JayC

There are other PD's in similar proximity to Nashville that aren't posted. I respect needing to make areas where prisoners or persons of interest are being held off limits to both LEO and HCP carry for safety, but the lobby of the police station and city hall isn't any more dangerous to carry than any public business IMHO. At the very least they should provide a gun locker so the public doesn't have to go to and from the department unprotected. (I seem to recall a state recently proposing or passing such a law, maybe we need to look into that in TN).

Would be nice if we could get a VT style open carry law passed here.

No loss there, seats are uncomfortable, $10 per ticket, and I can't pause the movie when I need a restroom break or my wife asks me a question... Just about anything is better than getting dragged to a movie theater.

I'm sorry but LaVergne isn't a urban department, it's a small town of about 30,000 people that happens to be close to Nashville, suburban at best.... There are other PD's with similar distance from Nashville who aren't posted... It's a smoke screen to say some don't need to but others do... The TRUTH is that the risk of a HCP coming into the station and shooting people is no higher in either case.

It is, but it's not a special building prohibited by law. They are choosing to post not doing so because it's the law. I'd cal the Chief and ask him how you can get service from your local police department without having to go unarmed to and from the station. Ask them if they're willing to provide a gun locker to law abiding citizens who happen to carry under state law. Also writing the local paper would be a good idea as well.

You say that but last night I saw a news report that Stimulus 2 is in the works... Bigger and Badder than Stimulus 1 I'm not positive they won't try to push through some of their more liberal agenda if it looks like they'll loose control in 2010.

What exactly would be the charge he'd take you to jail on? Or the RAS he'd hold you on the side of the road for? Refusing entry to your locked house or car is not a crime in TN, only if you physically attempt to prevent the officer from searching. Simply refusing to help the search through inaction does not violate TN state law. He very well may be able to hold your vehicle while he waits for a warrant, but he'd have no RAS or PC to hold you during that time. It would be annoying to sit around and wait for the search warrant, but it's very unlikely that the officer would be allowed to place you for that long of a period of time in this backseat unless he was arresting you because it clearly falls outside the restrictions on a Terry Stop. Like it or not there are severe limitations on what can be searched and when for police officers, and the vast majority of the time the police rely on you not understanding your rights and the law to get around those restrictions by allowing them to do stuff they can't do on their own under the law.

Yeah, I replied as I was reading through the second page before seeing Fallguys post.

That is incorrect, here is the language from the TWRA website: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - FAQs This is part of the changes made during this session in the legislature.

Almost correct, if you're HUNTING with the weapon it must meet TWRA standards in both caliber and barrel length, and you must be hunting within season and you have a valid license for the game. BUT if you have a HCP on land where you're allowed to carry, (private and state land - keep in mind that Core, TVA, and Federal Land depends on other regulations/laws) any handgun as long as you do not or attempt to use it to take game - unless it also meets the above standard. So, short answer, if you're using it to hunt it must meet TWRA standards, if you have a HCP you can carry whatever you want just watch out for certain 'gray' public hunting areas. While the law currently says you can not carry answer firearm during bow hunting, the published statement from the TWRA specifically states you are allowed to carry a handgun with a valid HCP during all hunts including (by name) bow hunting.

That is not exactly true... Under state law they may take a weapon in your possession, I seriously doubt a Judge is going to see a weapon in a locked car with an officer between you and said car as in your possession under that law. I can't find any case law on point with a quick search, but it appears as if officers are prohibited from searches for officer safety in the case of a locked car and other items in this state. Personally I'd make him break out the window and argue to his Chief and a Judge how it was a lawful search after I file a federal civil rights lawsuit against him and his department.

That is with a HCP.

Me too... this is just one of those laws that drive me nuts, makes me wonder what the legislators were smoking when they passed this one.. But then I remember in all likelihood they didn't even bother to read it.

Dave, I'm sorry but I have to disagree on a number of points... First, rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are supposed to be protected by the Constitution... It's a very fine point but it's a critical point. As for the contitution changing, I agree, can you show me the amendment that changed the 2nd amendment? Jurisdictional review was not part of the Constitution and while it's one of the oldest violations, it is still a violation (not that we'll ever get rid of it now). Second, I can believe that the 2nd Amendment does now restrain all levels of government (due to the passage of the 14th Amendment) while still allowing states the right to refuse federal regulation of firearms over intrastate commerce... Neither views contradict the Constitution or my fundamental views as you would have suggested. One is a questions of how the 14th Amendment impacts States the other is a complete end run around the 10th via the so called Commerce clause exception. Third, I disagree that we may not see an end to this silliness in our lifetimes... If you had asked somebody living in B'ham about school integration during the 40's they would have thought you were crazy that SCOTUS and the federal government would force the issue and enforce it, but hey look at us 60 years later... Now the question is which side of the coin it lands on, and that is a question that should scare us. Here is the problem... a number of people are happy to just go along to get along... They've got the ability to carry a firearm to protect themselves, why push the issue? Why push to have the 'right' we all believe is granted to us by our Creator to be restored in the great state of TN? Why rock the boat? We've got the privileged why should be be bothered to fight for the our rights or the rights of others? Many are happy to concede their principals for the short term gain of being granted a right wrapped up in a neat package and price tag as a 'privilege'... The problem we have in the pro-2A crowd is that too many of us are willing to compromise our rights because we're not impacted by the clearly unconstitutional laws (both the TN state and Federal Constitutions) on the books, because we're happy to pay for an 'exception' to these laws... The fact is we can impact this fight, we just have to choose to do so.... We should draw a clear line in the sand, virtually all gun laws currently on the books violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution or Section 26 of the TN state constitution in some way shape or form. And while it may take us decades to repeal or address them all of these laws we should. The fact is that any law-biding citizen should be allowed to purchase and carry any firearm of their choosing for self defense any where any police officer is allowed to carry. Anything less is both a violation of the rights we have been granted by our Creator, and protected by the Constitution (both federal and TN state).

