JayC

Minor speeding is NOT a criminal act, it's an administrative violation.  Big difference.     Second, any officer who believes all HCP should be disarmed during routine traffic stops are clearly violating 39-17-1351t.    It also does not explain why some officers with no probable cause or even RAS are running the serial numbers on all the firearms they come into contact with, and by doing so creating a backdoor computerized database of firearm owners.   I'm much more concerned about the second practice, than officers occasionally abusing the disarm law...  but because it's the disarm law allowing them to run the serial numbers, either that law needs to be strengthen, or removed from the books altogether.   Although I'd be happy with a simple addition to 39-17-1351t requiring officers to document every disarm and the reasonable belief that lead them to the disarm under penalty of perjury.  No reasonable officer should have a problem with documenting their belief officially each time they take the step to disarm a otherwise law abiding citizen who is not under arrest.  As long as there is a criminal penalty (at least a class E felony) for failing to document the disarm or violating 39-17-1351t.  And yes I think a class E felony is the correct charge in a case like this since it would be an abuse of power under the color of law.   Again, the bigger issue in cases like this are the running of the serial number which creates a backdoor gun registry.     

  While they don't take every case, in most cases where federal courts have decided similar cases differently, they tend to take a test case to fix that.  With the NY case saying there is no right to carry a weapon outside your home, and the IL cases saying there is a right, it's unlikely that SCOTUS will not review one of these cases and make standard case law across the entire country.   It might take 2 more years for a case to get to SCOTUS but I suspect it will happen next year.

  I've been saying you're wrong on this subject for 3 years now, and I think this ruling tends to prove it...  You're talking about the same court that stated 4 years ago there was not right to own a firearm let alone carry one outside your house.   While Heller and McDonald fell way short IMHO, it's clear the ground work has been laid to force the issue of carry... SCOTUS will now be forced to take this issue up in their next term since you have conflicting case law... and they will rule that carry outside the home is a right.   While it's likely that permitting will survive, it's unlikely that states will allowed to treat carry as a privileged and not a right, even TN.  I'll give perfect example, permits being revoked because of payment issues with child support, are likely to be ruled unconstitutional in TN.  Since the state will not be able to meet the 'strict scrutiny standard' that lack of child support payment removes a natural right.   Will states like IL and NY continue to play games and try to get around court ruling, sure...  but they are loosing all of the follow on cases.   This is a major victory if some a left leaning court finds there is a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, and places the burden for denying that right on the state not the law abiding citizen.

  That is not my take on it at all...  It disagreed with the opinion from the New York court, and laid out the grounds for a more strict scrutiny under the 2nd amendment.  But they said they don't have to address that since it's clear the current law is unconstitutional.

I'm sure that will be the first game plan, but follow on cases will start to peel back more and more of the red tape.  They're going to have to craft new legislation with an eye towards strict scrutiny it would appear if this ruling stands.

  Hmm so much for 'states rights' if the 7th is ordering this...  This is the same court 4 years ago that said the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states.     If this ruling were to stand it's a huge deal:   So much for the argument that carry would be left up to the states....  At this point SCOTUS will have to take up the issue of carrying of arms, and if the 7th's is ruling this way it would be very unlikely that SCOTUS would not claim there is a right to bear arms outside th home.   If it stands this will impact other states as well including TN, since the cost of our permit is way too high for a 'right'.

[quote name='tennessee01tacoma' timestamp='1354846809' post='856208'] He identified himself as being with the national park service, I'm guessing that's federal. [/quote] Yeah, I'm curious if he's also sworn as a deputy in TN, if not it would appear he may have violated the law by disarming you, since 39-17-1351t only covers state, county and local police officers. Not that it really matters, just pointing the apparent issue with the disarming... I'm not sure I would personally classify this as a positive encounter, but then again I've never been pulled over and disarmed.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354818413' post='855941'] Good story. I can't say that the homeowner following the guy out of the house was a smart move...pretty dumb actually when you consider all the possible consequences, but I'm glad they caught the guy. Thank God for stupid criminals! [/quote] Different state, different laws... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy Texas doesn't play around with self defense laws... It's very dangerous to be a criminal there, TN should take a lesson and toughen up some of our property crime laws to allow the use of deadly force... We'd see a sharp decline in crime if we did.

