Fallguy

Great post Abominable_Hillbilly!!

Here is what the law says about an officer disarming a permit holder. T.C.A. 39-17-1351(t) (t) 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 the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. 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. Of course it would be hard to prove that it was unreasonable for the officer to disarm you not to mention expensive as well. And truly in the end, to what results. So above is the law, but in actuality as long as they give you your handgun, back there's not a lot you can do stop them from disarming you temporally.

Here is a shirt I wear sometimes...

I don't know what was said in your class so I am not speaking of it specifically, but there have been many on here that were given either bad or flat out wrong information when it comes to some laws and other info. So don't let your continued education be only on the range or from others. Also laws change so do your best to keep up with them. All that being said...it is always great to hear of another citizen getting his/her HCP.

I think you hit on the point as to why they were pushing them right there. At one time I thought a badge might be a good idea, but after reading several forums it was fairly easy to decide it's not that great of an idea. IMO the "public" should be comfortable seeing an armed citizen who is acting lawfully whether there is badge on them or not. But if they are not, then that is something for them to deal with not for me to pander to.

That is why in many states open carry is actually a right that any non-felon adult can exercise without permission from the state. You only have to pay for the "privilege" to carry concealed. Unlike TN where you have to pay to simply leave your property period while armed.

Good article....except where the police are still trying to intimidate citizens from open carry by threatening being detained at gun point, inciting a panic and trespassing. ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live...U.html?sid=101 Openly carrying gun not a crime Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:43 AM By Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH In the political tussle over Ohio's concealed-carry gun law, one fact seems to have been overlooked by many: You never needed a permit to carry a gun in public, and you still don't --- you just can't conceal it. As long as you haven't been convicted of a felony, if you want to wear a pistol on your belt or walk around town carrying a shotgun, Ohio has no law against it. But if you do, don't be surprised if you get some unwanted attention from police officers. Philip Turner, 30, discovered that in July when he walked from his Hilliard apartment to his parked truck wearing a gun on his belt. At the time, Turner worked protecting banks' ATMs as they were serviced and delivering diamonds to jewelry stores. An undercover agent with the Ohio Investigative Unit -- the police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws -- saw the gun and quickly ordered him against his truck with his hands on his head. "He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah." After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong. However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said. They might be surprised at what's legal. The investigation report said that, weeks before Turner was stopped, agents stopped a 13- or 14-year-old boy who was carrying a rifle in public. They called his mother, who retrieved the gun. Then they called a supervisor to figure out what charge to file against the boy. The answer: nothing. The supervisor advised them that "it was their right to carry a gun openly and they were allowed to do this," according to the report. Ohio law says you can't sell a gun to people younger than 18 or provide them with one, except for "hunting, sporting or educational purposes," said Lt. Shawn Davis of the State Highway Patrol. A child must take a gun-safety course before going hunting, Davis added. It's not illegal "that we see" for a juvenile of any age to carry a gun in public, said Jennifer Brindisi, a spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office. Turner, who has a license to carry a concealed gun, said he was carrying his gun openly "because it's my right. I choose to exercise my right to protect myself." He doesn't know whether the two agents pulled their guns; he was instructed not to face them. The agents told investigators they didn't. But it wouldn't be unreasonable for officers to draw their guns until they know what the situation is, said Sgt. Rich Weiner of the Columbus Police Division. "The first thing we need to address: This man has a gun," Weiner said. "We're going to pull our guns. "As a police officer, we also have the right to protect ourselves and protect the public, so we do have the right to disarm him momentarily. Now everybody is a little bit more at ease. We don't have a potential weapon being used against an officer or anybody else." If your open display of a firearm is causing panic, you could be charged with inducing panic, Weiner said. If you carry it onto private property, you could be charged with trespassing, he said. Komlanc of Public Safety wouldn't say why the agents and a police dive team were at Turner's apartment complex last July because the case is continuing. bbush@dispatch.com To submit a letter for publication on our Editorials/Opinion page, send e-mail to letters@dispatch.com

Then why would you have made your previous statement that seemed to imply you knew so much about everyone on the board?

