JayC

Which is the one reason some people will argue that you should not inform under the current law... Worse case an officer disarms you, and while handling a weapon they are not trained on or familiar with has a ND and is killed, best of luck trying to explain to the responding officers he shot himself with your gun. Is it likely, maybe not, but probably more likely than a HCP shooting him over a ticket.

While I agree, if you just didn't answer the officers question about whether you're armed or not, then RAS per current case law (which is virtually identical in TN as it is in GA) comes into play... Keep in mind while TN state law does allow an officer to disarm you, it does not require you to provide your firearm to the officer or even tell the officer you are armed. The law also does not grant an exception to officer to search your person, your vehicle or house to disarm you. So, it seems as if unless you inform the officer you're carrying or the officer has RAS that you have or will commit a crime, he can't search your car to find it (keeping in mind that the only way he'd find out that you're carrying is from the DL check which states you have a valid HCP). Now obviously you can't lie to the officer because that would be a crime, but just refusing to answer the question or smartly sidestepping any questions regarding your carry status would be perfectly legal under current TN state law. The key issue is that by informing an officer you are carrying you open him up to disarm you, and possible handle your firearm in a way that makes you uncomfortable. By following the law and refusing to answer any questions about whether you are armed or not, you basically remove the ability to be disarmed.

My point was that we really need to work to change the law and treat all criminals the same including the ones who happen to wear a badge. If we continue to give officers a pass on laws such as the one being discussed here, or giving them the benefit of the doubt, then when it comes time to collect the firearms nothing will happen to stop them. At the very least they should be held to the same standard as the rest of the citizens, if not a higher standard, and sadly that just is not the case today in TN or anywhere else in this country.

In TN yes you must have an HCP and must DISPLAY it when requested by law enforcement... In NC you are not required to have a permit to open carry, and therefore are not required to carry ID. If you're not carrying ID in TN or NC you can not be held unless the officer has RAS that you have committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit a crime. Otherwise you are not required to ID yourself in both states. Officers may wish for you to carry ID because it makes their jobs easier, but it's not required and they can not hold you for failing to have ID in TN. (Obviously again we're not talking about carry or driivng here, both of which require you to have you permit or licenses with you).

I agree, just stating that here is a perfect example where they 'came for the guns' and a lot of people lost their guns forever, no officers were charged with obviously criminal activities caught on national news broadcasts, and we've all just gone back to business as normal like it won't happen again. There should be more of an outrage within the self defense/2nd Amendment community over this kinda stuff...

You can't be charged for failing to provide ID in TN or NC, it is not interfering with police duty or investigation of a crime to not ID. Under TN law you must take some action to interfere sitting like a lump on the side of the street, or not saying a word isn't against the law. While giving false statements or push an officer would be against the law. Also, open carry in NC does not require a permit to open carry and as such unless the officer had RAS that he was not allowed to carry (was a felon, too young, mentally defective) he had no right to request ID under NC law. You're correct that in TN he would have had to have a permit, hopefully one day we too can be free like the citizens of NC

Bingo, and even if that was not the case, the 14th amendment clearly applies the 2nd amendment to the states.

I'm sorry but you sir are incorrect... It is not illegal to not carry ID, you are not required in the state in question to provide ID to an officer in this case. The same would true in TN except for the carrying part. Because all types of carry require a permit and we're required to display that permit upon request.

Yeah because that process has worked out so well... Care to tell me how many officers were convicted for breaking the law during the gun confiscations of Katrina? How about the people who ordered or authorized the confiscations? How many lawsuits have resulted in a single penny of actually damages being paid to the victims? Let alone punitive damages? How many people are still trying to get their firearms back YEARS after the city and state agreed to do so? The FACT is while some people did get there guns back, many just disappeared into the hands of the police who illegally confiscated them and will never be returned.... Since the police illegally did not provide receipts for the firearms they were confiscating (BTW yet another CRIME under LA law) many people don't even have proof their firearms were taken or which officer had done so... No public settlements have ever been announced, people are still fighting in court to get $500 in damages to replace a rifle take... NOBODY has ever been arrested of even charged... The DA didn't even form a grand jury to look into charging anybody. No offense but it's just as much of a fairy tale to say you'll get payback through the courts as you'll stop them on your doorstep.

