New Government in Tennessee

[Oh Shoot]

Does a cop clock out to go eat lunch?

If not then I am guessing they still serve in their official capacity.

Heck I am glad someone can carry when in them places.

Yeah, I absolutely have not understood this thread in all it's different guises.

It seems nuts to me to argue that a cop, a uniformed cop in particular, should EVER disarm under ANY circumstances (other than when drinking of course).

Not only is he already dressed as a target, but he's going to risk his life for you if it comes down to that. Even while he's having lunch at O'Charley's, for c'sake.

- OS

Edited December 18, 2008 by OhShoot
added "drinking" clause :-)

[Guest db99wj]

No one has to stand by and watch while they see what they believe is a crime being committed; especially by cops. As I have said before if you think a cop is doing something wrong you always have recourse. If this bothers you, the next time you see it call the non-emergency number for the PD. Ask to talk to a Command Officer and tell them you want to make a complaint. They will either explain the law to you over the phone or they will come out and meet with you.

If you do not like their explanation you can call or go to your local DA and ask them to explain the law to you.

I doubt the AG will be issuing an opinion on this unless local DA’s indicate they do not understand the law. But maybe they already have; have you checked?

No, you are not an average citizen. The average citizen can’t carry a loaded firearm at all.

You are arguing that another special group has more privileges than your special group. Making a bunch of noise about being an average citizen doesn’t change that.

Do you have a carry permit?

Yep.

Does a cop clock out to go eat lunch?

If not then I am guessing they still serve in their official capacity.

Heck I am glad someone can carry when in them places.

Exactly

Yeah, I absolutely have not understood this thread in all it's different guises.

It seems nuts to me to argue that a cop, a uniformed cop in particular, should EVER disarm under ANY circumstances.

Not only is he already dressed as a target, but he's going to risk his life for you if it comes down to that. Even while he's having lunch at O'Charley's, for c'sake.

- OS

My point exactly!

[strickj]

Yep.

Exactly

My point exactly!

I dont think its so much they want cops to disarm,I think its more about your hand is equal to my hand,kinda thing.

A cop is just an average citizen doing a job.If he choses to eat at Chilli's,then he,by law,is no different then us eating at Chilli's in that aspect,and that aspect alone.

No I dont want cops to disarm while eating for the obvious reasons,but at the same time they are no different(by law)then us.

[Guest db99wj]

I dont think its so much they want cops to disarm,I think its more about your hand is equal to my hand,kinda thing.

A cop is just an average citizen doing a job.If he choses to eat at Chilli's,then he,by law,is no different then us eating at Chilli's in that aspect,and that aspect alone.

No I dont want cops to disarm while eating for the obvious reasons,but at the same time they are no different(by law)then us.

The law is the problem, not the cops. One of my points (and my opinions) is that they are "on duty" while on shift, so the doesn't apply. Second point is that everytime we have this discussion, the cop haters come out and start yelling about "special classes", "above the law" etc and it is not about that, it is again about the law that is unclear, flawed, and written by morons.

So at the end of the day, I still believe that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to allow all those with HCP to enter into a restaurant that serves and not disarm. I still believe that LEO's on shift are in execution of their duties, therefore, the disarming law does not apply at that time, when they go home, off the clock, go out, different story, they must follow that law. And finally, it appears that people who have problems with LEO's seem to always have problems with LEO's. Yes that is an assumption, and i have made it:D

With that said, I am not a lawyer, I am not or ever been the AG, and I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.:cool:

[Oh Shoot]

... I still believe that LEO's on shift are in execution of their duties, therefore, the disarming law does not apply at that time, ...

Of course they are...guy comes in to strafe the crowd, cop's gonna say "sorry, I'm on break". ?

Right.

- OS

[Guest db99wj]

Of course they are...guy comes in to strafe the crowd, cop's gonna say "sorry, I'm on break". ?

Right.

- OS

Yep, call comes in with an active shooter, disaster, robberty, etc, are they going to say, "I still have 10 minutes left for lunch, be there as soon as my time is up" Umm, no.

