JayC

Personally I think we should work to change that... if we break the law there is a penalty, why should they be any different? Also, we should limit HCP fees to fund only HCP related expenses... That would result in a faster turn around time.

Not exactly correct... This is covered in another part of the law as well... 39-17-1308a3B It's my understanding that you do not have to own the place, only that you conduct business there. The law for locations selling for on site consumption is more strict in that the person must be authorized where as for everywhere else you're pretty much allowed to carry without a HCP in your place of business. I personally wouldn't worry about it, if you have approval from the owner or manager to carrying to protect yourself then as I read the law you're authorized to protect persons (yourself) which appears to meet the definition of the law.

It's called file suit against the store owner for the emotional distress for being held up without access to your firearm for protection. Him having a firearm in the store for protection will weaken any arguments against carry, my guess in this state, they'd want to avoid a jury trial and would settle. Businesses who post will only stop doing so when they realize it hurts their pocket books.

If approved by the manager or owner this is perfectly legal carry, and doesn't even require a permit in TN. Business owners and their employees are allowed to carry while on the business property.

Different states have different laws, I'm pretty sure that TN is a 1 party state, meaning that any known party to the conversation may record the call without approval from any of the other parties on the call.

As Hexhead has said, this entire legal fairytail that a corporation is a person has gotten way out of control... Corporations are not part of 'We The People'... But, even if they were, the Government forces businesses to do things all the time, for example, they force businesses to sell to certain people, tell them who they can or can't fire, etc... The simpler solution to this problem is to pass a law that includes your car as an extension of your house and/or business... Make it completely legal (as in many other states) to poses a loaded firearm in your vehicle... And remove anybodies ability to prohibit those vehicles where they are otherwise legal to be.

Because it's not my job to make sure everybody else doesn't have a negative reaction in life.... Just like I can place a political bumper sticker on my car, wear an American Flag pin, or place a yellow ribbon around my tree to show support for our troops... All of these things cause a 'negative reaction' in some people... So we shouldn't do those things either? There are lots of things people do, and say that cause me to be uncomfortable, but as long as they don't cause me harm it's my problem to deal with not theirs. Call me a jerk, but my carrying to protect myself trumps their hurt feelings every day of the week. (Again, I agree CC is best, but OC is better than going unarmed.) And the truth is that to a certain extent a large number of people OC'ing in public day after day would have a positive effect on the general populations view of hand gun carry. To give you a perfect example, the number of homosexuals in TN is about the same as the number of hand gun carry permit holders in TN... 40 years ago, 2 guys walking down the street would have caused a lot of people a 'negative reaction' or worse... Today we might as well be the San Fransisco of the south here in Nashville... yet anybody who has a 'negative reaction' is often belittled because what they're doing doesn't hurt you. It's causing an evolution in the minds of the public, the more times we're exposed to something and nothing bad happens the more we become numb to it. Using some of the far lefts own tactics isn't a bad thing.

I've stated that CC is the BEST choice, but OC is better than not carrying. There are times that some of us just don't have the choice to CC, and for whatever reason choose to OC because the 'tactical disadvantage' of OC'ing is still better than going unarmed. The first article you reference backs this up theory up... Lets say you're wearing business casual attire and don't have the ability to comfortably CC a compact pistol (you're choice on caliber, 9mm, 40, 45)... So lets say 'The Marine' goes in to eat with no weapon or only a 5 shot 22 pocket pistol... What happens to his chances of making it out of the Subway alive? I'm not making an argument that you shouldn't CC, only that OC is much better than going unarmed. Me personally, I'd rather go down trying to draw my pistol and having a fighting chance because somebody got the drop on me, than to be herded back to the restroom or freezer and pray they're such bad shots they can't execute me with a bullet to the head while I'm laying prone on the ground.

Oh boy, lots of bad info here... Unless you're rude or the officer who comes out is having a bad day, most likely you'll simple be asked to leave once the officer determines you have a valid HCP. As OhShoot has stated nobody has ever shown me a single case in TN of anybody being prosecuted until 39-17-1359 properly posted or not. You'd have to try pretty darn hard to be the first one is my guess... If this were to happen, I'd claim I didn't see any sign and that you'd be happy to leave if they don't want you to stay.... Again unless you're rude or the officer is having a very bad day 99/100 they'll just ask you to leave.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make.. it's almost always better to open carry than to be unarmed... If you can CC then it's the best choice, but there are many times I'm not able to CC but choose to OC really quick rather than go unarmed, there are disadvantages to doing this, but fewer than just going completely unarmed. As for the claim by many that OC puts you at greater risk, I've not seen any statistical information that backs up that argument... Many will argue common sense, but if it was a serious problem there would be some factual evidence of the increased risk by this point in time. (Also keep in mind that common sense isn't a very good, for example common sense says that children booster seats protect kids in car wrecks, but the fact is that booster seats have a slightly high rate of injury than not using them)

I love this point... but here is my reply... You're dressed up for a business meeting with a button down shirt and slacks... on the way home you stop to run into the store and are approached by a mugger... Would you rather A. be open carrying or B. be unarmed... I'm going to pick A every time over B... The fact is that many times it's not feasible or comfortable to carry concealed.... In those cases you're forced to make a choice between being unarmed or open carry... Personally I think it's better to open carry than not carry at all. Don't get me wrong, I think CC is the best solution, but OC is still way better than not carrying.