[quote name='razorback2003' timestamp='1354842698' post='856152'] we have had two years of not having the parks situation fixed, fine signs, and schools and we elected a republican supermajority this fall. The parking lot deal is an easy thing to change. We sure aren't getting rewarded for a super majority republican legislature. [/quote] Why pass laws when you can wait until you're the minority again and reuse the 2nd amendment as a wedge issue The party doesn't support the 2nd amendment unless it serves some political purpose. Stop electing RINOs

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1354814554' post='855902'] Run the list of University Officials that are HCP holders or who have some sort of police or bodyguard protection and out them for hypocrisy. People love to out hypocrites. And the educators often hate to have their names in the media when it makes them look like fools, which they often are. Hammer them, hammer them, hammer them. They are not your friends and never will be. Students usually don't like them, and if they've put political pressure on legislators, a lot of the legislators won't like the University Officials either. At the very least, you find out who their protectors are, and then target them. It can't be the entire legislature. I'm not saying that wiser heads would not disagree with points such as these, just that options are explored or explained why they're not options. I really don't mind getting shot down with the facts at the disposal of WorriedMan and others. I'm just looking for an "over, around or thru". [/quote] Better yet, start with public record requests for an email sent by a state university employee involving HCP permits... I believe it is a crime to lobby legislation while on the job for the government... I bet there might be some rather embarrassing emails you might find.

[quote name='EB-SF' timestamp='1354842162' post='856147'] It's all about being able to define "reasonable fear" in court. I can sit on the stand and produce 100s of cases where LEOs were shot and killed. I can testify that I had a reasonable fear that that gun COULD kill me. No court in the land will disagree with how "I" perceived the situation. [/quote] Well it's not reasonable fear that the law requires... it requires a reasonable belief that disarming is necessary to protect the officer, or other individuals. I contend that an officer can not have a reasonable belief that disarming is necessary for all permit holders. That if they hold such a belief it is no longer reasonable and therefore the disarming is no longer lawful. Clearly if a department has a policy that all permit holders will be disarmed, that doesn't pass the smell test for a reasonable belief under 39-17-1351t. If there was a criminal penalty for violating 39-17-1351t, would one be able to charge and convict this park ranger, very unlikely... But it sure would be nice to have some balance to this bad law, in case an officer does go overboard and clearly violates this law. Or even better yet, remove the disarm part unless their is an arrest altogether. If an officer is fearful of a permit holder who hands them a permit without being asked during a traffic stop, maybe they shouldn't be on patrol anymore... Permit holders just don't pose a serious risk to officer safety.... TN Permit holders are convicted of felony's at about the lowest rate of any group out there... lower than police officers, lower than members of the military, lower than the population as a whole. I'm not saying there is never a need to disarm, that there can never be a reasonable belief... but clearly this law is abused today a lot, and if the choice is between continued abuse, or prohibiting officers from disarming altogether, then I'd side with doing away with the law altogether.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1354807132' post='855852'] Please point me to the disarming law you are talking about. Also, every single person in the state who has a firearm on them, HCP or not, is breaking the law. Dolomite [/quote] TCA 39-17-1351t [quote][color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when [b]the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals.[/b] The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.[/size][/font][/color][/quote] While it is true we're violating the law even with a permit [u](which is another topic that we should be pushing for a single word change in the TCA from defense to exception[/u]), this law drastically limits the ability for the officer to disarm a permit holder, compared to a non-permit holder found with a loaded firearm. So, explain to me how an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm every permit holder they come across? Unless the officer has that reasonable belief every time they disarm a permit holder, they are acting unlawfully. I contend that departments who have a policy to always disarm permit holders are acting unlawfully, and most likely officers who disarm all permit holders are likely acting unlawfully as well. But, you'll notice there is no criminal penalty for violating 39-17-1351t, which is part of the problem. Just another question to the OP, was this a federal park ranger? Or a state ranger? I'd be curious if they are somehow cross certified as TN law enforcement officers, because if they aren't (federal park rangers), then they would appear not to be covered by 39-17-1351t.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1354802046' post='855808'] People loose their minds all the time. Just because someone has a HCP doesn't mean they won't flip out and do something rash. We have read about it dozens of times on here where a HCP holder does something stupid. And as an officer if they can do something to prevent injuries to anyone it is a good thing. Think about it. A HCP holder flips out and pulls his gun on the officer. The officer responds and kills the HCP holder. Who won? No one because one man lost his life and another has to live with taking that life for the rest of his life. The families of both will suffer for the rest of their lives. The officer and department will get sued. Especially if the officer knew and did not disarm the HCP holder. I know it would weigh heavily on me if I did not do everything in my power to prevent conflict. Dolomite [/quote] But this just isn't happening... You could pull somebody over and an 8 foot tall bigfoot covered in hair could jump out of the trunk and kill you... which is about as likely to happen as a valid permit holder is to shoot an officer during a traffic stop. The big problem here is, we don't know how often officers are disarming law abiding citizens, and nothing happens... There are no penalties if the officer breaks the disarming law, which appears to be happening on a regular basis. At the very least an officer unlawfully disarming a permit holder should be a criminal offense. It would be nice to require that every disarming be documented under the penalty of perjury stating the reason the permit holder was disarmed. Clearly a SOP (standard operating procedure) to disarm all permit holders during traffic stops would not be lawful under current state law, yet it appears that some officers and possibly some departments have such a policy. But, lets pretend there is such a rash of officer safety concerns that some permit holders need to be disarmed... why on earth do the serial numbers of their firearms need to be ran? This is [u]creating a computerized gun database[/u], and we should have laws (with criminal sanctions) preventing officers from running serial numbers on firearms unless that have probable cause the firearm in question is stolen.

