JayC

Stupid question... but if you want to get a valid carry permit for here in TN, why not just move your residence out of TN? Some states have fairly lax residency requirements, and since you would be a resident of another state, you can carry in TN legally on an out of state license? Just saying, there are legal ways around the problem, that aren't grey areas.

There appears to be some point of argument over whether a change would bring the ordinance under state preemption or not. I can't say either way... But if it does, why are they bothering to not just repeal all the firearm related stuff? Why make the regulation more strict if it won't matter anymore? Something smells funny in Belle Meade.

Shoot, you and I are on the same side in the Kwik permit issue... I'm not a fan of the guy, but the zapping of his permit was wrong. Hopefully he'll find a good lawyer and get it re-instated in short order. As far as revoking or suspending, short of the "poses a material likelihood..." stance, it doesn't seem they could keep you from getting a HCP re-issued for any length of time, since TN is a shall issue state, and violating 1359 under this new law would not be a reason to prevent issuing the permit. You'll note the law says they can suspend or revoke, doesn't say they can deny a permit Not that I would personally advocate violating the law, but $500 seems like a small price to pay in the off chance you're caught carrying where you're not supposed to be, instead of needing your firearm and not having it.

But would anything stop you from taking the class the next day and re-applying for a permit?

I'm sure this is going to cause people to get upset... but lets look at the facts for a minute... Belle Meade has what appears to be a valid pre-April 1986 law that bans all types of carry except the carrying of an army or navy revolver in the hand. It makes no exception for HCP holders. State law preemption only impacts local ordinances passed after April of 1986. So somebody show me how the above law does not prevent a HCP holder from carrying? I agree they probably can't be charge you under STATE law, but what prevents them from charging you under the local ordinance? Now there is some question as to whether the slight change in 1987 invalidates the entire ordinance or not, IANAL but it appears as if minor changes to a local ordinance does not render it a new ordinance. Whether the change made in 1987 or the one being considered today are enough to make it a new ordiance or not I don't know... but for the sake of argument lets say a court would rule it a legal modification and therefore still is under the pre-1986 exception to state preemption. If so, how does this not ban all carrying of handguns by HCP holders? So, again I'm not saying this law has been enforced against HCP holders, only that it appears as if there is a VALID local ordinance which bans concealed carry and makes no exception for HCP holders. And keep in mind that HCP holders only have a defense against selected state laws which ban carry. No where in state law does it say we have a blanket defense against 'the intent to go armed' only defenses to a few specific state laws. So, please show me the flaw in this logic... where is the LEGAL exception that prevents the City of Belle Meade from charging you with violating this local ordinance just because you have a HCP? You know almost everyday I watch another speech from President Obama telling me how I'll be able to keep my Doctor and my insurance policy won't change under ObamaCare... I pretty sure a good number of us don't trust everything he's selling... So why does everybody believe this Mayor? Here is the problem I have... if making this latest modification does cause the law to become invalid, why pass it? Would it be much easier to just remove all references to firearms from the ordinance, and allow state preemption to take over? Why go to all this trouble to defend these changes when the simple fix is to remove firearms from the ordinance? Just because the Mayor and the Police Chief say the law doesn't impact you, doesn't make it true... If the ordinance stands under the state preemption exception, it will ban all types of carry with no exception for HCP, business owners on their property, and homeowners. So, if the intent is for the City to come in line with current state law, they should just remove firearms from the current ordinance... and bingo, Belle Meade has the exact same laws as the rest of the state. But, wait... state law doesn't ban a HCP holder from carrying a loaded handgun in the hand does it? Hmm so that doesn't really solve the problem... So, maybe they are looking for a change that allows them to charge people they want to charge? Nahh politicians would never do that... Look, the truth is the ordinance is BAD, it's bad today, it will be even worse if this change is put into effect.... If all the city wants to do is come in line with state law, they should remove firearms from the local ordinance... Anything else is either 1. invalid due to state preemption, or 2. valid and could be used against any HCP holder if the city wanted to. As a HCP holder who is in Belle Meade on a daily basis... please don't stop calling, and putting pressure on the city, if all they want to do is come inline with state law, have them just remove firearms from the local ordinance.