It uses the word patient, which normally means under a Doctors care (ie medical doctor).... For example AA would be an example of a rehab program that would probably not qualify under the current law. I don't know a lot about 'rehab' but I've heard of a number of programs that are ran by non-licensed people doing types of 12 step or other programs but not under the care of a medical professional, and therefore I doubt you'd be considered a "patient" under the law. IANAL it's a grey area and I couldn't find a definition under the law, so who knows what does or doesn't count exactly... (other than medical programs under a Doctors care clearly would be included).

I don't know enough about the situation and you're starting to talk about very fine grey areas of the law... I'd suggest your friend consult an attorney that specializes in these types of situations, a sit down consult should be less money than filing for the permit and getting denied. Just saying that there are many different types of 'rehab' some of which probably do not meet the requirements under the law.

+1, self employed and HCP rocks

Without knowing a lot more details... he might be eligible... who knows... A lot of things we'd consider to be rehab, may not meet the definition under the law... For example, being a member of AA doesn't appear to count... If he was an out patient or the 'program' he attended was just non-medical counseling it might not count...

The 'club meeting' is a good loop hole, and if done right doesn't bother me... Even more so if it frees up the 'restrictions' on people attending or the operator of the gun show... All that is is a paperwork shuffle by the organizer... doesn't increase my taxes (FFL transfer fees and TICS background checks for private sales)... Also, it does have some advantages... private membership list generally require a higher standard of privacy from judges than lists of businesses... What Goodman (if true) is doing crossing the line IMHO.. And unlike a scared little sheep he knows better. If this is true the sooner he's out of business the better in my book.

It's good to know which gun shows to avoid... The management of a gun show knows better, and all hcp holders should boycott the show and any business which buys a booth at the show. (If it's correct they are requiring FFL transfers for all firearms sold at the show, even if not required by law)

You're preaching to the choir... A large chunk of our state laws are clearly unconstitutional under the state constitution.... But somebody can use some seriously messed up logic to argue that possession is a form of wearing... But sale of is in no way shape or form a type of wearing... The problem is that we (the general public) won't hold our legislators to getting rid of these constitutional laws. Frankly IMHO it's time to amendment the state constitution and take away that last part.

I sure seems to me that this law violates the TN constitution... The sale of arms and ammunition is not the wearing of them, and therefore is not allowed under the TN constitution. This guy needs to be ran out of town during the next election.

Well the truth is as written the states have no authority either under the 2nd and 10th Amendments to regulate firearm ownership either... 2nd Amendment: 10th Amendment: As you can see, the 2nd Amendment covers a right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms... and the 10th Amendment states that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the States OR 'to the people'... As best I can tell this argument has not been made before SCOTUS before... But, as you can see as written the Bill of Rights limited both the federal and state governments from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

I agree Ramsey appears to be more inline with folks here on the 2A.

IANAL, but recordings are a double edge sword... They could hurt just as much as they can help... If you end up with a dead stranger on your floor who likely has a criminal record... I seriously doubt the recording is going to do you any good but for sure could do you some harm. A perfect example, is the case of the Pharmacist who was convicted of murder for shooting a robber after a short delay... If there had not been a video tape showing the delay, or how the robber didn't pose a serious risk, in all likelihood the pharmacist wouldn't have been charged let alone convicted.... No recording leaves you and your wife as the only 2 witnesses to the shooting, and gives you time to consult a lawyer before giving a statement to the police... Just my 2 cents worth.

I mostly carry my Glock 19 in a Serpa year around... Obviously it tends to be easier to carry concealed during the colder months... I'm not overly concerned with a little printing or the last inch or two of the holster showing under my shirt... The vast majority of sheeple don't even notice the firearm when it's completely visible, let alone when it's mostly covered.

Also keep in mind that Miller is a 1 sided case, only the government showed up to give arguments before the court. United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NFA is a bad law, and most of it should be ruled unconstitutional. One can only hope that the same judges that voted for Heller will take this case and vote similairly again.

I agree, but in the case of the 1986 act, that is the federal government limiting your ability to purchase/own firearms, so it's right inline with Heller... It's not a states right issue, but a straight 2nd amendment/10th amendment issue... IMHO more likely to result in being ruled unconstitutional... You can't argue anyway shape or form the act doesn't seriously limit your ability to buy a full auto firearm and the restriction is completely federal just like in Heller. It's probably wishful thinking, but I can't see how you rule it's an individual right but at the same time this one type of firearm can be banned... If that was the case then why can't you ban handguns which is exactly what Heller ruling spoke to.