JayC

Yes, but the real question is how much of this 'stuff' really needed to be made into law.... From where I'm sitting very little...

Nope, it got rolled until tomorrows session.

Lets hope they don't roll it for some reason... lets get this over with.

I agree, it looks like they're doing everything tonight... I think that was the entire reason to have a quick committee meeting before resuming at 6pm... although I could be wrong. From watching that meeting, it sure smells like they're trying to do everything tonight and get out of town.

Are they going to do any work today?

1305c2 only covers places which serve... not all business... 1308a3 covers a much broader list of places you can legally carry... You're place of business is a much broader area than the limit in 1305c2.... for example ownership or control of the place of business is not a requirement under 1308a3.... It appears that this covers all employees of a business since the business is their place of business.I'd also suggest (probably wrong) that 1308a4 covers carrying a firearm a another persons house or business with their permission. But, that little phrase seems to be disregarding in a number of other laws.

The ABC has determined the following part of the law: Means 50% of your sales must come from food, to be eligible for a state restaurant liquor license. While there are hundred's of different types of liquor licenses... (Mostly for friends who couldn't meet the 50% rule)... There are only a few general kind of licenses, Bar is not one of them... For a for profit business all require the 50% food sales rule to qualify for the liquor license.

I disagree, the shall issue states don't view carry as a right, the view it as a privilege and do all sorts of things to trample that privilege... Shall Issue was a nice stepping stone, but VT style carry should be the end goal. They can offer a license for those of us who want to be able to carry out of state, but anybody who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry said firearm anywhere a law enforcement officer can. VT law isn't completely gold standard in that respect, but it's getting pretty close compared to TN. At the very least, unlicensed open carry of any firearm should be made the law of TN.

To keep it from getting stolen from the car, or saddlebag of the bike? I don't think self defense is the primary concern of the question.

I wouldn't walk around there in daylight without a firearm let alone at night... Less than a mile from the Belmont campus it's a very very bad part of town.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf Looks like carry is allowed in PA National parks. You can read more on PA carry laws at the link above.

Yes because everybody taking the HCP course is a novice shooter who is just learning how to shoot What about those shooters who use the threat focused shooting method? More importantly, for the TN HCP you're just trying to see if they can hit the target, it seems that how ever they plan to carry is how they should be encouraged to qualify. This is like saying you should be forced to quality with a revolver before moving onto an automatic pistol, because revolvers are more reliable. PS> For the record I don't even own a laser for any of my pistols

The signs are at the entrances to the building the last time I was there... not at the entrances to the parking lot... If that is still the case, then you can leave the weapon loaded in your vehicle, just can't carry it into the terminal.

Yeah, I'm not sure the parking lot if covered... I think it's only Federal Buildings... I could be wrong.

ND and Maine both offer non-resident carry permits for 18-20 year olds. It's my understanding the ND is the easier permit to get. While this non-resident permit IS recognized by TN, it's only good for non-residents. But it would allow you to carry in a number of states... If you have the option of changing your residence to another state say, GA, then the permit would be good here in TN. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/northdakota.pdf There is the PDF for more information. Again, the permit would NOT be good for a TN resident, but would be good to carry in a number of nearby states, and if you changed your residence to another state, would be good for carry in TN.

Fall, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one... I can't find the law which states TDOS shall issue you a drivers license... I think we're talking about apples and oranges here personally. How can it be the intent of the legislature that if you're convicted on a Class A misdemeanor the law requires that TDOS re-instate your permit once you're no longer being 'sentenced', but if you're convicted of a lesser crime, or even if TDOS determines you've violated 1351 - 1360 in a non-criminal way you can loose your permit for life? As for the judicial review, from my reading you're not allowed to give evidence they only review what the state considered in revoking the permit... Also as an administrative hearing the rules of evidence and what is and isn't adminisble are a lower standard than that of a criminal court. My argument is that state law requires TDOS to issue you a valid permit within 90 days unless you are prohibited under the law, and the status of a previously issued permit is not listed as one of the reasons to deny the new valid permit. As such I think TDOS would be required to issue even if they revoked your permit for a non-criminal violation under 1351 thru 1360 rule. I suspect that we will see in short order whether this logic is correct or not... I'll drop this entire line of argument so as not to further hijack the thread.

There is no good reason, but is it reason enough to punish somebody with being on a sex predator registry for life? Is taking a leak drunk in an alley way the same as raping a little kid? Because under these laws it's the same offense.

I agree, I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't headed down this road, as it's much cheaper just to re-take the class and file a new application than it is to pay for an hour of a good lawyers time. I'm also aware of a recently (was at the time) former police department employee (non-law enforcement) that claims their permit was also revoked without any charges being filed or arrest being made... I'm cruious just how hard it is to get a permit revoked via TDOS... I suspect a written complain is likely all that is needed.