[Fallguy]

I dont think its so much they want cops to disarm,I think its more about your hand is equal to my hand,kinda thing.

A cop is just an average citizen doing a job.If he choses to eat at Chilli's,then he,by law,is no different then us eating at Chilli's in that aspect,and that aspect alone.

No I dont want cops to disarm while eating for the obvious reasons,but at the same time they are no different(by law)then us.

The law is the problem, not the cops. One of my points (and my opinions) is that they are "on duty" while on shift, so the doesn't apply. Second point is that everytime we have this discussion, the cop haters come out and start yelling about "special classes", "above the law" etc and it is not about that, it is again about the law that is unclear, flawed, and written by morons.

So at the end of the day, I still believe that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to allow all those with HCP to enter into a restaurant that serves and not disarm. I still believe that LEO's on shift are in execution of their duties, therefore, the disarming law does not apply at that time, when they go home, off the clock, go out, different story, they must follow that law. And finally, it appears that people who have problems with LEO's seem to always have problems with LEO's. Yes that is an assumption, and i have made it:D

With that said, I am not a lawyer, I am not or ever been the AG, and I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.:cool:

And there you go. The big difference is in our interpretation of the law. I have even seen LEOs disagree on this very subject and with no legal ruling it is simply unclear.

At the end of the day...I think most of us agree for the most part.

Unfortunately it is easy for other LEO related issues to creep in to this debate.

[Guest db99wj]

And there you go. The big difference is in our interpretation of the law. I have even seen LEOs disagree on this very subject and with no legal ruling it is simply unclear.

At the end of the day...I think most of us agree for the most part.

Unfortunately it is easy for other LEO related issues to creep in to this debate.

Yep.

[Guest justme]

I dont think its so much they want cops to disarm,I think its more about your hand is equal to my hand,kinda thing.

A cop is just an average citizen doing a job.If he choses to eat at Chilli's,then he,by law,is no different then us eating at Chilli's in that aspect,and that aspect alone.

No I dont want cops to disarm while eating for the obvious reasons,but at the same time they are no different(by law)then us.

Exactly--it isn't that I want them to disarm--it is the fact that if we, the people are required to disarm in certain circumstances--such as eating, or even going into a Pizza hut to buy a pizza--then LEOs who are merely on a lunch or dinner break should be required to as well....the laws should apply to us as well as to them.

[Fallguy]

Exactly--it isn't that I want them to disarm--it is the fact that if we, the people are required to disarm in certain circumstances--such as eating, or even going into a Pizza hut to buy a pizza--then LEOs who are merely on a lunch or dinner break should be required to as well....the laws should apply to us as well as to them.

Laws apply to all just the same, whether you are a LEO or not. But TN laws make certain exceptions for LEOs. The biggest is 39-17-1350, in which the legislature obviously intended for there to be times LEOs could carry when other's could not, but also times they couldn't either.

This whole debate is more to whether the law applies in certain situations. Not if they are allowed to break the law.

It is obvious your interpretation is that simply being "on duty" does not mean "engaged in the actual discharge" of their duties. I happen to actually agree with that position. Others do not see it that way. There are valid arguments on each side. But, as I said before, there has been no actual ruling on it, so who really knows.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Fallguy

[Guest db99wj]

Laws apply to all just the same, whether you are a LEO or not. But TN laws make certain exceptions for LEOs. The biggest is 39-17-1350, in which the legislature obviously intended for there to be times LEOs could carry when other's could not, but also times they couldn't either.

This whole debate is more to whether the law applies in certain situations. Not if they are allowed to break the law.

It is obvious your interpretation is that simply being "on duty" does not mean "engaged in the actual discharge" of their duties. I happen to actually agree with that position. Others do not see it that way. There are valid arguments on each side. But, as I said before, there has been no actually ruling on it, so who really knows.

See, he is one that I respectfully disagree with!!!

He is wrong by the way

[Fallguy]

See, he is one that I respectfully disagree with!!!