Not in TN, different state laws... I'm sure you can find somebody who open carried in NYC that got arrested too, doesn't mean anything to somebody living and carrying in TN.

I agree that maybe parts of the business isn't off limits, but hard to argue the entire dining area isn't since it's generally 1 big room. As for the City Hall and Library again I think you could argue some of it might not be off limits, but as you also stated the AGs letter doesn't provide clear cut direction, which means it's a risky to be anywhere in the park or business which is occupied by a school sanctioned activity. I would argue that students, teacher(s) or other employees using any place in the state for a school-sponsored event would render all or part of that location off limits to legal carry. You'll note that the AG letter doesn't indicate solely the presence of children, or even students but all school-sponsored events. As for your normal patrons logic, while I agree that is the way it should be, how are students using a tennis court not normal patrons of a public park? Them using the tennis courts for practice does not stop you and I from using a tennis court right next to it at the same time, they are no different than you and I as patrons of the park, the only difference is it's a school-sponsored activity, and there is the problem with the current law. As currently written if the AG opinion is correct, any activity that is school-sponsored renders the location a no-carry zone (in part or whole is determined on a case by case basis - which is a very scary thought)... Here is another example... if a teacher takes their students to a park, to play on the playground we can all agree according to the AGs opinion at least part of the park is closed, if the same teacher takes their students to a McD's or Zoo and allows the students to play on the playground, then again part of the location is closed to carry... The type of activity has no limits under the current state law, only if the activity is school sponsored or not and my bet is most people would argue all stops on a school sponsored field trip ARE part of the school sponsored activity... Not sure I'd want to try and argue the opposite in court. Also, this has a much greater issue than people realize, because this exact same law applies to more than just K-12 students, but all persons involved in sponsored events from any school, college, university or private educational institution... So, when the Vandy cross country team runs through the state park as part of their daily practice, part or all of the park is closed to legal handgun carry. How about an even crazier part of the law, lets say you have a marksman group from JROTC at the local high school come to the range for the day to practice, while the firearms being used by the instructors and students would be legal, all other firearms in use at that range while they're there would be illegal under current law?!?! And while we're at it, it could be any group from any public or private educational institution that could trigger this law... Sure the likelihood of being charged and then convicted would be minimal, but if you had asked me 3 years ago if a guy would get sent to federal prison because of a weapon malfunctioning and firing 2 rounds I would have laughed you out of the room. My point is the law is absurd and clearly needs to be changed. Call me crazy but I honestly believe a DA could make hay out of this and at the very least cause a HCP holder to spend a lot of money defending themselves.

I'm sorry Fallguy, but using the statement from the AGs letter: Clearly any school sponsored activity at ANY location is use under this logic and therefore HCP holders would be in violation of the law. While he talks only about parks, the law clearly does not limit itself to parks, but to ANY place in USE by a school. (Also note this covers use by colleges and universities as well not just primary and secondary schools). Clearly if the school shows up at a park for 'field day' or a class picnic it would be covered under the currents AGs opinion, and since the law isn't limited McDs or Publix would also seem to be included according to the logic the AG is using. It's a bad law and needs to be changed.

As the law is written today, yes.... If they show up at McD's you'd have to get up and leave. Also, worse if a college frat shows up at McD's for a 'school sanctioned event' you'd be in violation of the law as well... Or show up at the gold course to play a round of golf. It's a bad law that needs to be changed.

If they require or request a 1359 posting as part of granting a new license, that would be a violation of state law. The law covers currently issued permits, renewals, and new permits.

If you're a smart business owner, you request everything in writing from the beer board. That way when a problem comes out you can pull out the letter to keep from getting you permit revoked.

Total BS, the liquor board nor the beer boards can require you to post to get a license (If they are it's a violation of state law)... One of 2 things, 1. They want to post but want to blame somebody else for it, or 2. They are mistaking a requirement to have a sign somewhere near the bar that states that it's a misdemeanor to have a firearm (which HCP holders are exempt from if not drinking) with having to post at the door. Either way, they're incorrect. There is no requirement to post.

I'm not sure case law would agree on that... I seem to recall TN case law prohibiting evicting based on owning a firearm for protection. Doesn't mean they won't evict you, just means you likely can sue them and win if they do. IANAL

Most likely under current state law that would be considered threat of serious bodily injury or death. If the situation was a justifiable self defense situation you should be okay. Technically if you weren't legally able to shoot said BG it would appear you've broken the law in TN. Now, the truth is, it's very unlikely you would be charged if it was a true BG, but as always you'd want to be the first to contact the police... If you were charged the *likely* charge would be Aggravated Assault under the state law. Obviously this is just a laypersons opinion on the subject.

There is no law in TN against 'brandishing a weapon'. There are laws if you threaten someone with a weapon (directly or implied), or pointing a weapon at somebody, probably could get charged with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct if you're waving it around. But there is no law which prohibits brandishing.

That would be a negative the way TN law works... They are in two different sections and no clue how the courts would go about interpreting those statues. A perfect example of this is the can't carry in parks AG letter, the part blocking carry didn't mention handguns, was passed before HCP carry, yet the AG still interpreted the law to not allow carry in parks because that was a separate section of the law. (And most here believe a judge would probably do the same). Point being is that if 2 sections of the law contradict which is old is not automatically thrown out.