All state and national parks in TN are now open for carrying (except inside some buildings inside the parks).

I don't think it is as far fetched as you might believe... From my count there are 27 states that already allow unlicensed open carry in some way shape or form to all citizens in that state. Another 14 which allow it if you're licensed.... So a majority of states already allow what you're saying is so far fetched to me... I agree it's not going to be this case that ends the matter, but there is at least hope we can solve this problem from within the system.

I disagree, some of the justices Scalia are already hinting in the oral arguments that carry is covered by incorporation of the 2nd amendment.

How about we start with requiring the legislature to follow the current state constitution... Go look at all the laws that impact the purchase and sale of firearms and ammo... If the legislature can ONLY regulate the wearing of firearms, how can they make TICS under our current constitution? How can they regulate the sale of firearms? It's a nice thought that one day our state constitution will give us the same protections to our god given rights as the federal, but I just don't see that ruling coming for a long time.

Jamie I agree completely... I can't wait to read the ruling, I suspect it's going to be a shocker.

The 1986 law basically banned importing or registration of any new fully automatic weapons... That is a ban plain and simple... Washington DC had a process to permit weapons to be registered, it just refused to register any weapons, which was the main point of the lawsuit in Heler. It's an arm which is in common use in military's around the world, yet we're unable to purchase new ones... How does that jive with the right ot keep and bear arms? Yes it will hurt some collectors who have spent a lot of money snagging pre-ban weapons, but the rest of us will be able to purchase a fully auto M4 for less than $2,000 if the ban were to be ruled unconstitutional as it should.

I don't think anybody (including myself) is saying the case isn't binding. Only exactly what happens under state law when you knock out a section of the law as unconstitutional, does the previously more restrictive law come into effect? I've read 2 different articles by 2 different law professors stating there is some question as to what exactly is enforce now, and what is not. I clearly stated it was prudent not to carry into a restaurant right now because if law professors don't know the answer how can we as laypersons know the answer? But just because the lawyers at DoS say the ruling means X doesn't make it so... it's not binding on anybody unlike a ruling from the AG's office. As for the argument that the AG's office is appealing the ruling... They think it's perfectly okay to define a restaurant in the law, and disagree that it is unconstitutionally vague... That is a completely different matter from what exactly does striking down a provision under the law do under state law and case law. The AG's office would be appealing the ruling if the law had been struck down in a way to allow carry in all places that serve liquor... Again, I'm NOT suggesting that we all start carrying into restaurants that serve liquor (or beer or wine)... Only that exactly what the ruling did to the law isn't as clear cut as many people (including myself) thought it was... and it's a curious grey area under state law. Also, that just because the DoS puts a statement on their website doesn't mean anything, they have no special power to regulate (or render legal opinions on) carry law... that is reserved to the AG's office. Let me stress one last time, DON"T CARRY INTO RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE RIGHT NOW (unless of course you're covered under some other provision of the law).. This is nothing more than a layperson armchair version of arguing over the number of angles which can dance on the head of a pin.

I disagree... First, SCOTUS has already ruled in another case that 'bear' means to carry on one's person (not Heller but I don't remember the exact case, it was mentioned in the oral arguments of the Chicago case). If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, and applies to the states then it would cover both keeping (ownership) and bearing (carrying). What would qualify as 'reasonable' regulation of either of these functions will probably have to be resolved after dozens more lawsuits. It's unclear if TN's HCP being required to exercise a fundamental right will past muster or not... We won't know until after the Chicago ruling is handed down, and likely another few years until after somebody brings suit challenging some states anti-carry law. But there is hope that as a fundamental right open carry will be allowed in all states for law abiding citizens. Now as for your argument that we fought a war over states rights, and the federal government can't force itself on states... That was a valid argument before ratification of the 14th Amendment. Now, a lot of arguing could be done that the 14th Amendment was only passed because some states had a gun to their head, that the legislatures in many southern states were occupied by military troops forcing them to pass certain things... But the 14th amendment extents the bill of rights to the states and in theory the states agreed to it.