He is wrong by the way

[DaveTN]

I think everyone should be able to be armed all the time; wherever they go… no permit required. Unfortunately the Tennessee legislature does not agree.

I just don’t see how taking the stand of …â€If I can’t do it they shouldn’t get to do it.†is a productive response to the problem.

A cop is a cop; 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Unless he drinking or intoxicated he should be armed. Whether he is in uniform or street clothes he may be needed to react (in my previous state he could be required to act); that may be hard to do if he is unarmed.

So how about we quit worrying what the cops can or can’t do and try to get something done about what we can do.

But, as I said before, there has been no actual ruling on it, so who really knows.

I’ve seen you make that statement before. Do you have access to case law? Because I would like to have it.

[Fallguy]

Let me rephrase, "To My Knowledge" (which what I think I said the first time) there has been no ruling on it. There is a stick thread in this sub-forum about looking up court cases if anyone wants to try and check.

All I know for sure is, I can not find any AG opinion on it. (Not saying there isn't one)

Also there was a bill introduced last session to remove the restriction for LEOs in 39-17-1350©(3) and some of the others, I watched a committee meeting about it, there was a discussion between Metro Nashville's Chief and one of the State Representatives who was a former LEO as to what the "in the actual discharge of duties" meant and they disagreed. The chief thought it meant it was ok for them to eat lunch in a place that served alcohol the Rep thought it meant they couldn't and that is one of the reasons he wanted to remove the restriction.

[Guest justme]

Let me rephrase, "To My Knowledge" (which what I think I said the first time) there has been no ruling on it. There is a stick thread in this sub-forum about looking up court cases if anyone wants to try and check.

All I know for sure is, I can not find any AG opinion on it. (Not saying there isn't one)

Also there was a bill introduced last session to remove the restriction for LEOs in 39-17-1350©(3) and some of the others, I watched a committee meeting about it, there was a discussion between Metro Nashville's Chief and one of the State Representatives who was a former LEO as to what the "in the actual discharge of duties" meant and they disagreed. The chief thought it meant it was ok for them to eat lunch in a place that served alcohol the Rep thought it meant they couldn't and that is one of the reasons he wanted to remove the restriction.

I have spent some time searching through the AG opinions but I have been unable to locate any type of opinion on whether LE can carry into an establishment that serves alcohol for onsite consumption while not in the actual discharge of their duties.

Yes, I agree--simply being "on duty" does not mean you are in the actual discharging your duties...the one does not necessarily indicate the other...I can be working for a place and be "on duty", and yet be standing around joking or laughing my head off instead of working...For LEOs it means they are on patrol, they are conducting traffic stops, and other such activities--merely eating lunch does not qualify in that category.

By removing the restriction, you are saying the State Rep wanted to remove the restriction of 39-17-1305? On LEOs only, or on everyone in general?

[Guest justme]

Laws apply to all just the same, whether you are a LEO or not. But TN laws make certain exceptions for LEOs. The biggest is 39-17-1350, in which the legislature obviously intended for there to be times LEOs could carry when other's could not, but also times they couldn't either.

This whole debate is more to whether the law applies in certain situations. Not if they are allowed to break the law.

It is obvious your interpretation is that simply being "on duty" does not mean "engaged in the actual discharge" of their duties. I happen to actually agree with that position. Others do not see it that way. There are valid arguments on each side. But, as I said before, there has been no actual ruling on it, so who really knows.

So the bulk of the question revolves around what the official definition of what exactly constitutes the "discharge of official duties" -because 39-17- 1350 (3) says the same thing as 1305--that LEOs are not exempt from carrying a firearm on the premises of a facility where alcoholic beverages are sold for onsite consumption if they are not in the actual discharge of their official duties.--the law says that exemption only occurs where they are actually in the process of discharging their official duties...so that seems to be the entire crux of this debate.

