So, I wrote a letter to Rep. Todd

[Guest MediaBuster]

you can say that again... I remember back in 93 the strict 2nd ammendment folks were the ones fighting us the most. It was indeed compromise that got us the current law, and its been tweaked by the legislature several times over the past few years.

You have to start somwhere... and take steps to improve it. You cant have an "all or nothing" attitude.

You might take your own advice Phil.

"Phil's thought for the day: If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

[strickj]

You might take your own advice Phil.

"Phil's thought for the day: If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

You're saying his tactics sucked because it wasn't all or nothing in the beginning?

Dude! Seriously! Thats a great comment from someone that seems to have done nothing but send a couple emails to a rep.

Its like I said earlier,without compromise you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun,period!

You'd best be thinking your lucky stars that the people that fought for carry in TN had enough thought process to do what it took for all of us to have this ability

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[Guest HexHead]

Damn that was harsh.

Just for the record, I also sent him an email. Mine simply thanked him for his service and thanked hm for sponsering this bill and told him not to let the anti's push him around too much.

I'm just getting really angry that the only gun bill I really give a damn about seems to be circling the bowl, while the others seem to be breezing through. I hated seeing so many gun bills come up this session and the restaurant one just keeps getting punted to the back. It seems like this is the one the anti's are gonna dig their heels in on, since so many others have gone through. I'd hate to see this on become "the bridge too far".

[Guest MediaBuster]

You're saying his tactics sucked because it wasn't all or nothing in the beginning?

Dude! Seriously! Thats a great comment from someone that seems to have done nothing but send a couple emails to a rep.

Its like I said earlier,without compromise you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun,period!

You'd best be thinking your lucky stars that the people that fought for carry in TN had enough thought process to do what it took for all of us to have this ability

strickj, you know nothing about me, & what I've done for this country, so you should not be so presumptuous. But suffice to say that I can safely say that I've done more for gun rights in this country than most of your members combined have in their whole lives. You think you can take a play from the Liberal play book, & chip away at the stone, but what you're really doing is enabling the anti-constitutional thugs.. As far as telling me I wouldn't be able to carry if it weren't for "compromise", that's where you're wrong. I never have, & never will obey any un-constitutional law. It's freedom or death for me.. Perhaps one day your courage will reach a level where you'll begin to understand that concept.. Think, George Washington, Or just pick anyone in the military who's actually seen action & returned. Are you going to tell them they have to put their gun away at 11 pm? I'd like to see you try.. This is the kind of reasoning that has led to Gitmo closing, & terrorists being released on our soil eventually with a welfare check from Uncle Sam.. Which of course will be done in the spirit of Bi-Partisan compromise. Stop taking the table scraps from the tyrants in Government, & stand up for the Constitution.. Go watch Pearl Harbor or something.. You need some inspiration, so you can get your testosterone up..

Edited April 3, 2009 by MediaBuster

[strickj]

As far as telling me I wouldn't be able to carry if it weren't for "compromise", that's where you're wrong. I never have, & never will obey any un-constitutional law. It's freedom or death for me..

So,you carry without a permit?

I suppose I should have said that you would have never been able to carry in this state legally without a little compromise

Perhaps one day your courage will reach a level where you'll begin to understand that concept

There is a difference between courage,and smarts.I obey the laws to stay out of jail.

I also say that I have more courage then most people do simply because of what life has dealt me the short time Ive been here,and that has nothing do do with watching Pearl Harbor so do not question that!

strickj, you know nothing about me, & what I've done for this country, so you should not be so presumptuous. But suffice to say that I can safely say that I've done more for gun rights in this country than most of your members combined have in their whole lives.

I'm sorry,I have been presumptuous here.However in my defense,you've given neither myself,nor anyone here any other reason to believe you've done anything other them email The Commercial Appeal.

Also,Ill assume that if you have taken action to protect gun rights then you will know how to play the political game,and would know that compromise and bi-partisanship is like the second rule of actually getting things done.

But suffice to say that I can safely say that I've done more for gun rights in this country than most of your members combined have in their whole lives.

Care to elaborate?

You think you can take a play from the Liberal play book, & chip away at the stone, but what you're really doing is enabling the anti-constitutional thugs.

Not sure how you think this! A step forward for gun rights is a step back for gun control no matter how small the step is!

You need some inspiration, so you can get your testosterone up

Dont bring my testosterone levels into this....the doctors said that was normal!

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[Guest MediaBuster]

So,you carry without a permit?

I suppose I should have said that you would have never been able to carry in this state legally without a little compromise

There is a difference between courage,and smarts.I obey the laws to stay out of jail.

I also say that I have more courage then most people do simply because of what life has dealt me the short time Ive been here,and that has nothing do do with watching Pearl Harbor.

