JayC

And that just adds one more reason to my list of why I'd never want to live or visit Shreveport, LA.

The exceptions to that rule are very narrow, talking to a lawyer about a current lawsuit, and a few others, but they're not supposed to discuss or vote on anything behind closed doors. Under the law they're not even allowed to discuss or debate an upcoming vote behind closed doors. Although our Sunshine law doesn't have enough teeth (personally I think we need to make violating it a Class E felony), it does open up pretty much everything under the sun (including currently the HCP database).

All towns in TN require open door meetings with proper notice of the schedule ahead of time. It's part of the TN Sunshine laws. If this was truly a closed door meeting, then it would be a clear violation of the Sunshine law.

I'm not sure that is the case since state law basically says only when an officer has a DOS letter in their possession may they take the permit under state law. It does not make an exception for taking the permit as evidence, it sounds like unless the police had said letter they broke the law in this case. As for te guy who was arrested, sounds like an old man who the bank tellers took way too seriously... Doesn't sound like he was really making a threat.

I'm sorry his JOB may very well be important, and thus requires that we give him special treatment (security and a airplane paid for by the tax payers), but his LIFE is no more important than any other citizen of this nation... People may disagree, but he's just a guy that gets up in the morning and puts his pants on one leg at a time, and has no more rights, unless we changed forms of government and forgot to update the constitution.

I'm sorry but the President's life is no more or less important than that of any other citizen. There is no special revoking of citizen rights when the President is nearby in the constitution. You may not agree with what the guy did or how he did it, and that is your right... But he wasn't doing anything illegal nor was he making any threats toward the President or anybody else. He was carrying a firearm per the law NH as he should be allowed to do.

I'd email them back and see when and where this meeting will be, might not be a bad idea for some 2nd amendment supports to show up and attend (keep in mind under the TN Sunshine law this has to be an open meeting that they allow to public to attend).

A formal complain will result in the officer in question getting properly educated in the new laws and prevent him from mis-communicating official policy in the future, it's the right way to go, we're more than 60 days since that law went into effect, he should be in the loop by now. As for the special order stuff, that is for National Forrest Service controlled locations, not state WMAs (although there are at least 2 WMAs which happen to be on Forrest Service land). So if it's state owned land, then they don't have the ability to issue special orders you're talking about.

Other than domestic violence or DUIs, the only reason a misdemeanor should prevent you from getting a HCP is because you're currently under some form of supervision from the court (ie probation).

IANAL but under current TN law, if you know that a person has committed a felony or you witness the person committing a misdemeanor you're allowed to use reasonable force to detain them. (NOTE: I don't recommend this at all!) The law states that reasonable force does not include lethal force... unless it would be authorized under the self defense law. If you come outside and somebody is breaking into your car, I say feel free to confront them to stop them on YOUR property. If they turn and run away, let them run, and be a good witness for the Police. If they turn and move forward to attack you, protect yourself. It's not my job to catch the criminals, but I'm not going to sit around and let them break into my house or car either... Hopefully the sight of an armed man will encourage them to run away and pick an easier target.

That's great the President has all those people there to protect him... so who is there protecting me? The guy didn't make a threat towards anybody, just because he's there protesting doesn't require he give up his 2nd amendment rights under NH law. Or did I miss that section of the constitution that says revokes our rights when the President is visiting town.

The sign he was carrying referred to the Jefferson quote, but it didn't state the blood part of the statement, also keep in mind that the full quote speaks of the blood of tyrants AND patriots. The sign did not constitute a threat towards anybody, the interview clearly shows he was there to make a point about the loss of our rights under a federal system run a muck, the 'speech' in this case clearly falls into protected speech If people using registered handguns to kill people didn't get the NH law changed, I seriously doubt one guy standing on the side of the street holding a sign is... The reason people freak out over this is because they don't see people carrying openly on a regular basis... The guy didn't break the law, he was there legal to protest government action, he didn't advocate violence of threaten anybody... While I don't agree with the holster he chose to carry in, I'm not the fashion police either... so it was his call... If you went to one of the tea parties here, did you carry? What about protesting the income tax back 6 or 7 years ago? I did, and don't see anything wrong with it at all... how come protesting is somehow a special state where you don't need to be armed? or armed going to and from said protest? There is no special TN state law that revokes your rights when the President comes for a visit... and there shouldn't be.

I personally wouldn't wear a tactical holster and a gun openly... But exactly where does TN law state you can carry a gun most of the time except on private property (that you have permission to be on), when the some government official is going to be driving by later in the day? Again, what exactly did the guy do wrong? He should up carrying a legal firearm in a legal manner to exercise his 1st amendment right, while exercising his 2nd amendment right. He didn't appear to be acting in an unsafe or threatening manner on the video we all saw... Nobody got shot, nobody was threatened... I'm sorry but under NH law he seems to have been carrying in a legal manner, and while I would have chosen a different holster, I can't blame him for exercising his rights under the law.

