Fallguy

I pretty much rely on me acting within the law and the law covering me as well. However even if you do fire at the BG entering your house it is possible for a round to go by them and hit an unattended target. If that is the case 39-11-622 will not protect you. See part (. I have tried to do a search for such insurance but have not had any luck. If you really want this type of coverage Dusty I hope you can find it at reasonable cost.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/23/guns-in-bars-may-pass-sans-briley/ Lawmaker won't be rejoining panel where he blocked bill By Tom Humphrey Wednesday, January 23, 2008 NASHVILLE - State Rep. Rob Briley is no longer a member of a key House subcommittee that under his guidance in the past has been a roadblock to passage of so-called "guns in bars" legislation and similar bills. Briley, D-Nashville, had served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and, in that position, appointed himself to serve on the panel's Criminal Practice Subcommittee. He lost the chairmanship after being arrested last fall and subsequently pleading guilty to drunken-driving charges. Rep. Kent Coleman, D-Murfreesboro, was initially named to replace Briley as chairman on an interim basis by House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh. Naifeh said Tuesday he has made Coleman's appointment permanent. "I think it's in the best interest of the institution because of what has happened," said Naifeh in an interview. Coleman has decided that Briley has no seat on the subcommittee that traditionally reviews all bills involving criminal statutes. The subcommittee now has five members instead of six. In the last legislative session, Briley led opposition to a bill that would allow those with handgun carry permits to take their weapons into establishments that sell alcoholic beverages. The bill died in the Criminal Practice Subcommittee after passing the Senate. The panel has also posed problems for similar measures, such as a bill by Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains, that would have allowed people with carry permits to take guns into state parks and other recreational areas. This year, the Senate has again passed a bill that would allow carrying of pistols into establishments selling alcohol, so long as the permit holder himself does not drink. The House companion bill, HB702, is sponsored by Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, and awaits its first vote in the Criminal Practice Subcommittee. No date has been set. Briley said the prospect for approval of the bill "absolutely" increases without him as a member of the subcommittee. Coleman agreed. "It has a much better chance of passage this year than it has since I've been in the Legislature," said Coleman, who added that he personally has "an open mind" on whether the bill should become law. At least three members of the five-member subcommittee would need to vote for the bill to get it through the subcommittee under normal circumstances. Naifeh, who opposes the bill, can vote on any committee or subcommittee of the House. Should he exercise that right and oppose the bill in the Criminal Practice Subcommittee, the measure would then need four positive votes for passage. Naifeh said he would wait until the bill comes up, then make a "that-day decision" on whether to vote on the measure. The speaker said he does not appoint panels with the fate of any particular bill in mind and, if the bill passes, "that's just the way the cards fall." Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.

Just too add my , From previous discussions I know my Rep supports this bill, but I have sent an e-mail asking him to co-sponsor it and if there was anything he could do to help get it out of committee and onto the floor. Also to let me know what, if anything, else I can do on my end.

100% correct. Second half of 39-17-1309©(1)

By making sure you have a top quality pipe/bat/hammer that is made to stand up to tough conditions.

I have to agree with bkelm18...a school is a school. As brian said there are certain activites where it would be allowed but not in general. T.C.A. 39-17-1310 Affirmative defense to carrying weapons on school property. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under § 39-17-1309(a)-(d) that the person's behavior was in strict compliance with the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications: (1) A person hunting during the lawful hunting season on lands owned by any public or private educational institution and designated as open to hunting by the administrator of the educational institution; (2) A person possessing unloaded hunting weapons while transversing the grounds of any public or private educational institution for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting with the intent to hunt on the public or private lands unless the lands of the educational institution are posted prohibiting entry; (3) A person possessing guns or knives when conducting or attending “gun and knife shows†and the program has been approved by the administrator of the educational institution; or (4) A person entering the property for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers and who does not remove, utilize or allow to be removed or utilized any weapon from the vehicle.

Good Job Mike!!! We all had left out the last and most important steps of the process.

Dusty I'm not familar with the area you are talking about, but by your own words you call it "recreational area maintained by the municipality". So I would say if you want to be on the safe side legally, not to carry. The reason I say that is, there has been much debate about how T.C.A. 39-17-1311 is worded. In that it list weapon in T.C.A. 39-17-1302(a) and not handguns as not being permitted. However AG Opinion 07-148 Question & Answer 3 says that 39-17-1311 does prevent those with a HCP from carrying in those places. There are bills in the legislature now to change this, but haven't heard much about them.

Similar question and info being posted on this thread as well.

My answer in BOLD

Well said Jason!! -- I did see that.... Of course even if all 7 had voted for the Rep nominee, Naifeh would still have got it. So since it is an open record vote....maybe they were just trying to show support for the guy the KNEW was going to be the head of the house. Still doesn't look good though...

LOL....nuff said. I also reworked my math.....lol Read the last paragraph of Naifeh's wikipedia page.

