monkeylizard

  Thermonuclear Detonator?

In context, the HP layoffs of 30K people was during the dot-com bubble bust. It was about 20% of the total HP/Compaq workforce.   HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger with Compaq. Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. A total of 148,100 workers. During the merger was when the 30K workers got their pink slips. When Fiorina left HP in 2005, their worldwide employment was 150,000.

  she, not he.   battleop was referring to Carly Fiorina's time at HP, and is repeating an attack made by our dear friend Barbara Boxer.   The 5 (not 1) private jets were purchased by HP, not Fiorina personally. They replaced 4 aging jets that could not keep up with the new demands of HP, including international distances to Asia. Kind of an important route for a tech company.

It will process the deer before it hits the ground. Complete with styrofoam trays and plastic wrap.

The officer said he witnessed him coming out of the store with a handgun. That makes the stop and the disarming lawful. Period. In this case, the HCP is irrelevant and carrying in/on a vehicle being legal is irrelevant.   I was saying that IF the officer had not seen the rider with the handgun away from his bike, and had only witnessed the handgun while the rider was on his bike, then the disarming would have possibly been unlawful. I see no allowance for it within the TCA. The stop would have still been lawful if the plates were indeed partially obscured, but that's definitley fishing.   All in all, everything done was lawful, but as Clod Stomper said, it was a dick move for both the stop and the snatch-n-grab. The rider took his sweet time getting on his bike and leaving. If the officer had suspicion he had robbed the place because he came out with his helmet on, that long process of mounting up and riding off slowly while other customers continued to come in and out of the store should have dispelled that.

You got it right. In the car (or on a motorcycle) is an exception, not a defense. In that regard, it's exactly like driving a motor vehicle. One can not be lawfully stopped for that reason only. There also appears to be no lawful basis for disarming a person who is lawfully carrying in/on their vehicles, except for HCP holders. In the video, had the officer only seen the firearm while the rider was on his bike ("partially obsured plates" aside) it would have been an unlawful stop as no law was broken by carrying while on the bike. It would have also been an unlawful disarming IF the officer at that time had no knowledge of the rider having an HCP. Running the plates would probably show it, so he could have known there was an HCP.   However, since he witnessed the rider armed away from the motorcycle, 39-17-1307 was violated. That gives cause for both the stop and the disarming.

  It's a fine nuance in the law that you're missing. Yes, it's unlawful to operate a vehicle without a license, but it's not unlawful to operate a vehicle. The operation of the vehicle is not a crime in and of itself, so it does not provide PC that a crime (operating w/o a license) is being committed just by operating the vehicle. Contrast that with the handgun carry laws. It IS unlawful to carry a handgun in public. The permit does NOT make it not illegal, it provides a defense to prosecution for violating 39-17-1307. The act of carrying is itself in unlawful act both with an without a permit. Even with an HCP, we're still violating 39-17-1307, but we won't be prosecuted for it. That provides PC that a crime is being committed if observed by an officer. Once an HCP is produced, the officer will let the permit holder go because there will be no prosecution. Technically, they could still arrest a person with an HCP for violating 39-17-1307, but only a complete moron LEO would do that. He'd catch hell from his SO and probably the Chief/Sheriff who themselves would probably catch hell from the DA for wasting time and opening them up to a lawsuit.

  Can't argue with that.

I don't disagree that with our 20/20 hindsight, that would have been a better choice. But given the facts from the officer's perspective, it was within his rights to stop and disarm exactly the way he did. I don't think it was the right way, but it was certainly his way and there was nothing unlawful about it. I think he would have been better off to have blocked the biker in the parking spot and turned on the blues as soon as he saw the gun if that was his interest. That would have prevented any high-speed chase if his suspicion was correct. Then again, there were people around the store so making an approach if his suspicions were correct about him being a robber could have made things more dangerous. It's a hard call.   I think there are several training opportunities shown in this stop, but nothing that's OMG! Can you believe he did that!

If the officer saw the rider leave the store with the gun as he claimed, a crime was committed and the officer witnessed it. Period.

This is the proper envelope for such things:

  The officer said he saw him come out of the store with his gun. That's not pretense. That's on officer witnessing a violation of 39-17-1307, making it a misdemeanor and a possible felony depending on the carrier's record. No other justification for the stop is needed. Period. We're all in the same boat. If an officer sees our handguns outside our vehicles/homes/businesses, it's fully within their job to stop us and request to see our permit. We HCP holders are criminals under TN law by carrying. We just can't be prosecuted for that particular crime.   1351 (t ) says:     Reasonable belief is not defined. It's whatever a jury or judge agrees that it is. I'd say that 999 times out of 1,000 they'll side with the officer. In this case he can say that he witnessed the individual exit the store with his helmet on and he witnessed partially obscured plates, creating reasonable suspicion in his mind that the individual is purposefully concealing his identity. That's not a crime (the plates are though), but it's enough to make the officer pay attention. He also witnessed a firearm being carried in public in violation of TCA 39-17-1307. Add it all up and I'd bet a box of donuts that a judge or jury (likely made of non-gun people, remember) would agree that the officer was within his rights while executing his duties to disarm the rider.   Remember guys, we saw all of this from the rider's point of view, with the knowledge that this is a "good guy" friend of a TGOer and the inserted "pause" comments from the rider. The officer had none of that information. I suspect that if we saw all of this from the dash/body cam of the officer, we'd think his actions were at least somewhat more reasonable.   The officer saying partially obscured plates was the reason for the stop was 100% BS. The stop was about the gun, plain and simple. Since the offcier already had the unchecked gun in his back pocket, he could have just said as much.