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354770535' post='855608'] TN law gives him the right, and the reason is his call. - OS [/quote] Lets assume he's quoted accurately in the OP... It would seem the 'reason' stated does not meet the definition of the law. Because it makes me 'uncomfortable' is not a lawful reason to disarm a HCP holder under state law. IMHO it appears to have been an illegal action under current TN law, unless the reason he gave isn't the real reason he disarmed this otherwise law abiding citizen. Just another incident where this bad law needs to be repealed... HCP holders are not shooting officers, it's just not happening, there is NO REASONABLE OFFICER SAFETY ARGUMENT to disarm a permit holder unless the officer in question is arresting the permit holder. It's great that his park ranger was courteous in his unlawful activity, but it doesn't change the fact that he didn't have a reasonable concern that justifies disarming the OP.

My point is... it's unlikely for the scrap metal company to be the FFL, so an FFL would have to transfer the firearm to the scrap metal company, which would require a TICS fee (clearly unconstitutional) for each firearm... That the cost of the TICS fee, and the paperwork would likely be much more than the scrap metal value of the firearm itself. [quote name='kckndrgn' timestamp='1354234444' post='852605'] An FFL holder would not have to pay the TICS, as my understanding goes. When a FFL transfers a firearm only the receiver pays the TICS, not the FFL holder. In this down economy I don't understand why PD's are not selling these guns, just think of the revenue it would generate? Guess they'd rather pad the books by writing speeding and seat belt tickets. [/quote]

[quote name='vontar' timestamp='1354148082' post='852134'] Jayc, you nailed it. I was going to say something about FFL transfer but you went well beyond what I was thinking. [/quote] Yeah it just doesn't make sense... How on earth do you get enough scrap metal out of a gun to cover the cost or running a program like this? My guess, the firearms are likely kept in a warehouse somewhere... probably costing taxpayers a lot of money.

I'm guessing that isn't happening for these reasons... what can the average firearm bring as scrap metal? Who is the FFL that is doing the massive transfers to them? How can they afford all the paperwork, and the $10 per firearm they would have to pay for TICS? If they are selling the firearms to Steiner for scrap, how did they get the contract? When was the bidding announced, and why didn't a local gun store outbid them for the parts and working firearms alone? I can't imagine that scrap metal pays as much as even crappy guns turned in would sell for in a local gun store. There is an easy enough way to find out, head down to MPD and ask to review any contracts and emails between MPD and Steiner-Liff in the last 5 years... All of that would be covered under TN's Sunshine Law... Note ask to review, not for a copy... they can't charge you to review public records, only the cost to copy them. [quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1354112505' post='851858'] Would it be a loophole if MPD is selling them to Steiner Liff who then shreds them? Metro PD isn't doing the detruction themselves and I assume they get money based on the weight of the metal just like anyone else taking stuff to Steiner-Liff. [/quote]

I don't see a loophole for a buy back program... If Metro PD is taking custody of the weapons, they can no longer destroy them under current state law as I read it. They can be used for law enforcement purposes or sold, period. [quote name='vontar' timestamp='1353972453' post='851010'] [url="http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/sep/26/stacey-campfield/campfield-claimed-memphis-destroy-guns-buy-back/"]http://www.politifac...-guns-buy-back/[/url] [b] [url="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB2376.pdf"]*HB 2376[/url] by *Shepard ([url="http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=%20SB2334&GA=106"] SB 2334[/url] by *Jackson)[/b] ' Keep reading on the link above It sounds good early on, but they might have a way out of buy back guns. I still say, they should at a bare minimal. have to run the serials and try to find stolen property before destroying any. [/quote]