For the record--I don't want anyone to be able to carry into bars or places like that--people go to bars to drink and shoot pool....guns and alcohol are a sure recipe for disaster....but I do want the people to have the ability to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol.....I mean I do like Pizza hut, even if I don't drink. And yes, for the record--if we have to disarm--so should they...it is a problem of fairness under the law.

Crime does not take a holiday at restaurants where they serve beer....

why can't we be a little more like Virginia--in Virginia you can carry into restaurants where beer is sold for consumption as long as your firearm is carried openly, and as long as you do not consume any alcohol while carrying....

Edited December 19, 2008 by justme

[Fallguy]

By removing the restriction, you are saying the State Rep wanted to remove the restriction of 39-17-1305? On LEOs only, or on everyone in general?

There were two separate bills, one to remove the restrictions for HCP holders in 39-17-1305 and a separate one to remove the restrictions for LEO in 39-17-1350.

Did you see the info I posted in Post 19? There are different rules for LEO carry and HCP holders. In general LEOs can carry 24/7 anywhere in TN, except for the places and circumstances listed in 39-17-1350©.

©(1) Is similar to schools for those with a HCP, but it allow LEOs to carry as long as the notify the principal, and that is only during school hours, after hours like at a basketball or football game, they don't have to notify at all.

©(2) is similar to 39-17-1322 for us.

©(3) is what we have been talking about

©(4) is similar to 39-17-1306 for us.

[Fallguy]

So the bulk of the question revolves around what the official definition of what exactly constitutes the "discharge of official duties" -because 39-17- 1350 (3) says the same thing as 1305--that LEOs are not exempt from carrying a firearm on the premises of a facility where alcoholic beverages are sold for onsite consumption if they are not in the actual discharge of their official duties.--the law says that exemption only occurs where they are actually in the process of discharging their official duties...so that seems to be the entire crux of this debate.

That's it exactly

For the record--I don't want anyone to be able to carry into bars or places like that--people go to bars to drink and shoot pool....guns and alcohol are a sure recipe for disaster....but I do want the people to have the ability to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol.....I mean I do like Pizza hut, even if I don't drink. And yes, for the record--if we have to disarm--so should they...it is a problem of fairness under the law.

That was "part" of the problem last session, there is no such thing as a Bar/Tavern/Beer Joint in TN...at least not as defined in TN Code, so there was no easy way to distinguish a difference between those places and a restaurant as far as to allow carry in on and not another.

[Guest justme]

There were two separate bills, one to remove the restrictions for HCP holders in 39-17-1305 and a separate one to remove the restrictions for LEO in 39-17-1350.

Did you see the info I posted in Post 19? There are different rules for LEO carry and HCP holders. In general LEOs can carry 24/7 anywhere in TN, except for the places and circumstances listed in 39-17-1350©.

©(1) Is similar to schools for those with a HCP, but it allow LEOs to carry as long as the notify the principal, and that is only during school hours, after hours like at a basketball or football game, they don't have to notify at all.

©(2) is similar to 39-17-1322 for us.

©(3) is what we have been talking about

©(4) is similar to 39-17-1306 for us.

1350©(1) Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

this would read that they can only carry only as long as they are discharging duties in some fashion would it not? It does not say LEOs are exempt after hours on school grounds...there was a case recently in which a RSO in another state was arrested for this very thing--he was carrying a firearm on school property at a school function (school sanctioned ball game)--and the city police arrested him for it...he tried to use the defense that he works for the Sheriff's office and is therefor exempt--that didn't fly.

Now here is a question for you--can a LEO who is not working--on a day off, or after shift is over or so on--walk into a facility that is clearly posted as a "no firearms allowed" area in accordance with 39-17-1359 and still be within the law--this again goes to the crux of fairness under the law, though not directly associated with 1350© which is what we have been discussing.

Edited December 19, 2008 by justme

[midtennchip]

A cop is a cop; 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Unless he drinking or intoxicated he should be armed. Whether he is in uniform or street clothes he may be needed to react (in my previous state he could be required to act); that may be hard to do if he is unarmed.

So how about we quit worrying what the cops can or can’t do and try to get something done about what we can do.

