Fallguy

Sort of what I thought when it happened. Only to sell liquor by the drink. In dry counties there are still places that serve beer for onsite consumption without serving food.

You can fix the smilie face by turning smilies of for that post when you post it. AFAIK there is no way to stop the copyright symbol

The key part is in bold... Yep

Here is a letter from the TWRA that might help. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/5149-carry-on-a-tva-lake/page__st__40#entry88146

There have been two people charged with 39-17-1359 at the Memphis Airport, both were also charged with 39-17-109 (one as misdemeanor, the other as a felony). AFAIK neither case has been heard yet. But I think this is a different situation than your average business that may be posted.

Yeah...

In 9 situations out of 10 an employer probably would never know if you had a firearm in your car....but then there is always that 1. As far as knowing the policy...in many places you receive some type of employee handbook and/or sign something saying you have read and understand (although you probably don't either) all the companies policies...

Fixed!! Thank you sir...

When I click Group Discussion in the right column I get... [#103139] You do not have permission to view this forum. ... on the two groups I'm a member of, even on the group I created.

Looks like a pretty fluid situation according to their webpage. As far as TN goes....it looks like they will want to modify to the reciprocity agreement so that TN permits issued to non-citizens are not valid in NM, but all others would be. Now how a NM LEO is supposed to know the difference other than to just ask, I'm not really sure.

You are correct. But as a reminder, TGO prohibits discussing illegal activity, so no one should carry illegally in NM regardless.

But that's my point. Unless something in their law has changed, why did they ever honor TN in the first place?

True, but this is nothing new.

As you probably noticed there are 2 sub-sections one dealing mentioning the "intent to go armed" the other not, the one you've highlighted is the sub-section that does not mention the intent to go armed. So to be covered by it, you must not have the intent to go armed. There has been much debate on here as to what that means. No one has posted any court case, AG opinion etc... that would fully define what it means per TN law. Some on here have said you would only be covered if the firearm is unloaded, ammo separate as you say. Others feel if you have a HCP and having it is a defense to the intent to go armed, then that is enough. I would think if you unloaded etc....that for sure would show you did you best not to have an intent go armed, but a LEO and/or Judge "could" feel differently. But, if you are going to do that, I would for sure do it before entering school property.

Appears they have done an aduit of the states they will honor and now many states no longer qualify. Funny thing is, AFAIK TN hasn't changed anything among the 6 reasons listed than when they first honored TN permits. Wonder what has happened to cause such a change?

Ideally no one would be a victim, but that is not reality. If the less prepared person has the choice to prepare and doesn't then that is something they need to deal with.

Actually there is an AG Opinion that says landlords can prohibit tenants from possessing firearms... http://tennessee.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op09-170.pdf

I can't really offer much proof, as it is hard to prove a negative....but I really think the odds of you being targeted in the first place if you are OCing are slim. If has targeted you and you go for your weapon, he may be surprised yes.....but I'm not sure how that helps any more than if you were OCing. Regardless, situational awareness is the best thing you can do, CC, OC or not armed at all.

It will be on my mind, but I don't think anyone has opposed my legislators in quite some time. ...and I'm afraid you are right about attention spans.

I pretty much always CC myself, for various reasons. But "the element of surprise" is much for effective "offensive" technique rather than a defensive one.

The law clearly says that posting a sign does not alter any liability the business may or may not have. So if his insurance company is telling him this, they simply are not familiar with TN law it seems.

According to the bills page, it has passed in the House and is on the schedule in the Senate tomorrow.

I have a got a few responses, some I can tell were canned others were the basic I support it and/or I'm a cosponsor but that's about it.

I remember that. I kind of the feeling he was bit "off" then....but thought it was slightly to our benefit. But that has changed (or my perception for sure) in the last few years.