JayC

I didn't follow it that closely.... One of us probably should look that up, because it's a nasty law that should have never been passed... Trust me, my new mission in life is to make sure Rep Harwell doesn't get re-elected to any office.

I think it's worse than that.... The stupid law that Rep Harwell was pushing I believe passed and is now law... If it is, not only do you loose your HCP, you must turn ALL your firearms into the local sheriff... Rep Harwell needs to go, she's no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

The general order at LBL uses the permit language under Federal law to close the park to anybody with a firearm unless they are in possession of a TN Hunting permit and meet all the requirements of said permit. They are not using the public safety clause, but something to do with protecting wildlife clause to require a permit. It appears to be above board as far as Federal law goes... And it's my understanding the language was required by the TWRA as part of the WMA funding LBL gets from their department. Although that was relayed to me by a Ranger/LEO at LBL and not provided in a document. In theory the TWRA could get that language removed pretty quick if they wanted to.

TSSAA is a private corporation... not a school board... I'm not aware of any federal law, but state law still bans carrying in parks which are used by a school board (a whole list of college and education type boards). My guess is that the park is only closed to carry while the school board is using it, but the law isn't completely clear on that fact.

It's my understanding that any range which receives any federal money must allow the use of the range by the general public. I'll see if I can find said federal law... very few local ranges ran by the police department haven't taken some form of government grant relating to their range.

Keep in mind that it is probably still illegal to carry there since they don't have a restaurant liquor license but one of the fancy 'other' licenses... So even if not posted it's probably a no go because of liquor sales.

Nest session (Jan/Feb 2010) at the earliest.

Trust me, people who run these places and are posting aren't posting wrong to allow people to carry. The vast majority just don't bother to read the law, and think that a handgun with a slash sign will prevent people from legally carrying in their restaurants... The vast majority of these business do not have the require no illegal carry sign required by the ABC law up either.

A very small fraction of restaurants are a member of THA, including both locally owned and chain restaurants... It would be like us saying every gun owner is a member of the NRA, when we know only a small fraction are.

I don't think anybody is saying a number of departments around the state do go above and beyond in their training... But I know for a fact that the majority of smaller departments here in this state do not do anything more than yearly 'target practice' for their uniformed patrol officers. They may only shoot 100-200 rounds a year from a firing line at targets... I'll even point out that the shooting course that we do to qualify for the HCP was similar in the basic requirements for yearly qualifying for officers in a number of small departments around the state.

If they serve liquor they are required to be open at least 4 days a week... I'm curious how many businesses aren't open 5 but do have a liquor license... I suspect very few.

The only stats I've ever seen on the subject involve police officers and the vast majority were in uniform when they were targeted and/or had their weapon taken from them. I don't think there have been enough cases of plain clothes officers and HCP holders loosing their weapons to make anything from the stats at this point. Common sense says you're a bigger target, but the problem with common sense is it's often wrong... I'd like to see some real stats on the subject before stating for a fact it puts you at greater risk.

The paper does count as a HCP until you get your new one in the mail.

AG 08-26 was a long shot theory at best, some of the theories the AG uses in that HCP holders are now a protected class listed in 39-17-1311 and then the legislature approved a state wide exception for the intent to go armed in 39-17-1307e for HCP holders involving long guns... It weakens his argument IMHO... I'm curious to see if there is any case law where somebody was charged for carrying an unloaded firearm in their vehicle under 39-17-1311a... Or if all the charges have been under 39-17-1307... The best bet is to get the language in 39-17-1307e added to 39-17-1311 in the next session to remove this issue, since everywhere else in the state you're allowed to transport a loaded long gun if you're allowed to carry a handgun.

Ok, I'm very likely wrong here, but here is my logic... 39-17-1311 A states: 39-17-1302A states the following: Now, I don't see a regular rifle or shotgun listed there... It's always been my understanding that you could carry an unloaded firearm in your vehicle into a state park unless you handled said weapon. That 39-17-1307 was the law that prevented the carry of a loaded long gun anywhere in the state.Since it's now a lawful purpose to carry a loaded long gun in a vehicle if you have a HCP it doesn't appear that 39-17-1302A8 is being violated. I'm probably wrong... But I don't see where 39-17-1311 prohibits carrying of a standard loaded rifle/shotgun in your vehicle on a state park, and since 39-17-1307 allows you to 'go armed' with one now, it would appear if the rifle was left in your vehicle it does not violate current state law... Is there an error in my logic?

I suspect they have a general order almost exactly worded like the one for LBL... I'm still bugging the crap out of the Rangers office to get a copy of said order, but they have claimed twice now one does exist... But getting the same story out of the people answering the phone is next to impossible, one day they tell me it's against state law, the next they tell me it's against federal law, the next they say they've posted a general order but don't know the number... Just a general run around from them on the subject.