Sounds like the majority of advice that has been given.....but probably more believable since it uses fancy legal terms and references....

Well I can't say I've done lots of shopping for firearms or comparisons between shops, but I have been to Parkway Gun and Pawn in Jackson a few times. They have always been helpful and knowledgeable.

I really don't mean this in a bad way at all....but if you are this worried about the legal consequences of shooting, possessing, carrying a firearm maybe handling a firearm in civilian life is not the right thing for you, at least not one that you don't own yourself, or in public. I'm not saying one should not be concerned about the legal ramifications of the their actions, but if we tried to figure all the legal possibilities to fruition of all our actions no one would do anything....

Her?! LOL...true enough. Guess I forget how sue happy everyone is. To be honest, if I got hit by a ricochet at the range, I would just chalk it up to one of those things that can happen and that I made that choice by going to the range. Unless I had observed unsafe practices or that it was intentional in some way by the person.

I don't really see why. But how would they know he even owned the gun unless you told them? For all anyone else knows he sold it to you that morning since no paperwork is required for a personal sale. If you're that worried about it...buy it from him for a dollar, go shoot it, then sell it back to him for a dollar.

First let me say I don't know the exact legal answer myself. However if the lender gave a weapon to someone when they had knowledge the lendee was going to use it for an unlawful purpose or that lendee was forbidden by law to posses a handgun for whatever reason then I have no doubt the lender would be liable in some form. If the firearm had some type of defect that the lender knew about and didn't fix and/or didn't inform the lendee of, then he may also have some liability But a fully functional weapon lent in good faith, I don' think the lender would have any type of liability. However that wouldn't prevent a lawsuit from being brought by any means. However I am not a lawyer and these opinions are simply my own.

TACTICAL45, my finger/safety post was more of a jest towards Mars as opposed to arguing or disputing what you said. I 100% agree that there is more to a Glock than keeping your finger out of the trigger guard to keep it from firing. As you said clothing etc... can possibly hang the trigger and cause it to fire. That is why no matter what my method of carry the holster covers the trigger. When holstering or unholstering I usually use my fingers to cover the side of the trigger guard to make sure no foreign object get caught. I also agree Condition 1 is the only way to carry, so if one chooses to carry a Glock they do need to exercise greater trigger safety than those that carry a handgun with an external safety.

Only when improperly used.....

Here is a pic of the external safety I use with my Glock... This is how I use the safety to prevent a discharge of my Glock. This is how I disengage the safety and prepare to fire.

Mousegun.....the weight of law given to posted signs bothers me too, but as mention in that it is so hard (impossible) to get park, restaurant and other bills that were shot down last week passed, I don't see anything changing on this either until the king is dethroned.

No Problem

In the Senate it is waiting to be brought up in the Judiciary committee, they are probably waiting to see what the House version of the bill does. In the house it is scheduled to be heard in the Criminal Practice and Procedure sub-committee on 04/02/2008. If I understood Rep Sonitary (Sub-committee chair) right last week, this coming meeting, 04/02, will be the last meeting of this sub-committee this session so if the bill does not leave the committee on this day it will die this session.

I agree with that statement. ...and Dave it sounds like the couple, you and the LT all handled the complaint very well.

I consider myself a Christian as well....but I do not see it as the state's place to legislate morality.

Dave, I'm not saying whether officers should or should not have or use discretion, but where in the law does it allow for that? Unfortunately by the very fact that officers use discretion means they sometimes abuse it. I'm also curious as to what a legally "suspicious" vehicle/person is and what law someone violates by being "suspicious" looking. I understand you said you would find some other legal reason to stop them if they appeared suspicious though.

There are basically 5 places you can't carry in TN Places that serve alcohol for onsite consumption Rooms where a judicial proceeding is taking place Schools (Can have in car) Government owned parks, civic center and recreational facilities ..and place with a proper sign posted that references T.C.A. 39-17-1359 Open carry is legal w/ a permit.

First thing I think of...can't carry in place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption like KY. If you have any specific questions fire away...