I’ve seen you make that statement before. Do you have access to case law? Because I would like to have it.

I do not mean any disrespect, but the statement "unless he is drinking or intoxicated he should be armed" is clearly contrary to state law (at least with respect to off duty officers). My opinion on all of your statements is the same as yours, but the legislature doesn't agree with us. Clearly, the legislature could have just stated that the only exception was if "drinking or intoxicated." They chose (wrongly in my opinion) to extend the prohibitions further.

However, there is, in fact, an AG Opinion on this issue (see link below). You have to look at Footnote 2 to get the real answer, but generally the opinion says that an "on duty" officer is in the "actual discharge" of his duties all the time. This is not explicitly stated, but notice that the opinion says that situations "could arise where an off duty officer may or may not be in the discharge of his or her duties" which would give rise to the exception. The negative implication to that is that an "on duty" officer is always discharging his or her duties and can carry in an establishment that serves alcohol (unless, of course, the LEO is actually drinking).

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/agopinions/ag_99024.asp

I guess the opinions can start to fly on that negative implication.

Edited December 19, 2008 by midtennchip

[Fallguy]

The way I read ©(1) it does not say anything about "in the discharge of duties" like ©(3) and ©(4) does. So it would not seem that is not part of the restriction. Also it says "during regular school hours" so to me that means there is no restriction after school hours. The reason being is, there are NO restrictions on LEOs except the 4 listed and ©(1) only mentions during school hours, so since there is no mention of after school hours, that would mean there is no restriction. Now whether school activities even after "normal" hours would still be considered "regular hours" I don't know for sure, but not IMO. But even during the "regular school hours" restriction all he had to do is notify the principal or some other authority that he is armed and he can still carry.

As for as the out of state officer, was he a full-time officer? 39-17-1350(d) says...

For purposes of this section, “law enforcement officer” means a person who is a full-time employee of the state in a position authorized by the laws of this state to carry a firearm and to make arrests for violations of some or all of the laws of this state, or a full-time police officer who has been certified by the peace officer standards and training commission, or a vested correctional officer employed by the department of correction.

So if he was a reserve or something like that, he would not be covered by any of exceptions in 39-17-1350©(1)-(4)

As far as 39-17-1359 goes, Yes he can ignore those signs...I believe that to be one of the main intents of 39-17-1350. Remember...in general 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry 24/7 anywhere as I said, the ONLY limitation are those in ©(1)-(4) and 39-17-1359 is not mentioned.

Now....IMO though, if he is not on official business, he still has to respect the wishes of a private property owner, even that which is open to the public, as far as being on the property period, but that was a long debate on another thread.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

However, there is, in fact, an AG Opinion on this issue (see link below). You have to look at Footnote 2 to get the real answer, but generally the opinion says that an "on duty" officer is in the "actual discharge" of his duties all the time. This is not explicitly stated, but notice that the opinion says that situations "could arise where an off duty officer may or may not be in the discharge of his or her duties" which would give rise to the exception. The negative implication to that is that an "on duty" officer is always discharging his or her duties and can carry in an establishment that serves alcohol (unless, of course, the LEO is actually drinking).

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/agopinions/ag_99024.asp

I guess the opinions can start to fly on that negative implication.

Interesting, but this is a fairly old opinion and was issued before 39-17-1350 was passed.

You notice all the questions ask about an "off duty" officer. The part you mention seems to be saying that just because an officer is armed he may or may not be situations he is in the actual discharge of duties. What I find interesting in the Footnote is...

"An officer not currently on duty who witnesses an incident where a crime occurs would normally be considered to be acting in the discharge of his or her duties in going on site to respond to the incident"

To me that would seem to imply responding to a crime is what actual discharge of duties is.

I would agree that even if an officer is "off duty" if he responds to an incident then at that moment he is "on duty" and/or "in the actual discharge of his duties" but up to that point he is not.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Fallguy

[midtennchip]

Interesting, but this is a fairly old opinion and was issued before 39-17-1350 was passed.