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353784875' post='850125'] Maybe I should have worded that a bit different. I will still stand by my statement of the doors being locked or not. If they are locked they forced entry. If the doors are open not so much. Now I am not saying you cannot shoot, you just need to be more careful about it. I am also not saying they are not trespassing as they would be, but that does not constitue a forced entry. Shooting in the back I should have added more. In general it's a not a good option. Saying this because you can use deadly force against a threat, once someone turns and runs they are no longer a threat. However given the right situation yes absolutely nothing wrong with it. [/quote] You need to go re-read TN law on forcible entry... People have been charged and convicted of forcible entry for merely opening a door that was closed, but unlocked. The same would be said of opening an unlocked (or broken window) and climbing in... they are all forcible entry. Walking onto a covered but open porch is not forcible entry... See the difference? Again, TN says that somebody who forcible enters your house is assumed under the law to be a there to cause death or serious bodily injury... The DA would have to prove you knowingly shot somebody who wasn't a threat and were not in fear for your life... Could it happen sure... how likely? We're much more likely to see snow in May here than a DA go after an otherwise law abiding home owner. Have you seen some of the cases in TN where DA's have refused to charge citizens who used castle doctrine, or stand your ground? If somebody breaks into your home, and you shoot them, and you're not committing a crime at the time, you have little to fear from most TN DA's.

[quote name='Glenn' timestamp='1353769122' post='850015'] I see why it is confusing. You can use force to protect property, just not deadly force. Exactly what force can you use? If you punch someone in the nose, they might die. If you threaten to whip their butt for stealing from you, and they produce a weapon, can you then use deadly force or would you be considered the aggressor? [/quote] IANAL, but here is my understanding of current TN law. First, the stand your ground law in TN requires that you not be committing a crime when you use self defense. If you see somebody breaking into your car, you have every right in TN to confront the criminal, and use reasonable force (but not deadly force) to stop them from breaking into your vehicle (house, barn, shed etc)... If while you're legally confronting them, they turn and produce a weapon, and you're in fear for your life (or serious bodily injury) then the stand your ground law would apply to you, not the bad guy. There is some question whether threatening deadly force to stop a property crime is legal under current law, there are a number of cases where people have done so, and not been arrested, but it's a grey area at best, one that could land you in jail for a long time.

[quote name='kcb37' timestamp='1353750337' post='849969'] I would agree the way I understand/interpret the law it is that your life/or anothers life must be threatened to use deadly force. I believe what you are asking get's into the castle doctrine. Howeve in Tn, basically in your house if you have the doors locked and someone gets in, your in fear of your life. If the doors are unlocked and they get in, no different then being at Wal Mart. Either way shooting in the back is a no no. As you can only shoot at a threat, once they turn and run they are no longer a threat and one shot can mean jail. [/quote] This information isn't correct... 'forcible entry' is opening a door, even if it's not locked. And your information on the shooting people in the back is incorrect as well... Not that I would suggest shooting people who are clearly running away... but the law assumes somebody who breaks into your house is there to do you harm, if you get the drop on them inside your house and end up shooting them in the back, it's no different than shooting them in the front as far as the law is concerned.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353681634' post='849749'] I can offer you a few thousand real cases; everyone who currently works for Nissan, FedEx, Bridgestone/FIrestone, Gibson and I'm sure many, many other businesses; I'm fairly certain there are people "on this forum" who work for one of those employers or another employer who either as a matter of "policy" or "posting" or both, reach out of their headquarters (often headquarters in states outside of Tennessee) and forbid their employees from having an unmolested firearm inside of their locked vehicle. [/quote] I'm not aware of a single person forced to work at any of the above businesses... They go to work at those businesses willingly day after day knowing that they are disarmed while at work. They are choosing to place their job with this company over their own security... that is a choice they're free to make... not something they're forced to do. [quote] And have you not seen the signs at the entrances to the parking lots of entire malls and other stores that would make me criminal if the tires of my vehicle touched their property even though those very same malls and stores depend on my $$$ to survive? Do you not know those situations exist? Do you not think thousands and thousands (at least around 300-400 thousand in Tennessee) are affected? [/quote] I have, and you know what I don't shop at those malls anymore... and there isn't a single product they sell that I can't buy online or elsewhere that isn't posted (most often cheaper). I'm not forced to do business with them. If they rely on your (and my) money to survive and we take that money away... then they will be replaced by businesses who don't post. As for 39-17-1359 I've said all along if you can get a bill submitted that repeals that law in part or in whole I'd be there with bells on walking the halls of legislative plaza pushing to get that law passed. If you want names, just read the Memphis paper since they publish the names of HCP holders. You say that's not how laws are supposed to work...would you like to explain the Constitutional and legal theoretical basis for that assertion rather than just make the assertion? I suspect you make the assertion simply as a diversion because that's a lot easier than showing the harm to the business since there is no harm from these laws. And again, until somebody can show me harm to a permit holder, where the holder is not willingly choosing to disarm then the law serves no real purpose other than to remove a right that business owners have today because the permit holder can't be bothered to make tough choices.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353638369' post='849635'] Oh an by the way, I have no dog in this legislative fight - I'm not personally affected by this bill one way or the other. I'm in favor of seeing it become law because I believe it's excellent public policy. [/quote] Ok fair enough... Find me a single test case then... There has to be a single person on this forum who can't have a firearm stored in their vehicle at work, and they are forced to be unarmed. You say show you the harm to the business... and I say that isn't the way our laws are supposed to work... We're supposed to allow people (even the people who run businesses) to be free unless their is a strict need of the community that can not be solved any other way. So show me a single person that is being harmed by not having this law passed... Show me a single adult that is forced to disarm at a private business... If there are such people, then this law might make sense... [b]but I contend you can't find a single case.[/b] This is a law to make a special interest group (permit holders) to be able to avoid making hard choices about their safety and their income, and has nothing to do with freedom.

