double talk in carry laws

[cadillacdude1975]

upon searching for exact wordings on current off limits while carrying, i asked a police officer in a local forum where i could find that while pertaining to alcohol.

i forget when the law was changed (1999ish?) but we all know the old law. felony to carry where it was served and or sold. so that made it a felony to be armed while pumping gasoline at your local station that sells beer.

so, from what i remember and i might be wrong (feel free to correct or interject) but that was one of the big reasons for changing the law to serving for consumption being off limits, not where it was sold.

he directs me to TN code 57-3-204 e 1. it reads really interesting compared to what the current law reads today. i do not know when this was last updated, but never the less, here it how it reads.

from Michie's Legal Resources TN code 57-3-204 e 1 is referring to places that have liquor licenses i assume. here is what it says:

(e) (1) Each holder of a license to sell at retail alcoholic beverages to patrons or customers, in sealed packages, and not for consumption on the premises, shall display in a prominent place at the location where such sales are permitted a sign, at least six inches (6²) high and fourteen inches (14²) wide stating:

MISDEMEANOR. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF ELEVEN (11) MONTHS TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD OR SERVED.

(2) Failure by such licensee to comply with the provisions of subdivision (e)(1) shall subject such licensee to a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00).

what the hell is that? is that a law we knew nothing about? by reading that, it tells me that they have to hang that sign. am i reading that correctly? if this is the case, how does that conflict with the current law? does that mean if they are caught posting the improper sign or no sign at all can they be fined? even though $50 isn't jack **** to a liquor store, the mere double talk that pisses me off. so that raises another question.........who is responsible for checking that these places are properly following the law?

i know it opens the pandora's box versus let the sign be incorrectly worded and posted and carry away concealed, but wtf.....you all get what i am saying? if we the permit holders break the law and get slammed with the fine not to exceed $2500 bucks, does it not seem fair that the businesses be held to the same letter of the law? this should make for an interesting discussion. i am totally bumfuzzled on this issue.

someone please fill me in on this. it has me puzzled beyond belief.

Edited May 5, 2009 by cadillacdude1975

[Guest bkelm18]

upon searching for exact wordings on current off limits while carrying, i asked a police officer in a local forum where i could find that while pertaining to alcohol.

i forget when the law was changed (1999ish?) but we all know the old law. felony to carry where it was served and or sold. so that made it a felony to be armed while pumping gasoline at your local station that sells beer.

so, from what i remember and i might be wrong (feel free to correct or interject) but that was one of the big reasons for changing the law to serving for consumption being off limits, not where it was sold.

he directs me to TN code 57-3-204 e 1. it reads really interesting compared to what the current law reads today. i do not know when this was last updated, but never the less, here it how it reads.

from Michie's Legal Resources TN code 57-3-204 e 1 is referring to places that have liquor licenses i assume. here is what it says:

(e) (1) Each holder of a license to sell at retail alcoholic beverages to patrons or customers, in sealed packages, and not for consumption on the premises, shall display in a prominent place at the location where such sales are permitted a sign, at least six inches (6²) high and fourteen inches (14²) wide stating:

MISDEMEANOR. STATE LAW PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF ELEVEN (11) MONTHS TWENTY-NINE (29) DAYS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500) FOR CARRYING WEAPONS WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD OR SERVED.

(2) Failure by such licensee to comply with the provisions of subdivision (e)(1) shall subject such licensee to a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00).

what the hell is that? is that a law we knew nothing about? by reading that, it tells me that they have to hang that sign. am i reading that correctly? if this is the case, how does that conflict with the current law?

someone please fill me in on this. it has me puzzled.

Yes, the sign still quotes the old law and yes the establishments are required to post that.

[cadillacdude1975]

the old law was a felony though wasn't it? this one states misdemeanor.

[RotorHead]

Laws are written by lawyers to ensure the gainful employment of future generations of lawyers.

[Fallguy]

If HB0962 finally become law....it could be worth our time to petition the legislature to correct this. Since then neither part of the sign would be correct.

I have contacted several in the past about this, but never have got a response.

[cadillacdude1975]

amen to that response.

[Volzfan]

If HB0962 finally become law....it could be worth our time to petition the legislature to correct this. Since then neither part of the sign would be correct.

I have contacted several in the past about this, but never have got a response.

Contact Doug Jackson. He has answered every email that I've sent and I don't even live in his district.

[Fallguy]

Contact Doug Jackson. He has answered every email that I've sent and I don't even live in his district.

I'd have to go back and check, but I believe I contacted him and Todd both as sponsors of HB0962 and suggested that it be added as part of the bill.

Granted I'm sure they were both more concerned with getting the bill as it was passed without adding more too it.

[Guest mikedwood]

Laws are written by lawyers to ensure the gainful employment of future generations of lawyers.

Yes, yes and yes.

[cadillacdude1975]

i guess this situation is a reminder that every law in every state needs to be rewritten to remove the double talk from the books.

[Guest bluecanary25]

If you removed the double-talk.....

why would we need lawyers?