state preemption

[Guest justme]

Tennessee has total preemption of firearms in this state as I understand it, meaning local cities may not enact or enforce any firearms laws of their own. I may be wrong--but if I am--someone please correct me.

As I understand it--preemption is granted to the state through Amendment 26 of the Tennessee Constitution which states : That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I ask this question only because I was looking at various city websites in the area and in the city of La Follette--they have their municipal ordinances listed including what they classify as "criminal offenses" posted online--

http://www.lafollettetn.gov/pdf/TITLE_11.pdf

...

so with that in mind--can someone explain to me if "11-603 Weapons and firearms generally It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any matter whatever with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver, or any other dangerous weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand. However, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to members of the United States armed forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations nor to any officer or policeman engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committing crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or policeman to assist in the discharge of his said duties nor to any conductor of any passenger or freight train of any steam railroad while he is on duty. It shall also be unlawful for any unauthorized person to discharge a firearm within the city. (1975 Code, § 10-212)

Can someone tell me if this city ordinance violates state preemption?

[Guest bkelm18]

"Intent to go armed" and "Carrying with a HCP" are not the same thing. Usually "intent to go armed" means you have a firearm on you but no permit. That's how I've always seen it.

[Fallguy]

The state's preemption law, 39-17-1314 says that any local ordnance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986 is not affected.

It looks like the ordnance you posted was passed in 1975.

However as bkelm18 pointed out, the "intent to go armed" shouldn't apply if you have HCP.

[Oh Shoot]

The state's preemption law, 39-17-1314 says that any local ordnance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986 is not affected.

It looks like the ordnance you posted was passed in 1975.

However as bkelm18 pointed out, the "intent to go armed" shouldn't apply if you have HCP.

Yeah, but according to them, your 4" (or even less) knife is illegal.

Of course, nowhere in TCA (or presumably LaFollette) is "intent to go armed" actually defined.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Yeah, but according to them, your 4" (or even less) knife is illegal.

Of course, nowhere in TCA (or presumably LaFollette) is "intent to go armed" actually defined.

- OS

State preemption only applies to firearms and ammo. So I guess a city could encact an ordnance to prohibit even pocket knives if they chose to and the citizens stood for it.

AFAIK you are correct about "intent to go armed"

[DaveTN]

“Intent to go armed†doesn’t need a definition (or it shouldn’t.)

If you are knowingly carrying a loaded firearm; your intent is to go armed.

39-17-1308(a)(2) possession of a HCP is a defense to the crime of carrying a weapon for the purpose of going armed. (AG opinion 05-154)

I would say that the ordinance in question needs to be addressed. Since it was in force prior to 1986 and it does not specifically allow for HCP as a defense; people there should have an answer.

[Oh Shoot]

“Intent to go armed†doesn’t need a definition (or it shouldn’t.)

If you are knowingly carrying a loaded firearm; your intent is to go armed.

39-17-1308(a)(2) possession of a HCP is a defense to the crime of carrying a weapon for the purpose of going armed. (AG opinion 05-154)

I would say that the ordinance in question needs to be addressed. Since it was in force prior to 1986 and it does not specifically allow for HCP as a defense; people there should have an answer.

The LaFollette statute discussed says you can "intend to go armed" with other stuff than a gun. Including an otherwise legal knife as defined by state law.

- OS

[DaveTN]

It's not legal there.

Yes, A straight razor in your front pocket instead of in your shaving kit could be cause for arrest. Many laws have a requirement to prove intent or state of mind.

[Oh Shoot]

It's not legal there.

Yes, A straight razor in your front pocket instead of in your shaving kit could be cause for arrest. Many laws have a requirement to prove intent or state of mind.

Agreed. And it would seem that "intent to go armed" really means "intent to do harm with said weapon".

Look at it this way, here's TN statute:

"A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club."