Fall, I wasn't including your statements in my reply... I agree that it's a grey area, but I'm aware of 2 separate cases where somebody didn't have charges filed against them but did have their permits revoked... I suspect if we did some digging that we could find more cases where law enforcement didn't file criminal charges that would have resulted in a person being unable to keep or maintain their HCP but because of reports and/or requests to TDOS have resulted in the permit being revoked. Now as for carrying without a permit, which from my understanding is that would be a Class C misdemeanor which would not in and of itself result in you loosing your permit (since from my reading only Class A's and felony result in suspension or revocation)... So the *only* way you loose your permit in that cases is for TDOS to revoke under the 1351-1360 rule. Again I suspect that if kb4ns wanted to push the issue and filed a formal notification with TDOS the forgetful person would see their permit suspended or revoked over the matter... And my argument is that a revoking under that (even after appealing the ruling) is not a lifetime ban. You look at what little Belle Meade had to send in to get a certain persons permit revoked (which wasn't even a violation of 1351-1360) I suspect their default policy is if a department complains, revoke. The point I'm making is that under the law, a HCP is the bit of plastic they give you to carry, not the note in the TDOS computer system. The law clearly indicates you must return that bit of plastic when so ordered to do so by TDOS. And then you have this bit which is the part of the law which I think requires TDOS to give you a valid permit (the bit of plastic) unless they have a reason to deny under the law... 39-17-1351 And here the law defines the permit as this: So again the permit is not the record in the system, but is the DL sized card you're issued. Revoking or suspending the permit, requires me to surrender the permit to TDOS, and therefore I no longer have a permit.I understand the argument folks are making that what matters is whats in the TDOS computer, if they issue you a permit but then mark it as revoked in the computer system, bad things happen (whether it's truly revoked or not police officers go off of whats on the screen not whats in your hand). But again, if you revoke my permit, for a violation of 1351-1360 which is not part of a class A misdemeanor or felony arrest or conviction (or pre-trail diversion etc)... I return my permit, how can TDOS deny my application for a new permit? How are they not required to give me a new permit under 39-17-1351 section l? I suspect that the max length they can suspend your permit would be until it is due to expire, and if they didn't it might prevent you from having a permit for up to 4 years... I completely agree that this would be a problem trying to apply for a new one while your permit has been suspended for a limited time. But, if TDOS can revoke your permit for life for a minor infraction in 1351-1360 which results in a not being charged, or a non-serious charge (Class C or B misdemeanor) then I say there is something wrong with the system that does need to be changed. It seems to me that if you're revoked the cost of taking the class and re-applying is a reasonable punishment for such a minor infraction.

Guys, you're so missing the point I'm making.... We're a SHALL issue state, and TDOS can only deny your new permit application for a short list of reasons. (Note that fact that your HCP and DL have the same number isn't required by law, it's something TDOS does because it makes their life easier). You guys are focusing on the computer system TDOS uses, and not the law. I don't disagree that their computer system will state something... but the status in the computer system is not listed as a reason they can deny a new application under the law. The argument you're making is that somebody at TDOS can revoke your permit, and even though the reason your permit was revoked doesn't prevent you from owning a firearm or getting a permit you'll never be able to get a new one? Again, I'm not saying you wouldn't have to push the issue in court... But the law is very clear on the subject, we're a shall issue state, and a past violation of 39-17-1351 - 39-17-1360 is not listed as a reason to deny a new permit application (Unless the above violation also happens to be a class A misdemeanor or felony for which you've been charged and/or convicted of). Here is a perfect example of what I mean, kb4ns pulled a guy over without a permit in hand, if he wanted to he could have forwarded that to TDOS and from all indications they would could have revoked the HCP... Now that guy who forgot his HCP permit is revoked for life? For something that is not even a criminal violation? If TDOS can suspend or revoke a permit for life, and once that happens you can never get your permit back, seems to fly in the face of the law, and it's something I think we should campaign to fix personally. But, I suspect the truth is TDOS would not have a legal leg to stand on if they revoked your license, and then denied your new application. I agree with Fallguy, a limited time suspension would be more problematic, but the out and out revoking of the permit I think would open the door for somebody to reapply. Again, we're splitting hairs here, the truth is it's a major legal grey area and I for one have no interest in getting my permit revoked this way to test it

I'm betting his argument to the legislators isn't allow residents to carry on non-resident permits, but more if you can legally own it, you should be able to legally carry it (ie, either no permit or lower the permit age to 18). I've heard a rumor that even the Speaker has stated he would support Vermont style carry so it might not be out of the question.

I'm not disagreeing on the computer system side of things... only asking where they have the authority under the law not to issue you a valid HCP if you re-took the test, and had no criminal charges which would prevent you from being issued a permit. The DL law gives them all sorts of listed ability to prevent them from having to re-issue a new DL to a suspended driver, all of that appears to be missing from the HCP law. The point I think we're making is, the way the current law is written, if they suspend or revoke for something other than a disqualifying reason, re-taking the class might force them to issue you and new valid HCP, then your status in their computer system is NOT listed as one of the reasons they can deny you a permit. Again, my guess is they'd deny you the permit and force you to take them to court... and who knows what a liberal judge will say... but it doesn't seem in a shall issue state that TDOS would not be allowed to long term suspend your permit for a non-disqualifying related offense.

I'm curious exactly what law the TDOS would use to prevent re-issuing a permit... remember we're talking about a possible loophole here... Also keep in mind that the law which covers DL's suspensions is completely different from the law which covers HCP's. TDOS suspends your permit because you carry illegally under this provision.. 1. The resulting 'charge' is not enough to prevent you from holding or getting a HCP. 2. The fact you're HCP is previously suspended is not listed as a reason TDOS can deny you a permit under the law. 3. If there is no criminal record, and no statue which prohibits issuing a permit TDOS is obligated under the law to issue within 90 days of receiving an application. If all the above is correct (And it appears to be the case), other than playing the "Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public" how does the TDOS deny the permit application? I'm not disagreeing with you they wouldn't attempt to deny the application and force a show down in court hoping you'd just give up... I'm just saying if they revoke your permit, and you don't have any record that would prevent you from re-applying, it seems under the law they are required to issue you a permit. If I'm wrong, please provide a cite to the part of the law I overlooked.

Depending on the agreement the lawyers signed... the judge could order them to pay as well.... Recent ruling in a mp3 file sharing case where the attorney is partly responsible for the judgment against his client.

Correct... that's why I'd picked a state near by... like Alabama or something... Seeing as he can't buy from a FFL to begin with... my guess is he's already solved the legally getting a handgun part before working on the how to get a permit part