New Tennessee State Gun Legislation

[Moped]

This is a step in the right direction, but based on the State Government’s track record of late, I think it gets bottled up and disappears. The Governor and the Executive Branch will oppose it vigorously.

https://www.wvlt.tv/app/2024/01/24/bill-allow-people-with-certain-permits-carry-guns-businesses-that-prohibit-restrict-firearms/

Edited January 25 by Moped

[Grayfox54]

I'd love to see it pass. But as pointed out, its highly unlikely. 

[BigK]

As much as I'd benefit from its passage, I think this law violates the business owner's property rights. If the law only affected public places, I'd be all for it. I just think that if you own a property and you don't want guns there, we shouldn't be able to take away that owner's rights.

[Snaveba]

Maybe we get a compromise out of this and they change the law so you don’t have a gun violation, but a trespassing charge if you refuse to leave the business when asked. This way the business still has control over thief property rights, but we don’t get an unreasonable charge if we unintentionally violate the statute. 

Edited January 25 by Snaveba

[NoBanStan]

Not a fan honestly. I dislike places that won't allow me to carry, but that's why I won't patron them. However, it's their choice to lose my money.

Let's replace firearms with something else. Some states allow drug use. Would I want to see a bill that allows drug users to enter my property/business and use? Maybe that's far fetched, but in other places, it isn't.

[beno]

it is a step toward the right direction, but I think business owners must have a voice in this too

[papa61]

1 hour ago, BigK said:

As much as I'd benefit from its passage, I think this law violates the business owner's property rights. If the law only affected public places, I'd be all for it. I just think that if you own a property and you don't want guns there, we shouldn't be able to take away that owner's rights.

I agree in theory. But consider this, does the business owner have the right to refuse service? We have decades of civil rights decisions that say no. I agree with Stan, if they don't want my money it's their loss.

[papa61]

5 minutes ago, papa61 said:

I agree in theory. But consider this, does the business owner have the right to refuse service? We have decades of civil rights decisions that say no. I agree with Stan, if they don't want my money it's their loss.

forgot to add; if I leave my firearm and patronize a business unarmed, how many are willing and able to provide for my defense? I have always wanted to ask owners of no firearms notices how they plan for my safety and if they are ready to take on that responsibility.

I remember when the law allowing businesses to ban carry was proposed, the language had security and metal detectors in there. can't recall the exact wording now.

those who feel unsafe around armed populace should realize that most of us are better with a handgun than are most LEO. Not throwing shade at any officers, but firearms training and use is secondary to what most see as their job. When I was in the military, I would come in just under the max time during PT tests, push ups, sit ups and running two miles were low on my list of needed skills. Firearms qualification was always expert, since I not only felt it necessary to my survival but fun.

Edited January 25 by papa61

[Snaveba]

1 hour ago, NoBanStan said:

Not a fan honestly. I dislike places that won't allow me to carry, but that's why I won't patron them. However, it's their choice to lose my money.

Let's replace firearms with something else. Some states allow drug use. Would I want to see a bill that allows drug users to enter my property/business and use? Maybe that's far fetched, but in other places, it isn't.

Well, most folks can use (drugs and accohol) and wander around a public place or private businesses. The only laws against it are public intoxication laws. It is not against the law to be high (other than public intoxication) just possession of the drugs. Being on drugs is not enough to be charged with possession. 
 

I see (smell) folks high on pot everywhere. 

Edited January 25 by Snaveba

[deerslayer]

2 hours ago, Snaveba said:

Maybe we get a compromise out of this and they change the law so you don’t have a gun violation, but a trespassing charge if you refuse to leave the business when asked. This way the business still has control over thief property rights, but we don’t get an unreasonable charge if we unintentionally violate the statute. 

I think that is essentially what the bill accomplishes as written. 
 

I would rather see resources and attention spent on this instead of, or at least before long gun carry.  This needs to be in place BEFORE long gun carry is ever passed.  After permitless carry passed, gunbuster signs went up all over the place.  If long gun carry is passed and gangsters start strutting around Wal-Mart with AKs, I expect a BUNCH of businesses will post and the “removal of the offense” ship will have sailed forever.  

Edited January 25 by deerslayer

[deerslayer]

2 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

Not a fan honestly. I dislike places that won't allow me to carry, but that's why I won't patron them. However, it's their choice to lose my money.

Let's replace firearms with something else. Some states allow drug use. Would I want to see a bill that allows drug users to enter my property/business and use? Maybe that's far fetched, but in other places, it isn't.

Apples and oranges.  If drug users pull out drugs and start using them, that is illegal whether they are in your place of business or not (at least around here).  If it becomes legal to use, I bet you can still ask them to leave.  After all, there are “no smoking” “no drinking on premises” and “no shirt no shoes no service” signs.  On the other hand, possession of a gun itself is not automatically a crime.  

[NoBanStan]

1 hour ago, deerslayer said:

Apples and oranges.  If drug users pull out drugs and start using them, that is illegal whether they are in your place of business or not (at least around here).  If it becomes legal to use, I bet you can still ask them to leave.  After all, there are “no smoking” “no drinking on premises” and “no shirt no shoes no service” signs.  On the other hand, possession of a gun itself is not automatically a crime.  

