Meeting with my State Rep next week, need suggestions on how to fix the laws

[macville]

Hey guys, I have set up a meeting with my state Rep Ryan Haynes next week to talk about putting forth changes to our current laws to clear up matters that surfaced thanks to the new parks and restaurant law.

This is what I have come up with so far and what your all's input on what might need to be added.

1. Add a defense to the "defense to going armed" section that if a sign is not properly posted (aka: cities opt-ing out of parks but not posted, schools not posting like they are supposed to, businesses not posting the "proper" sign, etc) that someone with a HCP can not be charged with anything if caught carrying there.

That should fix the whole parks issue, and make it clear that if you are required by law to post, or chose to post, you MUST post and MUST post the correct sign.

2. Change the posting notice (39-17-1359) and remove "substantially similar" from the law and require that it is the exact sign and it either says

"...THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS BUILDING HAS BANNED WEAPONS" or "...THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS..." depending wither weapons are banned on the property or only in the building. Also add that the sign MUST include the gun/circle-slash symbol.

3. Remove the restriction on private k-12 schools and colleges about allowing carry. It's PRIVATE for a reason and as far as I can tell, they are the only private business/non-profit that are still restricted under the law since you can now carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. If a private school wants to ban carry, then they simply post like any other business. Of course, if we were to get #1 passed, it wouldn't really matter because if the school didn't post, they wouldn't be able to charge you!

Any other suggestions?

Matthew

[LagerHead]

I would suggest they make it illegal for restaurants, cities, and counties to opt out where state law allows. It's asinine.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I would suggest they make it illegal for restaurants, cities, and counties to opt out where state law allows. It's asinine.

I completely agree. Unless we can opt out of paying city and county taxes.

[dunndw]

Remove the opt out provision for the parks-too piecemeal now. You can carry here, you can't there.

If you post your business then you MUST provide armed security at all times, both inside and in the parking areas. IF you don't and something happens you are held responsible.

Can't make it illegal to post private property, but you can hold them to a higher standard.

Force the state to remake the damn HCP training video. Those two guys make me want to sut my ears off with a empty shell casing

Require ALL places that are off limits to post a PROPER sign. local, state and federal buildings asl well.The signage requirement now are (imo) fine. If they don't post the proper legal signage, then there is no penalty for carrying there, other than being asked to leave.

[Guest HexHead]

Remove the opt out provision for the parks-too piecemeal now. You can carry here, you can't there.

Can't make it illegal to post private property, but you can hold them to a higher standard.

Require ALL places that are off limits to post a PROPER sign. local, state and federal buildings asl well.The signage requirement now are (imo) fine. If they don't post the proper legal signage, then there is no penalty for carrying there, other than being asked to leave.

I agree with your 1st & 3rd paragraphs. The part I bolded though, is nonsense. The government imposes regulations on private businesses all the time. Bars and restaurants have to ban smoking unless they opt to be 21-over only. Liquor stores have to be closed on Sundays and election day. GA & KY don't allow businesses to opt out. Why should we?

[Guest justme]

I agree--no opt out provision for local, or county parks, and a requirement to have a completely legal posting for any establishment seeking to ban guns on their property--if the sign is not legal, it should not be enforceable.

I would also suggest a provision that lays the responsibility for safety directly at the feet of the business owner for any establishment that posts pursuant to law--if they want to keep guns out, that should be their right--BUT they should bear the full responsibility for safety, and if someone gets hurt on their property by a criminal--the business owner should be financially liable.

Edited October 2, 2009 by justme

[Guest PapaB]

Don't allow opt out by any government entities below the State level. The State shouldn't grant the right to other governmental groups to determine when and where our Constitutional rights can be abridged.

[Guest justme]

I would also suggest asking--why is it Tennessee criminalized the possession of firearms and only provides a defense to carry? If he looks confused--point to 39-17-1307(a). I agree--the section regarding possession by a felon should stay however.

Second, would be the repeal of 39-17-1308--because with the ability to carry without a permit--there is no need for any "defenses". Mention that we would like to see the ability to carry without a permit in this state, but would still need 39-17-1351 if we wanted to travel out of state.

[TMMT]

How about doing away with the requirement of a valid CCL to have a loaded gun in your vehicle?

That has to one of the stupidest laws currently on the books here.

[TGO David]

I would suggest they make it illegal for restaurants, cities, and counties to opt out where state law allows. It's asinine.

That's the way Kentucky approaches it. They also differentiate between BARS and restaurants though. It's illegal to carry into a bar up there. Any drinking/dining establishment that gets 51% of it's revenue from food sales is legal to carry in.

[timcalhoun]

I have often thought that the state should offer an expanded version carry permit.

The idea is this-

Since no one seems to have a problem with police carrying everywhere because the public perception is they are very well trained and therefore safe. You simply require the expanded carriers to go through the same firearms training that a cadet does before they put them out on the street with a gun. There by allowing a holder of the expanded carry to carry everywhere the police can. If you combine all the firearms training a cadet receives it could easily be condensed in a 3 day period (This according to my metro pd friends and please correct me if they are wrong). Therefore, with the same training as a cop, it would be hard for the left to argue that a citizen with these credentials could not carry in places xyz.

Thoughts?

[Guest HexHead]

I have often thought that the state should offer an expanded version carry permit.

