated purpose was to use the gun in the event he encountered any snakes and for target practice.

In the case before us, the only evidence presented by the state was that the weapon was in the truck of the defendant, who was not present at the time. This circumstance alone does not raise an sufficiently strong inference of intent to support a conviction.

We therefore hold the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of the trial court, and we reverse the judgment and dismiss this case.

[Fallguy]

Interesting.....

Still wonder if the same ruiling would be made today though...

[Guest 270win]

I do think the base of the law, from court cases, seems to be the intent to go armed and not just the possession or carrying. The state must prove that you intended to go armed for offense or defense. Also, you do have some separate defenses to prosecution, like hunting, target shooting, having a handgun carry permit, having an unloaded separate from ammo firearm, where there can be no conviction for 'intent to go armed'. Someone walking in and out of a gun store with a firearm and ammo is not 'intent to go armed' because that guy is buying and selling a weapon. If the state can't prove that you intended to go armed, then there can't seem to be a conviction. You have a pistol in the back, even loaded, but with targets, range bag, and driving to the range, is that intent to go armed? I would not think so because you are going target shooting. There is not a REQUIREMENT/OR LAW that makes it illegal to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle, it's just that having it unloaded is a defense to intent to go armed. Just my non lawyer opinion!