Papa Johns

[tnliberty01]

Good luck. So far, no one has ever found a 1359 case regarding a guilty verdict for a TN permit holder. However, 1352 says permit shall be suspended or revoked, no wiggle room in the language.

Also, no known case law on the issue of statutorily conforming signage. Many always say, "oh that sign isn't legal". Who knows.

- OS

If a violation of a "no gun sign" is an automatic suspension or revocation, then the language is confusing by using the word "only". In Florida, criminal and civil fines read "not to exceed". Using the word "only" (unless you understand what they're trying to say) suggests the violation is a $500 fine only. Nevertheless common sense and good grammar isn't most politician's strong suit. They are elected on the basis of their promises and we know how that story ends. On the other hand if law enforcement doesn't make arrests and/or prosecutor won't prosecute, then this dumb law is mute - thankfully. [emoji106] Edited September 14, 2015 by tnliberty01

[Zombiehunter]

Don't know if you frequent the Kangaroo Market close by on Lebanon Road but they are now officially posted.  It is posted to the right of the door.  I, of course, complained and asked when they put up the sign.  The lady at the counter said "it's been there, it was hidden behind a sign."  Obviously, I wasn't the first one to ask.

 

If I hadn't needed a coffee so bad...  :)

[Oh Shoot]

If a violation of a "no gun sign" is an automatic suspension or revocation, then the language is confusing by using the word "only". In Florida, criminal and civil fines read "not to exceed". Using the word "only" (unless you understand what they're trying to say) suggests the violation is a $500 fine only.

 

Thing is, carrying past a sign is a violation of two statues, each with its specified penalty. Anyone without a permit would also violate more than one statute if drinking in a restaurant, being under the influence, or carrying past a sign, etc.

 

Whether the double whammy regarding 1359 and 1352 was intended or an oversight, I couldn't say, but strongly lean toward the latter, given the long history of conflicting and/or gray TN weapons law.

 

- OS

Edited September 14, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[tnliberty01]

Thing is, carrying past a sign is a violation of two statues, each with its specified penalty. Anyone without a permit would also violate more than one statute if drinking in a restaurant, being under the influence, or carrying past a sign, etc.

Whether the double whammy regarding 1359 and 1352 was intended or an oversight, I couldn't say, but strongly lean toward the latter, given the long history of conflicting and/or gray TN weapons law.

- OS

I've been reading over the gun laws and trying to catch up. The best legal source I've found so far is on the Tennessee Firearms Association's web site. Below is a recent article on the vagaries of Tennessee gun laws that create 'felony traps' for unsuspecting but otherwise lawful gun permit holders. My impression is Tennessee has its share of RINOs, otherwise these problems would have been addressed. It only takes a few RINOs to disrupt the rest of the herd.

http://tennesseefirearms.com/2015/07/ag15-063/ Edited September 14, 2015 by tnliberty01

[Oh Shoot]

I've been reading over the gun laws and trying to catch up. The best legal source I've found so far is on the Tennessee Firearms Association's web site. Below is a recent article on the vagaries of Tennessee gun laws that create 'felony traps' for unsuspecting but otherwise lawful gun permit holders. My impression is Tennessee has its share of RINOs, otherwise these problems would have been addressed. It only takes a few RINOs to disrupt the rest of the herd.

http://tennesseefirearms.com/2015/07/ag15-063/

 

"Unfortunately, the law as it now exists is not clear whether the school’s use of the park for school purposes would render the entire park a “gun free zone” or, as the Attorney General has stated in Opinion 14-088, only those portions of the park that are being used by the school."

 

Somewhat poor opining on John's part methinks.

 

First, that AG opinion was before the current revision of both 39-17-1309 and 39-17-1311, so can't be currently valid since it is commenting on a version of the TCA that no longer exists.

 

And while I'm not claiming that there isn't a bit of gray area remaining regarding "close proximity", it is abundantly clear that use of one area by a school (and with that type area actually limited by definition) does not render the entire park off limits for carry.

 

- OS

Edited September 14, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[tnliberty01]

Thanks for your Input. Im new to Tennessee, but not to poorly conceived and written laws. AG opinion notwithstanding, I agree with John 'opining' that a "felony trap" is still lurking in the law for an unsuspecting permit holder.

The question begging for an answer is what is the purpose of the law? Ostensibly it would be to protect children - right? The reality is that criminals don't respect the law and gun free zones have proven to be useless, no scratch that. They're dangerous and put children at greater risk.

Of course you know this as well as every other forum member (perhaps with the exception of Progressive gun owners) who understand the brilliance of the 2nd Amendment that codifies our God-given rights to protect ourselves and our families.

My plan is to become politically active by advocating our constitutional rights in Tennessee. The first step will be to join a gun rights advocacy group, learn Tennessee gun laws and identify enemies of the 2nd Amendment in elected office. Any other suggestions?

[Oh Shoot]

....
My plan is to become politically active by advocating our constitutional rights in Tennessee. The first step will be to join a gun rights advocacy group, learn Tennessee gun laws and identify enemies of the 2nd Amendment in elected office. Any other suggestions?

 

Something you can do immediately, join TFA. You can also see about being local lobbyist for them for your own Rep/Senator.

 

- OS