monkeylizard

Yeah, it's a misapplication of the term by the journalist or the DA whom the journalist is interviewing. Castle doctrine just means that you're presumed to be in fear of your life during an invasion of your own home (maybe business too?). The evidence can show otherwise, but it's the default starting position. It basically means that instead of the invasion/robbery victim having to prove the shooting was justified, the prosecution has to prove it was not. Even if PA has a Castle Doctrine, I don't see how that could apply to this case since it happened on the sidewalk in public. Protection from civil suits in a justified SD shooting is something else, but doesn't have a catchy name like "Castle Doctrine".

I'm using a Glock.

  You didn't miss that!

I'm still unclear on Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Are they or are they not exempt? TCA says nothing about it, but TDOS has it on their site. Not that it matters to me or the OP, I just want to know.

Holy cow, that's tempting, even at those current market prices. Shipped directly to my door? Yes, please.

That may be true, but it's the way the law works.

  We can argue "reasonableness" until the cows come home, but that's something that is and will continue to be defined by a judge or jury. What you don't seem to be understanding is that no jury in this state is going to disagree with ANY officer who chooses to disarm an HCP holder for the duration of a stop regardless of any other factors, including a complete lack of any aggression on the part of the stopee. In a police officer's line of work, it is reasonable to think that any encounter can go south quickly and therefore removing a firearm is always going to be considered a reasonable action by a LEO. You may not agree with that scope of "reasonable" but it doesn't matter what you think. Or what I think. Or what any of us think unless we are on a jury determining reasonableness. Good luck convincing 11 other people who have never so much as touched a gun that the officer wasn't reasonable.

Cross-edit.   Oh Shoot, I see that TCA 39-17-1359 makes no provision for other states skipping the class, but the TDOS site still shows New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas as exempt. Do you know if those 3 are still exempt or not?   https://www.tn.gov/safety/article/hgqualifications The 3 states are listed in the paragraph with the For Persons Holding a Handgun Carry Permit from Other States and Applying for a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit

Only people with permits from New Mexico, Oklahoma or Texas are waived from taking the safety course. All others must take the class or meet one of the following criteria.     FYI, you have 6 months from the time you move to get your TN HCP. Until then, your MA permit will be honored.

To be comlpetely fair, many of those recovered jobs were offshore. Fiorina has always said that the jobs will go to whoever competes for them, and California didn't compete for them. Some went to other states, but primarily Asia. She's a staunch anti-protectionist. You can agree or disagree with her on that, but she has been consistent across the years and what she says lines up with what she does.

  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