  Because carrying a firearm (outside your vehicle, home, business, etc.) is a crime. The HCP is a defense to the crime, not an exception to it.   Operating a motor vehicle is not a crime in and of itself. Operating without a license is, but as no crime can be reasonably suspected simply by operating the vehicle, no stop can be made just to check the license. there's no probable cause to stop. Some other reason for the stop must be found. The littany of traffic rules makes that pretty easy though. Exceeding the posted limit, impeding the flow of traffic, failed to signal a lane change, partially obscured plates. The list is a long one.

I thought the same thing. Nothing we saw the rider do would have been suspicous (except wearing his helmet in the store). I'd say that the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the rider just robbed the store given what you just described. It's not like he came running out, jumped on the bike and barrelled out of the lot like it was the Isle of Man TT. Nevertheless, 39-17-1307 was violated, giving the officer cause to make the stop. Yeah it was likely a fishing expedition as evidenced by saying the plates are partially obscured when the real reason was clearly the handgun and the 39-17-1307 violation. But it was a lawful stop and I won't bash the officer for making it. He did his job professionally, had a polite demeanor, and everyone went home safe after a few minutes of inconvenience.   His method (and perhaps doing it at all) of disarming the rider leaves a lot to be desired and likely warrants some retraining and updating on the new law, but the stop itself is good.

Someone had a fun thread going a couple of years ago. I think it was nicemac, but I'm probably wrong about that. He had a package that went back and forth between the Memphis sort facility and a few others places several times. The routing list was at least twice as long as CZ9mm's above. IIRC, the seller (Amazon?) shipped out a replacement one that arrived quickly. I don't recall if the original one ever made it or not.     ETA: Found it! http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/41816-why-the-post-office-is-doomed

What was the final outcome?

I think that may qualify as "cruel and unsual."

Chances R is correct. One doesn't need a permit to carry in a vehicle/on a motorcycle.   In this particular case, the officer did see him walking with the handgun while away from the bike, so that's a violation of 39-17-1307, defensible with a permit. I'm not questioning the officer's stop in this case. It was 100% lawful, obstructed plates or not.   As for the helmet/underage, I disagree. Unless there's some other reason for the officer to have reasonable suspicion that the rider is under 18, that won't fly.

I tend to agree. When the prices (and margins) go back up, look for Wally to restock.

  OS beat me to it, but as of last year, it's no longer a crime to carry a fireram in a private vehicle. In/on motorcycles are considered the same. No permit needed and it's not a crime.

  Nobody really knows if the guy was a troll or just a liar trying to boost his online persona. Either way, he appears to be the definitive source of the pejoartive term "mall ninja".

I'm interested in what OS hit on back in post#37. I had never really thought about it until he pointed it out. In this case, if the officer did not have knowledge that the rider had an HCP*, under what authority did he do the disarming? No other place I know of in TN law besides 39-17-1351 gives that authority to disarm a person carrying lawfully (obviously can be done if the carrying is unlawful). Since the rider was in/on his vehicle no crime was being committed in regards to the firearm possession at the time of the stop. In this particular case, the officer observed the rider with the firearm prior to mounting the bike, so he observed a violation of 39-17-1307. That makes the rider susceptible to both stoppage and being disarmed as a felony has been committed and witnessed by the officer**. While I disagree with the snatch-n-grab method, I agree that the officer was within his lawful rights to disarm the rider.   But what if the first time the officer saw a rider with an OC handgun was when he rode his bike past the officer? Since he's on his bike, he's not in violation of 39-17-1307 and no felony is being committed and witnessed by the officer. If the officer has no knowledge that the rider has an HCP (or if in fact the rider does not have an HCP and no longer needs one on his own bike), under what authority would the officer be able to disarm the rider? I understand that the disarming is going to occur if the officer wants it to occur, but I want to know if there's an actual legal basis for doing so, or would that be a violation of the rider's rights?       *He would have if he ran the plate, but since the officer said (we don't see them in the video) the plate was partially obscured, it's reasonable to assume he didn't/couldn't run the plate, and therefor had no knowledge of the rider having an HCP.   **Remember that the HCP is only a defense to prosecution of 39-17-1307. It doesn't mean that carrying with an HCP is not a felony. It is. We just can't be prosecuted for it. Since a crime is being commited, the officer has every right to make that stop and check for an HCP.

Yes.

  Yeah, the "anyone can carry in their vehicle" makes this muddy. BUT the officer did see the gun being carried away from the bike as the guy exited the store. That's PC in my book as that's a violation of 39-17-1307. He didn't need to come up with the "obscured tags" reason. Now had he not seen the guy exiting the store and had only seen a rider carrying OC, that's not PC as no law is being broken since anyone can carry in/on a POV.

Been hearing it for a while now, but they're still well stocked in all the ones I've been in lately. Could be a store manager or regional manager decision that you're seeing, so some may stop carrying them while others still do. Or it could actually finally be a corporate decision across all stores. Wally World is an interesting organization, for sure.