Not just the Senate either.... Our friend in the house Speaker Jim Naifeh House member of the 89th through 105th General Assemblies Speaker of the House of the 97th through 105th General Assemblies 89th-105th 16 x 2 = 32 Years and Speaker for half of it.

For a change No... All I know is I can find no law or rule that says there are term limits, sort of like open carry without a permit is legal in some states because there is no law against it. Also I know legislators that have been office for YEARS. Senator John Wilder has been in the Senate for over 40 years. So if there are term limits, they are pretty liberal. From Wilder's page on the state's website (link above on his name) Senate member of the 81st, 85th through 105th General Assemblies Speaker of the Senate from 1971 - 2006 Do the math 85th-105th General Assemblies is 20 x 2 years for each term is 40 years.

There are no term limits for TN state legislators.

Mars overall I think you are right. But maybe more when Elephants run the house instead of fly... I too would like to see poperty owners whose property is open to the public prevented from banning armed citizens, but it will take many baby steps to ever get to that point, I am hoping this is one. In the mean time that is why I still would like to see posted signs not carry the weight of law and/or have to be more standard and VERY conspicuous so as most property owners would not want to post them.

It appears Senator Tim Burchett held them at gunpoint while outside any building. http://www.wbir.com/news/archive.aspx?storyid=39684 About man who chased down mother's would be carjacker http://wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=7281117&ClientType=Printable

I still say outside on your own property it is legal. What about the story of the guy who chased the BG that attacked his mother from MS into TN close to Memphis? He even ended up shooting the BG after he came towards him and had been ordered not to. This was not only not of the owner's property but after having gave chase.

I agree the bigger problem is the speaker not all Dems, as you can see many did vote yes on SB0023 including mine. However the Dems had a chance to elect a new speaker this last time and chose not too, so based on that I would rather see a GOP controlled house so as to get new speaker.

That is not so unusal actually... Many bills don't move in the house after the 1st and 2nd readings until a final disposition in the senate for that session. A session of the legislature is for two years. The 105th General Assembly is for 2007 and 2008. However that means if the bill does not pass this session it would have to be reintroduced and start from scratch in the 106th General Assembly (2009, 2010) the passing in the senate would be gone. The current make up of the house is 53 Democrats and 46 Republicans so if all 46 Republicans are re-elected and if 4 Democrats were to loose to Republicans in this years election..the Republicans would control the house and could elect a new speaker. In a perfect world at least. FYI: The current make up of the senate is 16 Republicans, 16 Democrats, 1 Independent. The vote for SB0023 was Ayes 24, Noes 6. The six that voted no were Berke, Burks, Harper, Haynes, Kurita and Marrero all Democrats.

I sent an e-mail a few days ago to the sponsor of the bill and the chairman of the sub-committee asking for a possible date that it would be heard...no response as of yet.

LOL...well...I think my intent still comes through, but I did sort of change what I was going to say after I started typing and didn't clean all of it up. Ok...try again. If a property is going to be posted.....I would rather it be proper than improper. But the overall best choice would be for no property owner to post their property or at least the the posting not carry the weight of law. Better?

I know this is slighly off topic and may not be the view of most. But between proper and improper I would rather see a properly posted property than a improper one. Of course I'd rather see none posted and/or the posting not carry the weight of law. The reason is, even if the property is improperly posted it is more than likely the intent of the owner to ban weapons and despite "concealed means concealed" if you were to be made, I would hate trying to explain the the owner and/or a LEO about the proper means of posting a property. Another, and possibly more likely to get passed, change I would like to see in 39-17-1359 is a standard (except wording as to location) sign having to be posted. Something with large letters, contrasting colors etc.... I could be wrong, but I feel a most property owners would not want to post a big obnoxious sign and appear to be anti-gun.

I too have to disagree with a couple of things brian said. First there is a difference between the "threat" of force and "use" of force. T.C.A. 39-11-614 Protection of property. says (a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. ( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession: (1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and (2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person. © A person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property. Parts (a) and ( say you can threaten force to the degree needed. Part © says you can not "use" deadly force, not that you can't "threaten" it. Also here is the law on use of force in a "citizens arrest" T.C.A. 39-11-621 Use of deadly force by private citizen. A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612. - Just to clarify, although 39-11-621 says you can not threaten deadly force unless 39-11-611 or 39-11-612 apply...if the person is in your driveway or yard they are within the "curtilage" as used in 39-11-611. Other Citizen Arrest laws. T.C.A. 39-11-109 Arrest by private person — Grounds T.C.A. 39-17-110 Arrest by private person — Time. T.C.A. 39-11-111 Arrest by private person — Notice of grounds. T.C.A. 39-11-112 Arrest by private person — Notice of intention to make arrest — Use of force to enter dwelling house. T.C.A. 39-11-113 Disposition of person arrested by private person. DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer or law enforcement officer. The above is simply my lay interpretation of the law. It is not meant to be legal advice and/or suggest any certain course of action.