I'm sorry but I open carry a lot, the vast majority of time I end up open carrying anymore... It's summer and I don't want to wear layers of clothing to conceal carry, or the business attire I wear doesn't allow for me to conceal carry the firearm of my choice.... Why should I be forced to go unarmed instead? I'm not breaking the law, it's alot safer to have a gun with me openly than to be caught without one when I need it. I understand *some* people think it puts me at a tactical disadvantage, but I believe the disadvantage is less than if I'm caught totally unarmed. Just because I don't want to wear and untucked shirt, and look like a slob I'm not allowed to defend myself? How exactly is it asking for trouble? Very few criminals come into a place of business to rob it and stick around for 10, 15, 20 minutes before the start the hold up... The chances you might notice me openly carrying besides you after an hour, pretty high, the chances a bad guy is going to notice me in the 30 seconds it takes him to walk up to the cash register, very slim... And lets say he does notice me, it's just as likely if not more so that he turns around and picks another place to rob, because opening fire on an armed person is a lot harder than moving down the road to the next pizza joint that doesn't have somebody with a gun in there... Sure there are risks involved in openly carrying a firearm, you need to be a bit more on your toes, you need to worry about retention of the firearm more (I for example carry a level II retention holster when openly carrying)... But the facts are in most environments I carry in, local McD's, Lowes, WalMart, etc there is little risk a gang banger is going to run up on me and try to steal my weapon... If I go into a high risk area I know to conceal (or better yet just not go)... Why should I have to leave my gun in the car/at home just because my style of dress doesn't lend itself to concealed carry? Maybe if more of us openly carried, business owners would realize that a lot of their best customers have permits and wouldn't worry as much. BTW, I've NEVER been asked to leave a business before while openly carrying, I've never even had anybody say anything about it... I've never even had an officer ask me a single question (let alone to see my permit) even when standing in line at a restaurant in front of a group of officers. Maybe it's the way I dress, maybe it's the clothes I wear, maybe it's the way I act, but people rarely even notice the gun on my belt, and when they do nobody says anything to me about it... YMMV I'm sorry but do you avoid restaurants where police are eating because you're worried they might be targets of robbers? They're a lot more likely to open fire to stop the robbery, and are much much more likely to hit an innocent person in the process (nationally about 5 times more likely than a permit holder).

If you mean on your person walking around, I agree the answer is no, still illegal. But, if you mean in your car, the way the current law is worded, it would seem the answer is yes that would be allowed.

While not skinny like you, I have a similar issue, I wear tucked in shirts because of the business I'm in and all day long I'm in and out of the car... I've been dressing like this since I was a teenager, I'm not going to change my mode of dress (and can't IMHO because of my business)... but I'm not going to allow myself to go unprotected... So I tried all the fancy holsters that allow you to carry with your shirt tucked in, all were very uncomfortable sitting down or riding in a car (your mileage may very on this fact)... I'm sure for some people they work as intended but I found myself just not carrying because those holsters were so uncomfortable... So, I started out with a simple IWB holster and just left my shirt tucked in, and it was reasonably comfortable, and very few people ever noticed I was carrying... but it was a pain to take on and off when I needed to go in somewhere and not be seen carrying (business which is posted, or for a business meeting where people might get the wrong impression)... So I slowly moved over to an OWB Blackhawk Serpa CQC holster with a belt adapter ($30 ish), and just carry open... I've found that people just don't notice me carrying and it's better to OC and have a gun than to CC and not... It's much easier to get on and off, and with the Level II retention I don't have to worry as much about somebody coming up and taking the pistol out of my holster... But there are still those times I can't carry open, I carry a pocket pistol (Keltec 380 in my case) in my back pocket, with modern 'sticky' wallet style holsters pulling the gun out isn't as hard as many people think, plus again a 380 in your pocket is better than a 45 in your truck when you need it. My recommendation is don't change the way you dress to carry, because you'll find yourself leaving the gun at the house or in your car way too much... Try IWB carry, if it's comfortable go with that 95% of people out there will never notice you're carrying... If it's not comfortable wear OWB and just OC if need be, again most people won't notice, and while tons of people will make arguments against it, the truth is it's better to OC than leave the gun in the car any day of the week. For those times you must CC find yourself a small pocket pistol (380 or 32 if you like autos) and wear it in a back pocket as a wallet, again a pocket pistol is better than nothing.

Is it possible it could have been an off duty officer or an officer in plain clothes? Keep in mind the law allowing them carry went into effect already... But, I'm not surprised nobody noticed.

Nobody would ever try to rob you in the parking lot, or break into your car and steal your carry gun though would they? I'm sorry but I understand asking permit holders to leave their guns in their holsters or that it be unloaded with the slide locked back, that is a reasonable request. Requesting that I disarm in order to come in and buy something, I wouldn't do business with anybody else that did that, I'm for sure not going to do business with a gun store which does.

It was detainment under the law, no question of that... A friendly detainment but still detainment... Clearly the encounter as described was a Terry Stop which is a form of detainment under the law. I think it went as well as expected... Younger permit holder, after midnight doesn't surprise me the police responded the way they did. Mu only suggestion would be next time not to put ideas in their head about calling the manager to have you kicked out... I'd just inform them you are legally carrying under state law, and leave it at that... No sense in giving them any ideas on how to kick you out of the business...

I disagree, some local parks will be open to carry... which is better than no open parks... Also, it helps identify people at the local level who up until now have been able to claim their pro-2A but have proven they're not really... These local officers are normally won or lost on a couple of hundred votes... We now gave the ability to rate and publish lists of anti-2A officials...

I canb't find the article where they stated charges weren't filed, but I remember the case and he wasn't charged..... As for treason, you're right technically there isn't a threat of bodily harm, under our law it's the except, and I'm not sure treason would be considered a forcible felony under TN state law, although I could be mistaken.

Any forcible felony is going to fall into the reasonable bodily harm/death category.... That is going to include (but not limited to) things such as: Kidnapping, Murder, Manslaughter, Sexual Battery (Rape), Home Invasion, etc You're not going to find a jury in TN who will convict a women of murder/manslaughter when she kills somebody who was in the process of raping or kidnapping her... You'd probably have to look long and hard to find a DA dumb enough to even charge the crime. Here is a perfect example: As you can see from the above news report, bad guy didn't have a weapon, and no charges were filed against the man. Also keep in mind that a threat of bodily harm does NOT have to be said verbally by the attacker... For example me holding a handgun and telling you to "give me all your money" is a threat of bodily harm and/or death, even though I never say "or I'm going to shoot you"... The same would be true if you were holding a knife, or baseball bat, etc... The bad guy doesn't have to tell you speak the threat for it to be real...