Technically under state law you're not required to GIVE him your HCP, only DISPLAY it for him on his request. Also the key phrase to ask is "Am I free to go?", unless he has RAS that your permit has been revoked he is obligated to allow you to leave (and if you do this before he gets the idea in his head to disarm you in the first place he can't disarm you)... It does appear that the request for you to stay disarmed after you are discharged by the LEO is an unlawful order under state law. State law clearly indicates once you have been discharged the officer must allow you to be armed... Now there maybe a law that would kick in reloading in the middle of a public place, I'm sure some of the LEOs and former LEOs could comment on some of the ways you could be charged for that, but going to a bathroom stall and reloading or a changing room would likely not not open you up to said charges. Also, just to point out that if an officer has a problem with you displaying your HCP but declining give him the HCP, that technically under state law it's illegal for him to take possession of your HCP without a written letter from the Department of Safety authorizing him to do so.

Lets put thing in perspective here, the seatbelt law is an administrative charge not a criminal one, there is a big difference between the two. It's one thing to investigate criminal activity and need to disarm a suspect in a crime. It's totally different to treat administrative charges the same as criminal ones. That's like saying because there is a law against having leaves in your yard the enforcing officer needs to handcuff you for his safety when informing you of the violation, not racking your leaves is against the law, but is not criminal, and neither should be treated as such.

It's just not true that insurance companies are requiring posting of no HCP carry signs.

These types of incidents where officers disarm HCP holders is one of the reasons why some people argue not to tell the officer you're armed in the first place.

I believe the reason is not because it's only ran once every 4 years but because our checks are ran via the state and not through the national system like other states. I seem to recall reading this somewhere, but my memory could be wrong.

Or in this case not even a law, just the whim of a politically appointed bureaucrat....

Those businesses own their own land in virtually every case. And the mall can not post public roadways under 39-17-1359. So while a business may close all of it's land, the posting does not cover public roads and/or land owned by somebody else.

IANAL but here is my take on the questions, I'd always recommend getting legal advise from a member of the bar. 1. I'm not aware of any 'stop and identify' law on the books in TN (other than HCP holders obviously) - If somebody is aware of said statue please post a cite. Unless there is a 'stop and identify law' you are not required to answer any questions while being detained per a Terry Stop. In states with a stop and identify law, generally speaking you are required to provide your name and address (obviously you should check each states law to make sure they don't require additional information)... But all the information is subject to identification, you're not required to answer any other questions. 2. You don't ever have to LET a police officer search your vehicle, generally speaking if they believe they have RAS or PC to search they won't bother asking you, or they'll hold the vehicle while waiting for a warrant. If they ask 99.9% of the time you may refuse and they won't be allowed to search it. 3. Under TN case law, warrants are a different matter, they probably can hold the car for hours waiting on one... If you're pulled over for speeding, and the officer does not have RAS or PC to hold you on another crime... Terry Stop rules come into play, generally speaking they are not allowed to detain you for extra time to wait for the dog. For example, if it takes 10 minutes on average for an officer to write a speeding ticket, and he holds you on the side of the road for 45 until the k9 unit arrives, likely anything found will be thrown out... 4. Wiki lists 24 states with 'stop and identify' laws, clearly not the best source but it's a good place to start. Stop and Identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 5. Terry v Ohio is a landmark SCOTUS case which basically defines stops and frisks, when suchs stops are legal searchs and when such stops are illegal searchs. Basically a terry stop is whenever you are detained (the officer has not arrested you, but is preventing you from leaving). Basically it says that officers must have reasonable articulable suspension (RAS) that a crime is being committed, was committed or is about the be committed to stop and then search a person. Generally Terry Stops are limited to weapon searches for officer safety. You can read more about the case here: Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Again, I am NOT a lawyer, just a layperson who's job requires him to deal with the legal profession on a regular basis, I'd strongly suggest doing your own research.

You keep missing the facts of the law... First in NC open carry by every adult allowed to own a handgun is LEGAL. Therefore unlike TN, there is no crime being reported when you get a call about a 'man with gun'. This is an important difference. Switch the word handgun for basketball.... Because they had no more reason under NC law to find him carrying a basketball than a handgun. This difference in state law is what is key. As repeatedly pointed out NC does not have a stop and identify law, and as such unless the person is being detained under a Terry Stop, the officer should know he may not demand ID, according to the OP (and again assuming this version of the story is accurate) as soon as he was informed he was being detained he provided ID. I'm sorry but the first 2 strikes don't exist under NC law... As much as you may wish differently, NC law is clear on the subject. Now, you're right that if you did this 10 times you'd likely run into problems 1 or 2 of those times with officers who don't understand the law... but it doesn't change the fact that the officers in this case (again assuming the story posted in correct) acted in an illegal fashion, and overcharged the solider with a violation when he clearly did not meet all elements of the crime.

