Makiaveli

The issue is if they file with the courts to have him evicted then he will have to go to court. Given the manager has already proved to be a liar, he's likely to say he saw the gun. Also, ok so they inspect with him there. That means the gun is there and if they find it....a few quick pictures and he's out the door. Also, doesn't have to be a formal inspection. They likely have the place sprayed for bugs on a regular basis and can ask/tell the bug guy to keep his eyes open. Same with any maintenance work. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the guy. But if your landlord wants you gone, it can be done, even in a state like TN that favors the renter over the landlord.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Time for a budget talk with the wife..... **edit** Hmm apparently you have to have a credit card. As I don't use them (or debit card for that matter) this poses a problem.

This is the same principle as if you tell a cop you have the baseball in the car "for protection" he can take you downtown for intent to go armed. It says "intent" not actually being armed. So arguing technicalities or semantics will get you free room and board.

And if they catch him and evict him? The roomies have already proven they will run tell, and if he is found with the weapon in violation of his lease he will get evicted, be out the money, and good luck using them as a reference. If it winds up on his credit report (what college student can afford 2 rent payments?) that can impact his career options as well.

TMF 18B has it right in my opinion. Even if it's your property you are protecting, is it worth the bad guy's partner sneaking up behind you..... Now this isn't to say I haven't been an idiot and jumped into a situation like that, but I've never been accused of being wise...

If all four roommates are on the lease, then I don't think he would have grounds to evict them. Also the managers/owners already know he has a gun and do have the right to inspect. If they then find the gun he is homeless and owes a ton of money. Also, even if he is the only person on the lease, and sublet to the roommates, he would have to have grounds to evict them. If he doesn't have a lease, good luck evicting in TN.

**EDIT** Just saw the post where he said how much it would cost etc. Leaving this as an example of why you should finish reading before you post If I remember correctly (it's been 5 years since I worked in property management), you would likely be free of any future rent payments, but the deposit would almost definitely be forfeit. You might even be liable for damages if your roomies leave it trashed. Also, depending on how big a company they are etc, if you do wind up owing money, it could show up on your credit report. And when you go to rent your next place, this will be a gap in your history so any reputable place will want to know why. Obviously an eviction will be a stumbling block. I think your best bet is double check on the breaking it down idea, and just start now looking for a new place. Also never hurts to ask if they will voluntarily let you out of the lease early.

Finally some good news in the news!!

Thanks for the link. Bookmarked for future reference

Since the OP has a lot of answers, I'll take a stab at this instead. It's a great way to catch bad guys. Most people get nervous when a cop asks a question like that, and more so if you actually have illegal items in the car. So they stumble on the simple stuff. This gives the officer a big hint he should pry a bit more. When you have someone who mixes up his story, doesn't know the last name of the "good friend" who loaned him the vehicle etc. it's a good idea to ask if you can search. This is how you wind up on the news. On the other hand, a citizen who suddenly becomes worried maybe he misinterpreted the laws, while likely to be nervous and stumble a bit, will have all the paperwork or at least have a coherent story as to why he is driving a friend's car and remember where he is going a minute later when asked again. FTR I am not a cop. I work as a civilian for a PD, and until a stupid decision broke one knee and fubar'ed the other, I was well on the way to being one, including a internship with the Bradley Cty. Sheriff's dept many hundred's of years ago.

Yea that's what I meant by "limited use". I've been wondering if size would make a difference in this...ie kiddie pools instead of clay pots. I can spell physics, but that's about as deep as I get

Just don't count on them playing by the rules. I would call ahead as I doubt they will be reasonable about it. The building I work in has a big green sign with lots and lots of words on that basically say only cops and the property guards assigned there can carry. Point being it would be real easy not realize it isn't a anti-litter law sign or some such if you didn't actually read past all the legal gibberish.

What's sad is the police employees answering the office phone don't know this number. Welcome to govt. work....

Hank Williams ya mean?

To play Devil's Advocate (although I too am not a lawyer), it could mean authorized by them. My wife used to work for them, and my money would be on them hedging their bets in both directions. They can use that sign to ask you to leave, and yet if someone got on their case about not being HCP-friendly, they could say that's not what we meant at all.

So basically this is of limited use here in TN? Still would be interested if anyone comes up with any mods that help it along...

This, as you don't need the person she asks to run to upper management saying your wife is wanting to go on a killing spree. If forced, then she should have a backup rule, like the aforementioned dress code or something.

I think the key words are "should be". Sadly that doesn't make it so. Sounds like you have things set up so that you don't need a holster attached to your toilet. I think the main point that was being made is that you have to have a plan and appropriate preparations. Where you live isn't really a factor. Run down, crime ridden neighborhood means criminals live nearby. Suburbs mean they head out there for the nice stuff. Rural areas they could think slower police response, less chance of being seen, or even looking to score guns since all city folk think we are all rednecks with guns right?

How about a sign saying "If I see a gun, I will see you out the door :)". That way sheeple will not be scared, and most HCPs will get the clue as it isn't a straight up ban sign.

I got that and apparently was adding that while you were responding. To clarify, I read somewhere that a law was passed that you couldn't be sued if convicted etc, and several people agreed/verified it was real etc and so that was my basis. Thus I said "based on what I've read here..." That law does mean you can lose in civil court even if you aren't charged, convicted etc, but I would think that if the DA didn't press charges, it would be hard to prove you weren't justified. Not a lawyer, and don't want to come off as if I am trying to sound like one. I do need to stop taking people's word for stuff and look it up myself before I shoot off my mouth apparently.

Now of course I can't find the post where I read that. It said something to the effect that around 2006 or so a law was passed in Tn that if you weren't convicted you couldn't be sued in civil court. If I can find it I will post it. **edit** Found a Fallguy post with the law mentioned in it...So unless I am missing something, you can be sued but if ruled justified (and I would assume not being charged criminally would help in that) you will be entitled to recover expenses etc. 39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. (a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless: (A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who: (i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and (ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or (iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or ( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified. ( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

You're right, and I noted that above just in case.

Thanks for the link....Looks like lots of good reading there....

One thing that seems to be missing in the debates about accidentally pissing off a PETA member etc etc, is the bit about "maliciously". If you had no malicious intent, then you're safe. Granted I'm sure they could have used existing laws to cover this but I don't see a need to waste more resources in removing it. So looks to me like this is a neutral issue, we lose tax money but at least the ACLU is out some money fighting it as well. **edit** Ok I was an idiot and missed the "or". As in you have to have malicious intent or... Thanks to Worriedman for pointing this out.

I hadn't noticed the price increase, the wife must have paid it. Will have to rethink it. As to why? To be honest, Dilbert I mean I do the Sudoku and the X-word and skim the rest to help pass the down time. Think it's time to get a new computer book. Heck catch 'em on sale and I could get a new one every month for $31!!