JayC

It would be a major fix to the 'roving felony zones' we have today in TN.

This bill would do nothing to protect the lady who mistakenly turned into NJ.  

None of my business, but might I encourage you to think about leaving money to GOA...  Remember it's GOA that blew the whistle on the NRA sitting down with Biden to work on language for new gun control after Sandy Hook.   Larry Pratt and the GOA have a much better track record, dollar for dollar for supporting no new gun control, only repeal of existing bad laws.   I'm a lifetime NRA member, something my grandfather bought for me when I was born, my daughter who is not yet 4 is a lifetime member as well, something her grandfather bought for her when she was born.  Every time the NRA calls me for money, I politely hang up and write a check to GOA instead.  

Broken clock is right twice a day, about time Holder did something right...

Don't need to fix it, it completely violates the TN state constitution, just need to get rid of it completely.  

TICS has a false positive rate twice that of the national background check system...  It's nothing but a make work project...  oh yeah and is unconstitutional under the TN Constitution.   File the appeal form, roll your eyes and then turn around and call your local legislators and demand they get rid of it.  

I was only commenting on why the AG released a letter stating the convention center wasn't covered under 1311, because if it was ever determined to be covered under 1311, because the state is part owner, it would prohibit posting via 1359, and via 1311.   I'm not trying to say it is or isn't a civic center or other recreational building... that probably came up, because to the best of my recollection the council vote on the Music City Convention Center may have mentioned the words civic center for use by the public as well as other things ;)   My point is, 39-17-1311 is an often overlooked law, lots more stuff fall into it other than swing sets and walking trails...  plus often folks running the parks departments don't even realize they may share ownership with another 'legislative body' and therefore can't legally post under 1311.   And yet again is another argument for doing away with the opt-out for 1311 altogether...    

Somebody would have to go track down the city councils (or metro parks) approval of each greenway and see exactly how the land for the greenway was approved.  My bet is nobody at the park department could tell you one way or another.  You'd have to go back and read a bunch of meeting minutes to find out ;)  

Start with 39-17-1359f:   So lets hop over to 39-17-1311a     39-17-1311b1 provides a list of people not impacted by 39-17-1311a, we're interested in 39-17-1311b1H     So buildings on property used for civic center's or 'recreational purposes' can't be posted via 39-17-1359, they must be posted via 39-17-1311 and that only works if the all the legislative bodies who own or operate the 'park' in question approve the ban 39-17-1311d.    

Different park...     ParcelID: 14100007400   Here is a link to Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0754152,-86.9605372,17z   Link to the Metro parks page: http://maps.nashville.gov/NashvilleParksFinder/default.htm?parkID=169   As you can see, the state owns the land, but Metro runs it.  39-17-1311d seems to require the state legislature to approve any posting under 39-17-1311 since it's owned by the state, not Metro Nashville.   My guess is if we started digging, there are going to be LOTS of other parks that have these types of problems, and make posting them under 39-17-1311 difficult or impossible.    

Bellevue Park, which use to be Bellevue State Park, until Metro took over managing the property...  but the state didn't transfer ownership it seems.      

On what charge?  Freedom of speech?      

There is a reason to be concerned about 1311, IF the building falls under 1311, it is partly owned by the state, and therefore the city can't opt out, nor can it be posted under 1359.   In cases where the 'park' is owned by 2 or more subdivisions of the state, both must pass resolutions prohibiting carry under 1311, except where one of the parties is the state, there is no method for the state to opt out a 'park' under 1311, they'd have to change the law...  a bill you'd never get through the current legislature.   There are a LOT of parks that are partly owned by or receive funding from the state government, that probably fall into this 1311 loophole.  I know of a metro park in Bellevue that can't be legally posted because the state owns some of the land it sits on.    That is why the AG probably an opinion on the convention center.  

So they know how to use Google?  Nothing I've seen video wise indicates properly trained.     Two of them leave their vehicle, engage a police officer, once the police officer is down, they both go running up on him.  Neither of them moving with their weapons up, or at the low ready.  Neither covering the other, or watching for other threats...  No bounding, no use of cover...  They both hop in the car and drive off...   Unarmed populace, and lack of response from the police...  I suspect if these guys had come under fire, they would have folded in a hurry, it doesn't appear they had the training to fall back on for a firefight with an armed victim.  

I'm going to get down voted for this, but the news is reporting that 3 french police officers responded, saw the terrorists were armed, and ran away from the scene.   My grandfather served in WWII in Europe and his opinion of the french was very low, he always said he loved the french, best source of never fired, once dropped rifles.  I guess sometimes stereotypes are true huh?

