TN HB 0977/SB 0827 Allows Law Enforcement Officers to Carry a Firearm When Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substances

[Garufa]

What exactly is this?

 

"Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, allows law enforcement officers to carry a firearm when under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and certain other circumstances; deletes the prohibition on carrying firearms and other weapons on higher education campuses and in parks; prohibits the carrying of weapons in K-12 schools except by certain persons, including any person permitted to carry a firearm under federal law. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13; Title 49, Chapter 6 and Title 55, Chapter 10."

https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0977&GA=113

 

[derf]

Now that would put prior restraint to the ultimate test. 

[Chucktshoes]

It appears to grant cops the ability to have a firearm and have a beer, but also give the regular Joe a lot of stuff. Mostly having to do with removal of certain sensitive place prohibitions. Obviously the details of the bill text make all the difference, but based on the summary, this is my interpretation. 
 

Instead of providing a defense for certain places like parks, it removes the prohibition for parks and higher ed facilities. So college campus carry. 
 

Also, it changes the text so that K-12 carry is prohibited “except for any person permitted to do so under federal law.” That seems like a backdoor way into allowing K-12 carry by folks with a HCP, but not folks under permitless carry. 

[monkeylizard]

How would HCP fall under "federal" law?

[Defender]

13 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

It appears to grant cops the ability to have a firearm and have a beer

A cop friend of mine in Minnesota tells me that HCP holders there can drink while armed.  Said same rules apply as driving while impaired.  I know many seem to find fault with the concept of being armed and drinking, but really, as long as you're not impaired.  If you feel that strongly against it, maybe we should allow cars at bars or restaurants that serve alcohol.

[Chucktshoes]

The federal statutes in the gun free school, zone act prohibit possession of firearms on the property of and surrounding K-12 schools. They provide an exception for people licensed to carry by the state. As it currently reads, the Tennessee code specifically prohibits carry on school grounds with the exception of law enforcement. 

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, Defender said:

A cop friend of mine in Minnesota tells me that HCP holders there can drink while armed.  Said same rules apply as driving while impaired.  I know many seem to find fault with the concept of being armed and drinking, but really, as long as you're not impaired.  If you feel that strongly against it, maybe we should allow cars at bars or restaurants that serve alcohol.

I have long maintained here that if having a drink while carrying your firearm makes you dangerous to yourself and others, the problem was neither the alcohol nor the firearm. 

[Worriedman]

It was an incorrect statute posed by the drafter.  It has been corrected, and the bill does not allow LE to carry while under the influence. 

Like everything at the GA this year dealing with electronics, the clean up of that blurb that is incorrect is late in getting changed.

Read the bill, not the note.

 

[Chucktshoes]

11 hours ago, Worriedman said:

It was an incorrect statute posed by the drafter.  It has been corrected, and the bill does not allow LE to carry while under the influence. 

Like everything at the GA this year dealing with electronics, the clean up of that blurb that is incorrect is late in getting changed.

Read the bill, not the note.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but how? I can’t seem to locate the text of the bill itself, only that summary. 

[Garufa]

12 hours ago, Worriedman said:

It was an incorrect statute posed by the drafter.  It has been corrected, and the bill does not allow LE to carry while under the influence. 

Like everything at the GA this year dealing with electronics, the clean up of that blurb that is incorrect is late in getting changed.

Read the bill, not the note.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Forgive my ignorance, but how? I can’t seem to locate the text of the bill itself, only that summary. 

As of today, 10:15 AM here are the bills and a snippet of the language in question:

House Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/HB0977.pdf

Senate Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0827.pdf

From Both:

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1350, is amended by deleting
subsection (c) in its entirety, and is further amended in subsections (a) and (g), by deleting
"subsection (c), federal law," and substituting instead "federal law".

Current Law (39-17-1350 (c)):

39-17-1350. Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(c) The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

     (1) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer and carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

     (2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue; or

     (3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

 

As I read the bills and as per the current description of both bills, this does in fact "allow law enforcement officers to carry a firearm when under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances"

 

Am I and the media missing something here?  Is the repeal of the above section being removed?

Edited February 22, 2023 by Garufa

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, Garufa said:

 

As of today, 10:15 AM here are the bills and a snippet of the language in question:

House Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/HB0977.pdf

Senate Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0827.pdf

From Both:

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1350, is amended by deleting
subsection (c) in its entirety, and is further amended in subsections (a) and (g), by deleting
"subsection (c), federal law," and substituting instead "federal law".

Current Law (39-17-1350 (c)):

39-17-1350. Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(c) The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

     (1) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer and carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

     (2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue; or

     (3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

 

As I read the bills and as per the current description of both bills, this does in fact "allow law enforcement officers to carry a firearm when under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances"

 

Am I and the media missing something here?  Is the repeal of the above section being removed?