Seeing as law professors can't even agree if this is the case or not, and the AG has not rendered his opinion on the matter yet... This is a DoS legal opinion on the matter which does not carry the same weight as an AG opinion... It's prudent not to carry since what exactly is in effect regarding restaurant carry at this point is up in the air.

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated by SCOTUS, it will have far reaching impacts... Most likely it means that various states assault weapon bans will be ruled unconstitutional, as well as possibly the 1986 machine gun ban. Incorporation of the 2A is a big deal.

The 1A isn't as safe as you think... And has been abused in the recent past by both R's and D's... Free speech zones anybody? Virtually all of our natural rights are under assault by forces in BOTH political parties.

Just keep in mind that TN law professors can't agree on whether the ruling re-instated the ban on carry or not.

I'm sorry but this does not jive with training I've seen, nor TN state law. Police Officers pull their weapons all the time when they are not justified in shooting a suspect. How many "felony stops" have you seen where the officers un-holstered their weapons but would not have been justified in shooting? A ton of them, I'll be happy to show you a tape of Nashville Metro from the tv show COPS where this happens. It might be a department policy not to draw your weapon unless it's a justified shooting incident (I seriously doubt it but it's possible), but state law doesn't cover drawing your weapon for either the police or citizens. It only covers when you may threaten and/or use deadly force or serious bodily injury. A weapon at a low ready in and of itself is not a threat of death or serious bodily injury. Keep in mind that under TN state law police officers have largely the same restrictions placed on them as regular citizens (There are a few extra cases where a police officer may use deadly force or the threat of it but most of the justified uses are the same for both citizens and police officers).. It's just that police officers are in those situations a lot more than regular citizens (hopefully).

If the code was changed after 1986, it is not legal. State Preemption ONLY allows for laws/ordinances passed before April of 1986.

They can't... not unless you give them permission... Just don't be surprised if you're fired for not giving them permission.

15 seconds... that is how long the incident lasted according to Jack... Not sure rushing everybody in across the front yard while a truck is bearing down on your or your spouse is really something I'd be able to do. Somebody pulls into my driveway seconds after I get home at night and block me in, then come tearing towards my spouse through the middle of my yard... I'm going to assume said truck and the people in it are up to no good until they prove otherwise. Also, running from the cover of the vehicle across an open yard, trying to unlock a door, and get everybody inside, vs using the vehicle for cover until you can assess what the driver of the truck is up to seems like staying put might not have been such a bad idea.

While I agree Dave opening fire in a residential neighborhood should be avoided at all costs... I have to disagree with your assessment of the situation. Vehicle is moving off road through your yard, on a path that appears to hit your or a loved one... That seems to meet all the requirements for a justified shooting... You can have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm (trucks hitting you can and do kill all the time)... I'll point out I've seen a number of cases in TN where Police Officers have charged a drunk driver with Assault with a Deadly Weapon when they've been clipped on the side of the road by a vehicle... I can also point to a number of cases where police officers have opened fire on a vehicle that is 'bearing down' on them or another officer and to the best of me recollection most if not all of those cases were ruled justified shootings. I'm with you on how it's not a good idea... but a vehicle is a deadly weapon when it's unlawfully moving directly at you. Having a weapon at low ready in this situation was the right call... It could have very well gone south very quickly, the extra time might have come in handy if it had.

Some guy drives through the middle of your yard, at 10pm at night.... Messes your yard up and nearly hits your spouse... and you suggest not calling the police? Remember the first rule of police work, the one who calls first is generally treated as the victim. Call the police in this incident was the right thing to do.

Just my 2 cents worth... even in this economy my life is more important than a job... YMMV. I'd for sure leave one in my vehicle and not tell anybody about it... Depending on the safety situation inside the business I'd consider carrying (deep concealment of course)... As long as neither location was legally posted. The question you have to ask yourself is what is more important to you.

Not just limited to K-12, it's ALL schools, college and universities. The law is much more broad than it ever needed to be.