I agree completely...  I thought you were talking about handguns, not long guns.  But, you're right any minor who is legally operating a vehicle, seem to be able to carry a loaded long gun.  But, we can't give HCP holders the ability to carry on college campuses, or in the administrative offices of a school board which contain no students...  None of which surprises me.    

While the current 'guns in cars' law does open up some very interesting loopholes, it does not allow minors to carry loaded guns in their vehicle...  39-17-1319 governs all handgun carry by minors, and other parts of 39-17-13xx don't apply per 39-17-1319e.   In some cases minors have more ability to carry loaded firearms including handguns with parents and/or property owners permission.   For example, if you don't have a permit you're not legally allowed to carry a loaded handgun on your friends property, even with their permission...  but if you're a minor and have the property owners permission, and permission from your parents, you can legally carry a handgun on their property.   Another great example of stupid loopholes...  lets say you own a business in a mall that is posted legally under 39-17-1359, it might well be illegal for you to carry a loaded firearm in your own store with or without a permit (no case law on this yet exists), but it's perfectly legal for your children to carry one because 39-17-1319e exempts juveniles from 39-17-1359.   And lets not forget the wonderful 39-17-1319d1e - which is basically a carry permit for juvenile's as long as they're accompanied by their parent or guardian ;)    

Is the current law really protecting us?  What is the cost vs risk of going back to the old method of selling firearms?   Crazy people and criminals can still get guns, current gun laws do very little to stop this, but cost law abiding citizens a lot of trouble/money.  False positive rates are more than 70+% in most cases, and the true false position rate it likely even higher than that, probably 90+%.   It currently costs 20-25 million dollars to gun owners for every criminal/crazy person convicted for trying to purchase a firearm illegally...  And it's likely that number is much much higher once we look at all the ATF regulatory paperwork manufacturers are forced to complete on every firearm.   Why not just get rid of it all and live with a few more incidents of gun crime every year?  

TICS goes down every time NICS goes down because they won't give a full approval until they get a clear NICS check.   TICS has a MUCH higher false positive rate, and a much higher cost per purchase than the federal NICS check.     It's nothing but a make work department that does nothing to protect TN residents.   Finally, TICS violates the TN state constitution, because the constitution only gives the legislature the power to regulate the wearing of firearms, not the purchase or possession of said firearms.    

In this case, never any children taught at this building...  it is an administrative office building which only houses staff employees for the school district.  Also probably clouding the water is the fact she showed up for a 'working session' of the school board as an elected commissioner having oversight over the school board and the schools.   And while this case is bad, the law is so poorly written that if you're sitting in a restaurant carry your pistol... and a group teachers walk in use the backroom for a meeting, you've just become a felon too.  If a cross country team stops at McDonald's on their way home, automatic felon for anybody carrying in the restaurant.   We should all use this case as an example of how bad laws can be applied against otherwise law abiding people, and work to change the poorly worded law.   Clearly not the sharpest knife in the draw, otherwise she would have gone to the Sheriff and gotten a 'special deputy' badge for helping him out (wink wink) on some budget concern...  then she would have been a law enforcement officer carrying on school ground ;)  

If you're sitting somewhere with a firearm, and you might be committing a felony...  I'd make the officer perform a search, because you may well win that motion in court...  you for sure aren't going to win the motion if you give them permission to search or tell them you are committing a crime.   Bad law, so this charge might just force the legislature to change the law..  nobody should be getting charged for being in a 'school zone' if there are never any students present.  

That's not what the law says.   39-17-1351t allows an officer to disarm a permit holder, it places no requirements on the permit holder at all.  I agree probably you can't resist their attempts to disarm you...  you probably can't lie to an officer because that would probably be obstruction...  but you're under no obligation what so ever to confirm or deny if you're armed, or help the officer in anyway shape or form under the TCA 39-17-13xx.   39-17-1351t:  

You realize the building in question isn't a school, that no students are ever at this building under any normal circumstances?  No classes are taught there, it only houses administrative staff members, support services, vehicle repair etc?   I've been complaining for YEARS about the poorly worded gun free school zone law here in TN, and this is a perfect example of it being abused just like I said it could be against anyone of us.  People know not to walk into a school with a gun, but what about a church on Sunday or a government office building that happens to house some school board employees?   Hopefully the legislature will act this time and get rid of these roving felony zones that follow not only school children around, but teachers and staff as well!    

They can only ask to see your permit, there is no legal obligation to answer whether you're armed or not under TN law.    

True... nearly touches, but doesn't ;)