Maybe because he's not required to by law? You know, just because it's easier and you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you must comply with unlawful demands. He was under no requirement of law to show his ID and therefore he didn't...

States may have identify laws, that only requires you to give you name and address to the officer per current SCOTUS case law on the subject. It does not require somebody walking to provide an ID, only their name and address. As this person was on foot and not driving at the time of the encounter having a drivers license does not fall into the equation. If the deputy had waited until he got in his car and pulled him over on the side of the road he would have had a right to request ID. For the record, the solider in question (if we take on face value this account is correct) handled this almost perfectly... Because while states are allowed to request ID if there is a law on the books, they must be in the process of performing a Terry Stop to do so... If a subject is not 'detained' then there is not 'Terry Stop' and no requirement to provide ID to the officer in question. The solider in this case repeatedly inquired as to where he was being detained and once told he was, immediately provided ID to the responding deputy. As for your 'reasonable suspicion' claim, that is not true under current case law on the subject. A person may have a reasonable reason to not want to give out their name and address on the side of the street, and therefore refusing to do so would not meet the burden of RAS under current law. While the exact same might happen here, more likely since we have no lawful open carry without a permit, and therefore they can demand to see your permit if you're carrying a handgun. It doesn't mean that an officer can request to see your ID for no reason and then use that refusal as RAS for a Terry Stop. (Again with the exception in TN to carrying a firearm). If the posted account is correct it appears as if the deputy was in the wrong, and it appears as if he'll get away with it.

I'm sorry I am aware that the restriction is for only when court is in session, but felt that since this thread isn't dealing with the finer points of courtroom carry I didn't need to be that specific when using courtrooms as an example of places restricted by state law, obviously I should have spent 2 more sentences to properly define that law which was only being used as an example.

No, I said in a previous post that I would not carry nor point out the sign was not correct, but I did recommend contacting the CLEO requesting they provide gun lockers to law abiding citizens and asking who authorized the posting of the station, and would then contact my local council member to pressure them to revoke the posting. I think I've addressed the question and made a reasonable recommendation on how best to handle this type of posting.

Well the law currently allows local governments to post via 39-17-1359, but by default police departments and city halls are not off limits per state law. Some public servant has posted the site. This is a completely different point than say where it's illegal to carry into a courtroom which is clearly prohibited by state law. The difference between the two is HUGE, just like a business which chooses to post, we can and some would say should put pressure to remove the posting. Let me be clear I'm not recommending you carry into the PD if not posted legally, nor am I recommending that you act like a crazy person over it. But I do recommend if you live in LaVernge to write your CLEO and request they change their policy or provide gun lockers to law abiding citizens to come and go from city hall, I would then take the written negative response to your city councilmembers and press them to change the policy or take the hit for being labeled anti-2nd in any upcoming election. It's called pushing for change and there is nothing wrong with being a concerned citizen who complains about silliness. And I would document all of this to your state legislators as well, there *will* be a law coming up this next session to remove the ability for local parks to be posted, and hopefully it will pass, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if somebody inserted an amendment to remove all local and county governments from be able to use 39-17-1359 now would it? And for the record, where I live, I'm going to be volunteering my time to throw my bum of a house legislator out of office this election cycle because she voted against Restaurant carry (Harwell - R)... So I'm following my own advice. Also, I'm more than willing to work with any local group who wants help setting up websites to highlight anti-2nd amendment city and county politicians who need to get thrown out in 2010... Many have gone on the record for the first time as being anti-2nd amendment, and we should told their feet to the fire this time around.

Well my understanding of the law is if the place didn't have said lockers, then all postings where not legally biding. I'm all for that kind of enforcement

By using your logic, we don't need to carry in parks, or anywhere else for that matter because we don't need firearms to protect ourselves. How about we say this instead, my safety and the safety of my family is my responsibility and as such it should be my choice on what level of protection is need for a given situation not anybody elses? I don't have a problem with a private business posting, I feel they have private property rights and should be allowed to choose who can and can't come onto their property, and frankly the market allows me to do business with somebody else if you do choose to post. The problem here is that we're talking about a government entity which our tax dollars pay for, and they have a monopoly on the service they provide. We can't just go somewhere else and get service if they post. I also understand that certain areas need to be posted for all persons carrying a gun, and law abiding citizens should have the same options to store their weapon in a gun locker as the civil servant working there does.