Falcon1

No, because the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states. Welcome to the wonderful world of "selective incorporation," where American citizens do NOT have the rights a plain reading of the Fourteenth Amendment says they have (at least to me--it defines citizenship, for goodness' sake), but only those SCOTUS says they have. Many people far more sophisticated than I am say that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly doesn't say that. Of course, you know from whence the term "sophisticated" comes? Source: Sophists [internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Veto overrides have a form of privileged status. They can be called at whatever moment the sponsor believes to be most opportune. They don't need to be on the calendar for that. It's actually a good thing. BTW, I'm anxious, too.

Because rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court never has, under the selective incorporation doctrine, incorporated the Second Amendment against the states. SCOTUS has incorporated the First, the Fourth, the Fifth....

This might be a good place to look for information: ColtForum: Home Good luck!

Voted Yes. Current results: Should Gov. Bredesen's veto of the guns in restaurants bill be overturned? Yes 47% No 53% 1126 votes I know it is unscientific, but if we do not win it, it will be used against us.

To update this, see post #16 here: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/21971-police-chief-concerned-firearm-groups-e-mail-2.html#post289164

This was posted at TFA Online: Well said, professor!

Assuming the governor's veto is overridden, I will only carry in an establishment that meets all of the the criteria listed above in bold type. Do that, and you will be legal.

I have found the AG OP which makes it illegal for one to do so off-duty (99-024: AG 99-024), but I don't see anything about on-duty carry. Is there another opinion? What am I missing?

I emailed my state representative and state senator yesterday. Since my representative has never deigned to reply to any correspondence I have sent him for one-and-a-half terms, I also sent a copy to Representative Bass. My letter: My reply from Senator Tracy:

Sorry, I was distracted while making the initial answer. If I feel that they are threatening my life in the original instance, I would have already used my firearm to stop the threat. If they weren't and were running away, I'd be dialing 911, not making a citizen's arrest.

Like most things, I think it would depend in large part upon the prosecutor....

Call in "man with a gun" call to MPD from the pay phone down the street? Make sure no cameras are watching. DO NOT really do this...it was just something to contemplate.

Now he is whining that TFA is trying to intimidate him : Police chief raises concerns over gun group e-mail Erik Schelzig/Associated Press Originally published 03:23 p.m., May 29, 2009 Updated 04:09 p.m., May 29, 2009 NASHVILLE - The Tennessee Firearms Association is seeking to publicly identify each law enforcement officer and prosecutor who attended Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto of a bill to allow people with handgun carry permits to take their weapons into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas said today the move could be seen as an effort "to chill people's rights to speak their opinion." John Harris, the Firearms Association's executive director, asked supporters in an e-mail to examine images of Thursday's veto ceremony, and to post on the group's Web site the names and employment details of those who joined Bredesen. Harris argued that by appearing in uniform at the ceremony, police were trying to give the impression that "somehow their opinion is more important than the opinion of elected legislators." See remainder here: Police chief raises concerns over gun group e-mail : State and Regional News : Knoxville News Sentinel So, now he is monitoring websites? :D

I'm not trying to jump into the middle of this (but I guess I am--sorry ), but this caught my eye. If a citizen does this when not legally justified, isn't it normally called "assault with a deadly weapon?"

I own an Interarms PPK/S and carry it frequently when I need something smaller than my EDC.

I just saw over on TFA's forum that, with regard to the parks bill, somehow wording was inserted that allows the locality to opt out by resolution--one reading. From the TFA Forum (by the executive director): Those of you who watched, do you know what happened?

However, if the national law is written such a way that it states that state laws will apply (as this "credit-card" legislation does), then state law is indeed a factor.

Yes, I believe (IANAL) that that is essentially correct. I think in order not to risk arrest, it would need to be termed an "affirmative defense."

Well said, and so true. Have you noticed how so many of our "movement" and "opinion" leaders have never run for an office they can win?

Streets and sidewalks....JK.

My mistake...I was certain that there was a provision in TCA (not necessarily in Chapter 39) that did prevent it....

My gut feeling is that you are correct...on this issue, it costs the least political capital of any of his three options.

It could still be interpreted to be an offense under Subsection b (the felony). As I understand it, after talking to a Tennessee constitutional lawyer (and a very active lobbyist in the legislature for firearms laws), the problem is that there is no definitive definition of "intent to go armed" in Tennessee Code Annotated. What he has advised me to do when I go onto a school campus to pick up my child is to lock the unloaded firearm in one safe and all of the ammunition in another locked container before entering the campus. Even this may not prevent prosecution. This particular code section is really a mess. I too am a public-school educator, and as for a faculty member carrying on a campus, I would still call that a definite no-no for the time being.

But remember, NOT in Tennessee until the parks carry legislation passes that specifies "national parks."