Fallguy

LOL....ok well I know blood is drawn at the hospital before the person is brought to jail. So I didn't mean I literally didn't see or did see a BAC test given. I just know from talking with deputies and riding some that I have seen it when a driver was arrested for DUI that all passengers in the car that had even one drink arrested for PI and not given a sobriety test or a BAC test and then put in jail. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that is has been done. I still hold to that if a LEO knows he can't legally even consume alcohol armed, I doubt he is going to think it is ok for you to. Of course doesn't mean he can or will do anything about it either. Also...not exactly sure how driving laws under Title 57 apply to criminal laws under Title 39 and/or weapon laws under Chapter 17, Part 13.

T.C.A. 39-17-310 Public intoxication. — (a)A person commits the offense of public intoxication who appears in a public place under the influence of a controlled substance or any other intoxicating substance to the degree that: (1) The offender may be endangered; (2) There is endangerment to other persons or property; or (3) The offender unreasonably annoys people in the vicinity. ( A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor. In my days of working at the jail, I have NEVER seen a BAC test given for Public Intox. It doesn't say they have to be "on duty" to carry in there, but "engaged in the actual discharge of their duty" such as taking a theft report etc... Lunch does not qualify. However...I doubt making something of it would really accomplish anything.

The 51% did not pass...in fact it the amendment was withdrawn before even being considered. I have sent an e-mail to the sponsor of HB0410 asking about it being up at the same time as HB0702, when the senate bill for for 702 has passed and the one for 410 has been withdrawn. We'll see if I get anything back.

I have to agree, because the law that covers off-duty LEO carry T.C.A. 39-17-1350 makes a distinction between "consuming" and "under the influence" {part ©(2)} so it would seem the law does not see them as the same thing. However, the off-duty LEO law does not allow them to consume, period, while armed, no matter where they are. So...not sure how many LEO's would think it is ok for you to have drink armed, when they can't. Especially since without a BAC, under the influence is up to the discretion of the officer.

IMO...not really knowing the area you are talking about, I would say the public street is the public street and is ok, ANY land owned by the U of M is "school grounds" and therefore illegal since you are walking and not in a vehicle. I don't know for sure, but I would even guess the school's police dept might tell you a public side walk that is not separated by a fence or something from the rest of the grounds is on school property as well.

Oops...I wasn't paying attention to the bill numbers. I haven't read 410 yet, but based on what is being said here, I have to agree with Razorback2003 that HB0702 is much better bill. Also the senate companion bill of HB0702, SB0023 has already passed in the senate. It only needs to pass the house before going to the Governor. The senate companion bill for HB0410, SB0714 has been withdrawn from the senate. Seems like supporting HB0410 over HB0702 would be almost like starting over...in fact it would be starting over in the senate. Also HB0702 has more sponsors than HB0410. Since it's companion bill in the senate has been withdrawn, not even sure why HB0410 is moving in the house?

GOOD DEAL!! Maybe that makes up a little bit for my misreading earlier...

I will do my best to get with my Sheriff and Chief of Police and see what they say.

I stand corrected sir! I agree that the website should be corrected. Hopefully the commissioner will do something. Wonder what would have happened if you'd taken a printout of the list and showed them?

Well it does list other documents besides BC and passport...and MIL ID is not on the list. Considering you do not have to be an American Citizen to serve in the military, it may not be a good proof citizenship. But I'm glad your parents are going to take care of the BC.

He doesn't have to be fingerprinted "again", because he was fingerprinted in NC. Right? As in your post it shows the requirements for someone from NC and does not show fingerprinting. If you have an out-of-state permit and apply for one in TN the requirements vary depending on which state your from. http://tennessee.gov/safety/handgun/apprequirements.htm Coming from some states all you have to do is pay the $50 renewal fee. No class, no fingerprint etc..... Now if you don't have a valid permit from another state....you have to go through the same process as a new applicant.

Welcome to the board.

98% of the time still on me however I chose to carry that day. Occasionally in the center console, rarely on the passenger seat either open or concealed.

I thought about that afterwards.

What if they told you not to wear shorts and only yellow shirts at the same time?

Others that know for sure should chime in shortly, but I think from what I've read in other post it would have to go through a FFL since the buyer is out of state.

.....and we're all invited as well, right?

Hmmmm..well with 4 yes votes, that sounds like enough to pass even if Naifeh was to sit in and vote. Although I'd rather not see the 21 year old amendment added, I would rather see that then the bill not pass at all. On the parks bill....the sign thing is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. But a good way to kill it without looking anti.

I agree!! EDIT: I will add that if I was asked to step out or any other action which may reveal I am armed, I would probably tell the officer first instead of letting them find out. But simply pulled over, asked for DL, given a ticket or not...or at a roadblock....don't see the need.

.....and the video is supposed to be intemidating about what the law is? I "hope" cops have become more educated over the years about citizens with HCP's. Although some have probably not....(I do remember the guy at the Knoxville Wal-Mart) You are right about the dispatcher thing...I dispatched for many years. Normally I wouldn't run a DL until the officer asked, but you're right in that you can take the name from the license plate registration and find the DL. However....just because someone has a HCP doesn't mean they are armed at that time. As I've said in other threads, it has only been in the last year or so that I have carried pretty much 24/7. Anytime before that I still had my HCP but was not armed. If I was stopped should have told a LEO that I have a HCP but I am "unarmed"? Again to me it seems making an issue of something that is a non-issue.

Too funny ReefBlueCoupe.

Very possible.

You know something else that has not been mentioned anywhere I've seen is, the law as it is now, allows owners of a bar or their designee to carry in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption. So I'm pretty sure there are already firearms in several bars out there. I don't really like the mentioning of the 51% thing since the current proposed law in TN does not have that stipulation.

Possibly, but then you wouldn't think the would specifically target HCP holders in the wording. Probably either don't know the law or don't care and think the shouldn't have to post a "legal" sign.

Well said.