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353642095' post='849660'] It is not just owners being able to be armed, they can also designate others to be armed, if they are charged with security. That person need not have any training, just the designation of a responsible person by that business owner. As far as I am concerned that violates the Constitution. Your earlier comment "No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership." is incorrect. [/quote] Hold on, first armed security guards are highly regulated by the state.... and the provision in the law you're described was repealed as part of the restaurant carry legislation. Which was a more strict version where booze was served by the drink than 39-17-1308. That's been gone for 3+ years, and all that stands now is 39-17-1308 defenses (plus a couple of defense for minor children armed in a business in another section of 39-17-13xx that I don't recall off the top of my head). [u]The constitution does not regulate the behavior of private individuals, it regulates the behavior of the government. [/u] So what a business owner does with limiting firearms carry is no more a violation of the constitution than when they limit your freedom of speech while on their property. But, you don't like the defenses under 39-17-1308? Why should I as a business owner not be able to carry a gun at my business just as I can at my home without getting a permit from the state? Why should I not be allowed to give the same privilege to others who work for me if I so choose? Is it because of the lack of "training"? We don't have firearms training in this state as part of the permit process... We have corporate welfare for shooting ranges and firearms instructors (as well as the NRA who certifies the vast majority of instructors)... Much less than 1% of the people who take the permit class fail it, that is not a training program, that is a warm fuzzy feeling and waste of people's time and money to get a privilege from the state and serve no real purpose in whether a person is able to defend themselves or not. So tell me again, how I as a business owner is somehow regulating firearms and differently than you as a homeowner is?

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353632704' post='849586'] That is an erroneous statement. Under the present TCA Code, sans a notice posting against it it is permissible for a permit holder to have their weapons in their vehicle. The owner or controller of a business can in fact decide and post against the ability to do so, not only that, they can legally arm those on their premises who otherwise could not legally be armed. [/quote] I'm all for repealing 39-17-1359, I'll go out and walk the halls at legislative plaza with you 2 days a week if that is the bill we're pushing. But, as for owners being able to be armed on their property... why on earth would we not be for that? How is their business any less important to them than their home? So you're now against the ability for a business owner or law abiding adult from being able to arm themselves in their place of business without paying a fee to TDOS for the privilege? That sure sounds very anti-2nd amendment to me, I can't believe you meant to say that. But, business owners have enjoyed also complete control for setting conditions of entry to their property for since the founding of this state. I don't think the solution to this issue is to remove that right, since in virtually every case permit holders have other market based solutions available to them and they refuse explore those other options. I also think we could just amend 39-17-1359 to only include buildings, not parking lots, and I'd be all for that too.