I'm sorry,I have been presumptuous here.However in my defense,you've given neither myself,nor anyone here any other reason to believe you've done anything other them email The Commercial Appeal.

Also,Ill assume that if you have taken action to protect gun rights then you will know how to play the political game,and would know that compromise and bi-partisanship is like the second rule of actually getting things done.

Care to elaborate?

Not sure how you think this! A step forward for gun rights is a step back for gun control no matter how small the step is!

Dont bring my testosterone levels into this....the doctors said that was normal!

No Stricj, I don't carry without a permit.. State laws that are reasonable should be followed, & I make every effort to do so. Laws that are either Unconstitutional, or or threaten me or my family's safety, I simply ignore.. If I feel like their could be a threat somewhere, & nobody to defend me but me, my gun goes with me no matter what the law says, period.

If I ever get caught carrying in a place where either libtards or rhino Republicans have made a law that says I can't, I will fight it with a laywer & my money based on my constitutional 2nd amendment rights. I may lose, I may win, but I'll fight with valor & courage against the tyranny that is taking place in our legal system & our government. I will not live under tyranny in a country that I and my relatives have fought for to keep it free. It is that simple.. Here's a question for you.. Is an EMT that goes to a bar because somebody collapsed at 11:15 to give that person medical treatment a second class citizen or something? Should they not have the same rights to protect themselves in that situation as say a guy walking into a convenience store across the street?

Or are you just concerned that YOUR protected, & that the law covers YOUR needs?

[strickj]

Here's a question for you.. Is an EMT that goes to a bar because somebody collapsed at 11:15 to give that person medical treatment a second class citizen or something? Should they not have the same rights to protect themselves in that situation as say a guy walking into a convenience store across the street?

Or are you just concerned that YOUR protected, & that the law covers YOUR needs?

EMTs are not of my concern.They are on their job,and must follow the rules of their company.

Now let me ask you wouldnt it be nice if he could atleast carry in that bar at 10:45?

I never said it was a good plan to end it at 11pm,however I know that its still better then nothing.If we dont get it passed with the 11pm added on,it will not pass this year,period.

Id much rather carry till 11,then not carry at all,and maybe next year when they see no blood shed they will make better changes to the law

[Guest MediaBuster]

Here's an even better example.. What if you're a bartender.. Should you not be able to defend yourself?

Cuz I'll tell you right now, there are plenty of people that have guns in the bar law or no law..

[strickj]

If you work there,I do believe you can carry with the owners consent without a permit.

Someone correct that if need be.

Ill also ask this again:

But suffice to say that I can safely say that I've done more for gun rights in this country than most of your members combined have in their whole lives.

What all have you done for gun rights thats more then everyone here?Thats a pretty big statement to make.

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[Guest MediaBuster]

EMTs are not of my concern.They are on their job,and must follow the rules of their company.

Now let me ask you wouldnt it be nice if he could atleast carry in that bar at 10:45?

Come on, this is getting comical now man..

It's like.. Hey, tonight I get to defend myself because I only had to be in that bar until 10:45.. But tomorrow! I may not be so lucky.. I might get shot! Joy.. I'm so blessed..

Give me a break.. This is:

[Guest MediaBuster]

If you work there,I do believe you ca carry with the owners consent.

Someone correct that if need be.

All also ask this again:

What all have you done for gun rights thats more then everyone here?Thats a pretty big statement to make.

I'll correct you on that.. YOU have to have an armed security license & be registered with the Department of Commerce & Insurance as a proprietary security provider for the business. In other words the owner would need to register as such, & buy insurance for an employee to act as armed security.. So the answer is, yes if you pay all the fees & buy the insurance you can protect yourself & others in the bar.. But if don't want to be the designated security guard, you're SOL.

I used to run a very popular web site for years that was a second amendment advocacy site.. A couple of other commitments (including the time it took me to try & help keep the Abominations of Pelosi as House Speaker, & Obama out of the POTUS office) forced me to give it a break for a while.. I've written Gov reps THOUSANDS of letters, letters to the NRA, the POTUS, & put thousands of hours into protecting our right to bear arms.. I don't like to brag about it, but when someone shoots off their mouth saying I only wrote a couple letters, it irks me a wee bit..

You seem like a nice guy, & we're on the same side, but I'm sorry.. Liberals don't play fair, & I'm not willing play fair anymore with them either..

Edited April 3, 2009 by MediaBuster

[Guest MediaBuster]

Oh almost forgot.. Under Tennessee Law, that bartender would have to be wearing a patch identifying him as a security guard.. One on the shoulder, & one on his breast somewhere.. Not really all that convenient..