I appreciate you posting the bill. Only problem is that now I am even more confused. So to anyone that read what I posted regarding my reading of the summary, ignore it. I have zero idea what’s going on here. 

[Moped]

2 hours ago, Garufa said:

 

As of today, 10:15 AM here are the bills and a snippet of the language in question:

House Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/HB0977.pdf

Senate Bill:  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0827.pdf

From Both:

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1350, is amended by deleting
subsection (c) in its entirety, and is further amended in subsections (a) and (g), by deleting
"subsection (c), federal law," and substituting instead "federal law".

Current Law (39-17-1350 (c)):

39-17-1350. Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(c) The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

     (1) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer and carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

     (2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue; or

     (3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

 

As I read the bills and as per the current description of both bills, this does in fact "allow law enforcement officers to carry a firearm when under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances"

 

Am I and the media missing something here?  Is the repeal of the above section being removed?

I'm glad they cleaned this up.  I'll be honest, this looked like a "death blow in waiting" for this bill. 

This bill seems like a step in the right direction, for sure. But we still haven't gotten rid of the "Gunbuster signs", have we...  

[Worriedman]

The person that dreamed this bill up, sounds like he is the smartest guy in the room, and as he is not John Harris, a lot of legislators have leaned on him to bring them bills of a 2nd Amendment nature.  

H is a paid lobbyist and a German expat, a lawyer and sure that he knows all about the Constitutions, however, I think sometime he has a problem with the plain meaning of English which is his second language.

I think his intentions are good, but he causes a lot of problems sometimes by those intents.

This is nota bill I would have proffered, but it does not say LE can stroll about intoxicated or high, the first iteration did allow that, but was not the intended by the original sponsor who quickly moved to correct.

We are simply not getting our money's worth out of the IT Department of the General Assembly either.

[Worriedman]

7 minutes ago, Moped said:

I'm glad they cleaned this up.  I'll be honest, this looked like a "death blow in waiting" for this bill. 

This bill seems like a step in the right direction, for sure. But we still haven't gotten rid of the "Gunbuster signs", have we...  

No but the establishments that post those signs are now going to be liable for harm if their postings result in injury to a person due to that posting.  It is the same tactic we used to get businesses to allow permit holders to leave their firearms in their vehicles at work, they never changed the fact an "Employee Handbook" could prevent the lawful keeping of a lawfully possessed firearm in a vehicle, but if harm resulted from that prohibition, then the employer was liable.  Even Fed Ex allows that now, and they were our biggest nemesis on that issue.

HB 10054 will have a huge impact on who post from now on, including the Capitol... 

[Moped]

1 minute ago, Worriedman said:

No but the establishments that post those signs are now going to be liable for harm if their postings result in injury to a person due to that posting.  It is the same tactic we used to get businesses to allow permit holders to leave their firearms in their vehicles at work, they never changed the fact an "Employee Handbook" could prevent the lawful keeping of a lawfully possessed firearm in a vehicle, but if harm resulted from that prohibition, then the employer was liable.  Even Fed Ex allows that now, and they were our biggest nemesis on that issue.

HB 10054 will have a huge impact on who post from now on, including the Capitol... 

Actually, it did change the policy for the company I work for.  Leaving it in the car is now permitted. Just can't bring it into the building.  So that one had a good effect too. 

Baby sets are better than nothing, which sometimes is what it feels like with Tennessee State Government. We all know that without considerable lobbying and political pressure nothing would ever get done concerning 2A laws. We've come along way since the mid 90's.

[300winmag]

The simple solution is just to remove the weapons crime behind no guns signs in Tennessee.  Properties can put signs up all they want but the state should not have a weapons crime over a sign.  If nothing else, the weapons crime should be removed for people with the enhanced carry permit just like in Mississippi.

 

 

[billmeek]

22 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Forgive my ignorance, but how? I can’t seem to locate the text of the bill itself, only that summary. 

To read a PDF version of the bill on the General Assembly website, click on the title of the bill on the upper-left hand side of the screen right above the sponsors name.  It's a hyperlink. 

[Chucktshoes]

Ok. I’m a little less confused now. My initial reading based on the summary was absolutely wildly inaccurate. That’s why you shouldn’t listen to me.

 

One thing this bill does appear to fix is the risk of being in violation if you’re in a park or other place and a school group shows up. 
 

(8) Persons possessing a handgun, who are authorized to carry the handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 or § 39-17-1366, while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar public place;

[Garufa]

Noting has changed with this bill.

I guess everyone is cool with LEO’s carrying under the influence.  Why don’t we get that privilege?

[Luckyforward]

So LEOs have some ability to not allow ETOH affect their judgment carrying a weapon that the rest of us do not possess?

The desire to expand the Second Amendment is becoming ridiculous.

[Moped]

Yeah, I'm have a little bit a problem with anyone drinking, carrying a firearm as well... This needs to be dropped.