Now, first of all, I assume this was already the TN statute BEFORE HCP's were ever issued. Ergo, the verbiage "with the intent to go armed" must have a meaning beyond simple possession of those implements. Otherwise, why use the phrase at all, since simply carrying one of those implements would suffice?

In the case of a club, it's rather obvious. Nobody is going to question your carrying a baseball bat from a ballfield, but walking down main street with it might indicate a sinister intent. Etc....

My point being, "intent to go armed" is an undefined phrase, used at the convenience of police, prosecutors, etc.

No?

- OS

<table style="width: 502px; height: 45px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td rowspan="2">

</td> <td colspan="1" height="12">

</td> <td rowspan="2">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="1">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

[DaveTN]

Yes….. everywhere. Walking home from the ball diamond carrying a baseball bat is okay. Carrying a baseball bat under the front seat of your car is not. In the second case the determining factor (at that time) would be the discretion of the Officer, possibly to be followed later by the courts.

Carrying a knife may not cause any problems if a cop sees it. If he sees when he is searching a group of gang bangin’ thugs; it may mean a trip to jail.

[Guest HexHead]

The state's preemption law, 39-17-1314 says that any local ordnance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986 is not affected.

It looks like the ordnance you posted was passed in 1975.

1975 and they're still talking about the "Army or Navy pistol"? Those would be the Colt Model 1860 and 1861. LOLOLOLOL

[Cruel Hand Luke]

"A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club."

But with a HCP the gun is OK and if you are certified in the use of a club or baton the club is OK.....the knife however still has to be 4" or less.....

[DaveTN]

But with a HCP the gun is OK

Under state law it is. Where do you see an exception under the Lafollette Municipal Ordnance?

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I was actually referring to the state law.

But you know what?

You want to be safe from the Lafollette ordnance?

Don't go to Lafollette.

[Fallguy]

Assuming the ordnance is enforceable

I believe under state law the most they could sentence you to is 30 days in Jail and a $500 fine for a violation of a city ordnance.(6-54-606)

Also I think it would only be a violation of a city ordnance and not a state law and shouldn't affect your HCP any.

It might be worth contacting the city and asking them about it, however it could also be waking a sleeping dog instead of letting him lie...

[DaveTN]

Assuming the ordnance is enforceable

I believe under state law the most they could sentence you to is 30 days in Jail and a $500 fine for a violation of a city ordnance.(6-54-606)

Also I think it would only be a violation of a city ordnance and not a state law and shouldn't affect your HCP any.

Oh well..... As long as we still have our HCP nothing else matters. It isn’t like any of us have jobs. And I’m sure the ones that do have employers that will understand them being off for 30 days to go to jail. Let’s all go there and open carry and see if we can get thrown in jail.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Fallguy]

Oh well..... As long as we still have our HCP nothing else matters. It isn’t like any of us have jobs. And I’m sure the ones that do have employers that will understand them being off for 30 days to go to jail. Let’s all go there and open carry and see if we can get thrown in jail.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I simply meant that it would be less than the 11 months and 29 days a general sessions court could sentence you to for a conviction of misdemeanor.

I also never meant to imply that it was no big deal to possibly serve 30 days in jail.

And I don't think I ever advocated breaking the law.

Also the title of the post was For What It's Worth.......guess it really wasn't worth much.......so never mind.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Fallguy

[leroy]

1975 and they're still talking about the "Army or Navy pistol"? Those would be the Colt Model 1860 and 1861. LOLOLOLOL

I suspect this "intent to go armed" wording is a post-civil war type law enacted during reconstruction. Hexhead's observations and quote also seems to support that view. It would be great if some legal guy would take a look at this from a historical perspective. I remember (im 62) Tennessee law always being in the "intent to go armed" wording until the HCP law was passed. In the bad old days; the sheriffs and chiefs of police passed out handgun carry permits; many times it was a political favoritism thing. The HCP law removed that ability and used the "shall issue" wording; giving the issue power to the State of Tennessee.

Kind regards,

LEROY