I hate to say this, but you probably should call the state headquarters for the TWRA and file a formal complaint that the officer is violating current state law by prohibiting you from carrying in the WMA. This will result in the problem getting cleared up in short order (30-60 days). I've also spoken with the TWRA here in Nashville they indicated a letter had been sent out to all TWRA offices stating that HCP was now legal, my guess this guy hasn't read all of his email

That would be incorrect on the producing the permit on request. State law currently does not place any limitations on where they can ask you for your permit, so yes they can legally require you to produce your permit on your own property even though you don't have to have one to carry there. This is one of the laws that is poorly worded and hopefully we can get changed in the future.

She's not required to have a HCP to carry a firearm on her property under TN law... But the way the current law is written if she does have a HCP she is required to produce it (while carrying a firearm) when requested by a LEO (The current state law places no limits on this part of the statue) even if on her own property. As many others have stated for a lot of officers HCP in TN = probably a "good guy" and they tend to cut HCP holders some slack that they might not cut somebody without one. In this case it was probably a short cut for the officer to determine they were dealing with a good guy/gal. Nothing wrong with asking to see it, now if they had arrested her because she left it in her house, or some other silliness like that, then yeah it would have been wrong From the sounds of it a good encounter overall.

Fallguy, I agree common sense says that McD's isn't closed to carry because a school bus stops to eat there... But under the AG letter, the though process is there for somebody to claim it is closed to carry and we're breaking the law.. The current law is poorly worded and we should work to get this issue fixed, because somebody can easily say today that being in a public place during a field trip by a school closes the entire location to HCP carry. BTW, I do think my cross country team practice is much more of a concern, because how are you supposed to know until you see the team run by during practice?

It would be nice IF that is how the law is written, but it's not. The 'use' listed in the current law does not limit it to a contracted use, it just says "use". If the AGs letter is correct and that the use of a public park by a School Board (you'll note it didn't say anything about a contract being in place with the local government) then their use of any other location also carries the same limitation. And where does that use end? Does the cross country team practicing in an otherwise 'open park' close it to carry? What about running along a street into a 'greenway'? Does a school visiting a public zoo close it to carry? If so what part of the zoo is closed? What if a school visits a state park as part of a class field trip, how is that different than using it for football practice? And before you say I'm just making stuff up, I know for a fact that Vandy's cross country team runs all over West End and through a number of the parks there... And you'll note the language of 39-17-1309 states colleges just the same as a school or school board. This law is poorly written IMHO and could be used to make up a charge against an otherwise law abiding HCP holder... I'm not even in agreement of posting schools and their property to begin with, let alone giving them the ability to create 'no carry' bubbles in otherwise lawful places to carry.

I don't disagree it would be hard to get a conviction... but the law is currently poorly worded to allow "floating" bans on weapons carry where people can't be expected to know about it, but still could be technically breaking the law. The law needs to be changed before some prosecutor gets a wild hair up his butt Just remember convicted is bad, but only slightly more bad than a not guilty verdict to your pocket book j/k

+1 while there currently isn't case law on point, there are similar cases which have allowed the question to go to the jury, so it's very likely that you'd be allowed to argue that posting and not providing the needed security was a form of negligence to a jury.

The issue is not to take away an owners right to post his property, but to make them liable for their customers safety. If they choose to post, and a visitor is injuried or killed due to their posting and not themselves protecting that visitor, than the law needs to hold them accountable... 39-17-1359 should state that any location that has posted is liable for the protection of visitors to those locations and to/from the parking lot of that location, if injury, or death occur then it is negligence on the part of the location that posted, and the person or their estate should be able to recoup actual damages and say 100x punitive damages for said negligence. And impose that restrict on both private as well as public entities (ie local and county governments). Trust me, the number of locations you'd see posted would be as rare as an albino deer if we pasted something like this.

If the AG's letter is correct you'd be wrong... It appears to apply *anywhere* in use by a school board, or college board. So yes, in theory if they show up a McD's, you'd be breaking the law. We need to continue to work to remove these silly laws.

Not sure if that site is still correct, for example they state loaded magazines are not allowed, but I'm pretty sure long gun carry does counts on WMAs?

Welcome to my world... I've been trying to get an official answer and copy of supposed General Order prohibiting carry for almost a month now. Maybe if enough of us call and bug them they'll get their act together.

The Montana law requires the AG to defend any citizen charged... But, the solution to this problem is very simple, add an amendment that removes federal employees police powers in TN when dealing with any case covered under the Firearm Freedom Act, and make it unlawful (Class A felony) to attempt to take anybody into custody... That will solve the ATF problem really quick... We (TN citizens and legislature) allow this problem to grow and fester inside out own state... All we have to do is change the law to no longer give federal employees police powers over certain sections of the law, and the problem disappears.