Just using it as an example. replace drugs with... hunting, driving a car, setting up a tent. whatever. Anything that might encroach on your rights as a property owner. That's my real point. Where is the line drawn between your rights and the owners?

Edited January 25 by NoBanStan

[Defender]

3 hours ago, BigK said:

As much as I'd benefit from its passage, I think this law violates the business owner's property rights. If the law only affected public places, I'd be all for it. I just think that if you own a property and you don't want guns there, we shouldn't be able to take away that owner's rights.

It doesn’t.  This false argument for property owners rights was used before to shoot this idea down.  The owner can still ban guns.  It’s just that violating that ban isn’t a criminal offense.  BUT, the owner can enforce it by asking an armed person to leave.  Failing to do so IS a criminal offense, I.e. criminal trespass.  Both sides rights are protected that way.

[Defender]

3 hours ago, Snaveba said:

Maybe we get a compromise out of this and they change the law so you don’t have a gun violation, but a trespassing charge if you refuse to leave the business when asked. This way the business still has control over thief property rights, but we don’t get an unreasonable charge if we unintentionally violate the statute. 

I think it’s already like this as far as if you’re asked to leave a private property, failing to do so is criminal trespass.

[Toy4Rick]

IMO, if the most Anti gun state in the union, CA sees it as trespassing, then why can't we as a much more free state

How about golf coarse or other venues where outside alcohol is prohibited yet you can buy alcohol inside... I don't believe you can be prosecuted with a crime unless you refuse to leave with your booze, IANAL and could very well be wrong

Busting a sign shouldn't be a crime, not leaving when asked to, OK get popped for trespassing

[BigK]

47 minutes ago, Defender said:

It doesn’t.  This false argument for property owners rights was used before to shoot this idea down.  The owner can still ban guns.  It’s just that violating that ban isn’t a criminal offense.  BUT, the owner can enforce it by asking an armed person to leave.  Failing to do so IS a criminal offense, I.e. criminal trespass.  Both sides rights are protected that way.

The article we're discussing reads like the proposed law would allow enhanced permit holders to carry on posted property w/out the owner's consent.

I didn't read anything that said it would remove the criminal penalty for carrying on posted private property if you leave when asked. I'd be strongly in favor of that change. That is what we really need the most.

[Defender]

2 hours ago, BigK said:

The article we're discussing reads like the proposed law would allow enhanced permit holders to carry on posted property w/out the owner's consent.

I didn't read anything that said it would remove the criminal penalty for carrying on posted private property if you leave when asked. I'd be strongly in favor of that change. That is what we really need the most.

It’s in there, I saw it earlier.  I’ll look for that passage tomorrow.

[Tom B]

Along the same lines I guess.

My wife just got hired by local walk-in clinic. Apparently they dont want you to leave a firearm in your car while on duty.

Not sure why, this was her first day there. Maybe one was stolen in the past?

So that means when she leaves the house for work she cant bring her gun.

I see both sides. Like was stated above, the property owner should have some right as to what is on their property.

But will they protect you from harm? Crazy person walks in?

Me personally, I'd have something with me, even my little NAA mini revolver.

[Snaveba]

An employer CAN NOT prevent you from having a gun in your car. That right is protected. 

[Tom B]

I agree with you, but in the paperwork they gave her, it says they have the right to search their cars trunk and glove compartment.

Now, I wonder if they state it that way so you can keep a gun under the seat?

Edited January 26 by Tom B

[Snaveba]

Just because they can search your car, I don’t think they can legally prevent you from having a gun in your car. The Castle Doctrine  says your car is an extension of your home and you can keep a gun in it. 
 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/02/11/3-things-tennessee-employers-should-know-gun-laws/80255594/#

Edited January 26 by Snaveba

[Defender]

14 hours ago, Defender said:

It’s in there, I saw it earlier.  I’ll look for that passage tomorrow.

Well shoot, cant find what I was looking for, but the bottom line is the bill doesn't change anything regarding trespassing.  Th property owner, as has always been the case, has the right to ask people to leave his/her property.  Failure to do so constitutes criminal trespass.  This bill simply removes the current criminal charge of carrying past a gunbuster sign on private property.  As it should be.

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Tom B said:

I agree with you, but in the paperwork they gave her, it says they have the right to search their cars trunk and glove compartment.

Now, I wonder if they state it that way so you can keep a gun under the seat?

I’d have a hard time signing on to that.

[Defender]

1 hour ago, Snaveba said:

Just because they can search your car, I don’t think they can legally prevent you from having a gun in your car. The Castle Doctrine  says your car is an extension of your home and you can keep a gun in it. 
 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/02/11/3-things-tennessee-employers-should-know-gun-laws/80255594/#

You are right.  However, Tennessee, being a right to work state, retains the right to terminate folks for almost anything. I Hard to prove anything, Id guess. I think an employer would just bide their time and end up firing her for some 'other' offense.

[Snaveba]

1 minute ago, Defender said:

You are right.  However, Tennessee, being a right to work state, retains the right to terminate folks for almost anything. I Hard to prove anything, Id guess. I think an employer would just bide their time and end up firing her for some 'other' offense.

Do they have the right to search a locked container bolted into the trunk, or just the trunk?