. . .

"An officer not currently on duty who witnesses an incident where a crime occurs would normally be considered to be acting in the discharge of his or her duties in going on site to respond to the incident"

To me that would seem to imply responding to a crime is what actual discharge of duties is.

I would agree that even if an officer is "off duty" if he responds to an incident then at that moment he is "on duty" and/or "in the actual discharge of his duties" but up to that point he is not.

Yes, the AG Opinion predates 39-17-1350, but the explanation of what constitutes discharging duties is what (I think) is important. It is the only somewhat authoritative opinion we have. Keep in mind that, although persuasive, an AG Opinion is NOT law (just ask one of my clients!).

However, the Opinion differentiates between on duty and off duty officers. For an off duty officer, the moment he "responds" makes a difference. But, that same issue does not apply to an "on duty" officer. If an LEO is on duty, discharging duties could be any number of things. Here's a couple of potential issues:

If the officer at O'Charley's is doing paperwork while eating, does that make a difference?

If the officer is discussing LEO issues with another LEO while eating, does that make a difference?

To me, if the officer is on the clock, the AG Opinion supports the argument that the officer is discharging duties (however minor those duties may be). I do not think this Opinion is particularly helpful, but it does suggest (fairly clearly in my mind) that an on duty officer can carry in such establishments. However, the one thing I am quite certain of is that you'll never see an LEO arrested or charged for doing it!

Edited December 19, 2008 by midtennchip

[Fallguy]

Yes, the AG Opinion predates 39-17-1350, but the explanation of what discharging duties is what (I think) is important. It is the only somewhat authoritative opinion we have. Keep in mind that, although persuasive, an AG Opinion is NOT law (just ask one of my clients!).

I agree on all points, especially about AG opinions.

However, the Opinion appears to differentiate between on duty and off duty officers. For an off duty officer, the moment he "responds" makes a difference. But, that same issue does not apply to an "on duty" officer.

I agree, but the opinon really doesn't address "On duty" at all. Like I said the very fact that it says when the off duty officer "responds" he is in the discharge of his duties. I take that to mean responding to something is what constitutes "discharge of duties" and that would apply to On or Off duty. But..that is just my view I admit.

If an LEO is on duty, discharging duties could be any number of things. Here's a couple of potential issues:

If the officer at O'Charley's is doing paperwork while eating, does that make a difference?

If the officer is discussing LEO issues with another LEO while eating, does that make a difference?

Good questions.

To me, if the officer is on the clock, the AG Opinion supports the argument that the officer is discharging duties (however minor those duties may be).

LOL...and to me it doesn't. Why can't things be more simple?

However, the one thing I am quite certain of is that you'll never see an LEO arrested or charged for doing it!

I do agree with that statement.

[DaveTN]

guns and alcohol are a sure recipe for disaster

Although not a popular opinion on this forum; that is solid common sense and is the reason I don’t think we will see legislation allowing it. As has been pointed out there is not a distinction between a restaurant and a bar.

Also you are going to see that some who claim to speak for HCP holders think they should be able to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. I don’t agree with that and would not support legislation that allowed it. It’s bad enough that should we find ourselves in a shooting situation we have a very big concern with other HCP holders without having to worry about an HCP holder whose judgment and thought process is clouded by alcohol. I doubt any of the cops you are worried about are drinking while in uniform.

And yes, for the record--if we have to disarm--so should they...it is a problem of fairness under the law.

It doesn’t appear to be a problem.

We have a legal system; not a justice system. I had to enforce laws that I did not think were fair.

Crime does not take a holiday at restaurants where they serve beer....

I feel safer in a restaurant that serves alcohol than in a courthouse. But I don’t expect to get to carry there anytime soon.

why can't we be a little more like Virginia--in Virginia you can carry into restaurants where beer is sold for consumption as long as your firearm is carried openly, and as long as you do not consume any alcohol while carrying....

What other states do is really not important. But if we are going to pick a state to model ourselves after; let’s pick Alaska.