[strickj]

Not speaking about security guards here

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/11660/1207c/123ce/12418?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&q=business%20carry%20firearms&x=Advanced&2.0#LPHit1

39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. —

(a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:

(1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon;

(2) By a person authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351;

(3) At the person's:

(A) Place of residence;

( Place of business; or

© Premises;

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[GLOCKMEISTER]

39-17-1308 only applys to the person that owns the buisness not an employee.

[Fallguy]

I believe strickj is talking about 39-17-1305©(2)

39-17-1305 Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served.

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

© The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1)

In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2)

On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

It seems it applies to 3 people.

1. The person that owns the premises (Owner)
   
2. A person in control of the premises (Manager)
   
3. An employee or an agent of the owner responsible for protecting property or people. (Could be the bartender or anyone)
   

As far as an agent of the owner responsible for protection of persons or

property it doesn't say anything about it having to be a licensed security guard.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest MediaBuster]

I believe strickj is talking about 39-17-1305©(2)

It seems it applies to 3 people.

1. The person that owns the premises (Owner)
   
2. A person in control of the premises (Manager)
   
3. An employee or an agent of the owner responsible for protecting property or people. (Could be the bartender or anyone)
   

As far as an agent of the owner responsible for protection of persons or

property it doesn't say anything about it having to be a licensed security guard.

You go ahead & try it, & have an incident where that person is involved in a shooting without an armed security license & the proper documentation from the TN. Dept. of Commerce & Insurance, & you will see the indictments & lawsuits that come out of it fall like hail..

The key words there you're missing are: "responsible for protecting property or people."

As soon as you are designated "responsible" for protecting property or people. You are a security guard. Remember, we have no Castle Doctrine here yet? (Meaning you can't shoot someone over property.) Only a licensed Armed Security guard "may" have slightly more latitude to do this.. Ask the attorney general if you don't believe me, they will be glad to take your call & answer your questions..

Glockmeister, you are correct, it does only apply to the owner of the property, & not anyone acting as "security" for the property or persons. Manager or not.. You need to be registered as a proprietary Security co., to operate as your own security.. Unless of course they just let us all carry like they should, & then the discussion is moot..

Edited April 3, 2009 by MediaBuster

[strickj]

Fall,yes thats what I was after but I just scanned it looking for "business"

MB,yes TN does have a Castle Doctrine.

You do not have to be a security guard to protect yourself,or a third party.

I have no idea what the TN AG opinion is on the matter though....maybe Fallguy has that stashed away?

[Guest MediaBuster]

Actually, you guys covered this pretty well here.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/7653-boss-wants-me-get-amred-security-license.html

[Guest MediaBuster]

Fall,yes thats what I was after but I just scanned it looking for "business"

MB,yes TN does have a Castle Doctrine.

You do not have to be a security guard to protect yourself,or a third party.

I have no idea what the TN AG opinion is on the matter though....maybe Fallguy has that stashed away?

The Castle doctrinee DOES not allow you to protect property here yet, correct?

And yes you do have to be a Security Guard to protect yourself or others right now, in places where the law prohibits carrying a firearm.

In other words, I am a Armed Security Guard licensed the State of TN. right now. I CANNOT walk into a bar & decide to be the security guy for the night, even if the owner hires me for one night, & I fill out all the W-2 or W-4 or whatever tax forms.. I have to leave my gun outside..

Conversely, if he gets himself registered as a Proprietary Armed Security Agency, he can hire me, because I'm licensed. It is at that point that I'm allowed to bring my gun in the bar 24/7 if he pays me to, because then I'm acting within the confines of my JOB duties, & no longer acting as a private citizen..

[Guest MediaBuster]

Also, even as an Armed Security Guard, it's a grey area whether or not you can shoot someone for trying to run away with property.. You can physically try to restrain them, but you can't just shoot someone who hasn't produced a weapon.. If they try to fight you for your weapon, or pick up a piece of pipe, well then they are toast..

All this is to say, that unless you have an armed security certificate, & the proper state licensing as a security agency, your bartender is defenseless after 11pm, as I stated. Unless the owner of the bar (physical property) stands right next to him/her all night protecting them.. THAT is why the curfew is retarded..

[strickj]

No,you can not protect property with lethal force in TN.

No,it is not a grey area if you can shoot someone from running away.Thats a nono.

Yes,you can carry where alcohol is severed without being a security guard.It does not say anywhere in 39-17-1305 you must be a security guard.

(A security guard is employed to protect.

A regular employee is employed to work,but is carrying to protect themselves,or a third party.)

Yes,the Castle Doc will protect you from criminal,and civil as long as the shot was justified regardless of location in TN

Edited April 4, 2009 by strickj

[Guest MediaBuster]

No,you can not protect property in TN.

No,it is not a grey area if you can shoot someone from running away.Thats a nono.

Yes,you can carry where alcohol is severed without being a security guard.It does not say anywhere in 39-17-1305 you must be a security guard.

(A security guard is employed to protect.

A regular employee is employed to work,but is carrying to protect themselves,or a third party.)

Yes,the Castle Doc will protect you from criminal,and civil as long as the shot was justified regardless of location in TN

stickj, I've come to the conclusion that you're a know it all who doesn't know at all what you're talking about. & now you're telling an armed security guard what the law is governing their own job.. I mean what the hell are you talking about? 4. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1305, making it an offense to possess a firearm on any premises where alcoholic beverages are sold.

Are you drunk?

If you're not working there as a guard, you aren't supposed to have your gun there, period. If the business doesn't have the right paperwork you're not allowed. You lost the argument.. The curfew law doesn't work, just admit it..

I'm not wasting anymore time with you.. It's arguing with a box of shotgun shells..

[strickj]

Hmm....

I may be drunk,but I'm not dyslexic!

Ill invite you to read it again.

Yes,it is an offense to carry as stated here:

39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

But keep reading onto ©!

© The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

I outlined subsection (a) in red for you above.

What part of"shall not apply to" are you having problems with?

and it shall not apply to:

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1029, § 4; 2001, ch. 345, § 1.]

It does not say one must be a security guard.

It says that anyone whom owns,manages,or is employed there.

Maybe you're getting caught up on this:

responsibility for protecting persons or property

Now let me explain part further.Are you MB responsible for protecting yourself/others,and your property?

I am responsible for my safety(person),and can also be responsible for a third parties safety(persons) at any time,and protection of my property the same as you,or anybody else.That does not make me a security guard under this law.I may also protect the property of my employer.However I may not protect property using lethal force under this,or any other law in TN.It does not state lethal force here now does it?

It seems to me you're having problems understanding not only this law,but also the laws regarding the Castle Doc,and you are also saying its a grey area if you use lethal force when someone is fleeing.

That tells me that you're the one spewing non-sense especially for someone who just said this:

But suffice to say that I can safely say that I've done more for gun rights in this country than most of your members combined have in their whole lives

Also seems that if you have really done more then anybody else here then you would not only know these laws,but would at least understand how to read them.

And since you're saying that I dont know what I'm talking about,Ill refer you to someone else's post verifying this.

Now maybe you can offer some proof other then just saying "you're wrong" because thats not much of a rebuttal!

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[strickj]

Not to nitpick here,but just de-fact`oing your facts.

Its late,I cant sleep,and just reread your post

All this is to say, that unless you have an armed security certificate, & the proper state licensing as a security agency, your bartender is defenseless after 11pm, as I stated. Unless the owner of the bar (physical property) stands right next to him/her all night protecting them.. THAT is why the curfew is retarded..

Incorrect. Laws concerning handgun carry permits do not apply to armed security guards(and even cops) so therefore the 11pm curfew would not apply.

Are you a security guard? If so then you should know that!

now you're telling an armed security guard what the law is governing their own job

Oh almost forgot.. Under Tennessee Law, that bartender would have to be wearing a patch identifying him as a security guard.. One on the shoulder, & one on his breast somewhere.. Not really all that convenient..

Also incorrect,security guards do not have to wear a badge,or identifying patches.

Security guards can wear any type of clothing they so chose(plain clothes)

62-35-128. Restrictions regarding military or police-style uniforms. —

No security guard/officer shall wear any military or police-style uniform, except for rainwear or other foul-weather clothing, unless such uniform has:

(1) Affixed over the left breast pocket on the outermost garment and on any cap a badge or insignia distinct in design from that utilized by any law enforcement agency in this state, unless the licensed security officer is in plain clothes; and

(2) Affixed over the right breast pocket on the outermost garment a name plate or tape with the name of the security guard/officer on it, unless the licensed security officer is in plain clothes.

[Acts 1987, ch. 436, § 28; 1996, ch. 1009, § 13.]

Edited April 3, 2009 by strickj

[Fallguy]

MediaBuster....if you think there is any grey area on ANYONE (Citizen, Security Guard or LEO) using deadly force to protect property in TN, I would suggest you need to read the laws of TN again.

No one can use deadly force to protect property in TN.

39-11-614 Protection of property.

As a security guard you are using the powers of a citizen arrest to detain someone. You can not use deadly force to make an arrest unless it would be allowed under self-defense laws.

39-11-621 Use of deadly force by private citizen.

A LEO can use deadly force in a few more circumstances than a citizen while trying to effect an arrest, but still not over property.

39-11-620 Use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer.

I know of at least one case in my area where a LEO was charged for shooting at someone fleeing that had stole an ATV. See here.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Fallguy