The idea is this-

Since no one seems to have a problem with police carrying everywhere because the public perception is they are very well trained and therefore safe. You simply require the expanded carriers to go through the same firearms training that a cadet does before they put them out on the street with a gun. There by allowing a holder of the expanded carry to carry everywhere the police can. If you combine all the firearms training a cadet receives it could easily be condensed in a 3 day period (This according to my metro pd friends and please correct me if they are wrong). Therefore, with the same training as a cop, it would be hard for the left to argue that a citizen with these credentials could not carry in places xyz.

Thoughts?

The left will always argue that anyway. You're dealing with people that want the government in every aspect of your life. They'll still just want the police or military to be the only ones with guns. That's why they're "the left".

[Guest gunslinger707]

Trash ALL the stupid Law's and make it a right to carry like it's supposed to be !

[macville]

Trash ALL the stupid Law's and make it a right to carry like it's supposed to be !

Yes, I totally agree, but come up with changes to the law that we might be able to actually get passed. Our freedoms have been eroded by a bunch of small changes. While I would love to do it in one big swoop, I think we can do it by even 10 small bills that go more unnoticed then 1 bill that removes the permits and allows total legal carry anywhere.

Still open for any suggestions on what to address.

Matthew

[Guest 270win]

Remove the stupid fine from the sign law. That would fix the sign wording problem. We should not risk a fine over a silly sign when we have a permit. Only those without permits should be fined for carrying where there is a sign...that is one of the most stupid things I have heard about in the country...fine for a sign. Those that don't it is the Class B misdemeanor for the sign and another misdemeanor for intent to go armed.

Change the park law to eliminate this opt out garbage and make the law statewide uniform. No patchwork garbage. No confusion....Everyone can carry in any city, county, or state park, rec center, playground, whatever if they have a permit...those that don't it is still the Class A misdemeanor.

Make a Handgun Carry Permit a defense to prosecution (aka exempt class like hunters/target shooters/those going to gun and knofe shows) for someone who is on school property plain and simple. I should not risk being charged with 'intent to go armed' felony charge or the misdemeanor 'possession' charge when I have a permit. That is absolutely stupid. Again.....I'm not the stinking criminal! I didn't get a permit to be charged with gun crimes the same as those who don't have permits! If I have a permit I should be completely legal anywhere on school grounds plain and simple. If your state rep wants an example....tell him it is legal for those in Alabama, California, Oregon, Utah, New Hampshire to carry on K-college property. What is the problem with TN? In Alabama and New Hampshire they just pass a background check and are given licenses from their local/county police/sheriff. We get fingerprinted, background check, and take a class with range qualification.....why are we treated like a criminal when on school property while those in states with much less standards can carry on school property??? Are we not trusted here?

[Guest justme]

How about doing away with the requirement of a valid CCL to have a loaded gun in your vehicle?

That has to one of the stupidest laws currently on the books here.

I say do away with the provision that requires a permit at all and allow us to carry without one and only issue permits if a person decides they want to travel out of state, but keep the provision criminalizing possession by felons--direct the law at the criminals instead of the people for a change..

and there is no CCL--only a HCP.

Edited October 7, 2009 by justme

[NuTcAsE]

I say do away with the provision that requires a permit at all and allow us to carry without one and only issue permits if a person decides they want to travel out of state, but keep the provision criminalizing possession by felons--direct the law at the criminals instead of the people for a change..

and there is no CCL--only a HCP.

Nope. No reason that a citizen who has a felony conviction that has "paid their debt" to society and is on the "straight & narrow" should be denied their rights. Those that come out to go right back into crime, get them anyway.

All this serves is to prevent a once convicted felon, now law abiding citizen the ability to protect themselves and their family. It is no different than the laws that impair our ability to to do the same.

To the OP, my suggestion is to simply, GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION.

[Guest justme]

Nope. No reason that a citizen who has a felony conviction that has "paid their debt" to society and is on the "straight & narrow" should be denied their rights. Those that come out to go right back into crime, get them anyway.

and as long as they have had their rights restored, then I agree 100%.

All this serves is to prevent a once convicted felon, now law abiding citizen the ability to protect themselves and their family. It is no different than the laws that impair our ability to to do the same.

To the OP, my suggestion is to simply, GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION.

again, if their rights have been fully restored, then I am in agreement. And I agree again--let us get back to the Constitution.

[Guest tnvolfan]

Hey guys, Ryan and my daughter went to Farragut High School together, and he is a A#1 OK guy and totally supports gun rights. He has also been shooting at CCA - they know him well. Don't think just because he's a politician he's like some of the liberal scum that is unfortunately in office now -- if we had more like Ryan, our country wouldn't be in this mess. I think your meeting will go very well -- just remember, he IS on our side!

[deafdogdief]

I agree with getting rid of the opt-out. This patchwork stuff is likely to get an honest person uknowingly in trouble.

[macville]

Hey guys, Ryan and my daughter went to Farragut High School together, and he is a A#1 OK guy and totally supports gun rights. He has also been shooting at CCA - they know him well. Don't think just because he's a politician he's like some of the liberal scum that is unfortunately in office now -- if we had more like Ryan, our country wouldn't be in this mess. I think your meeting will go very well -- just remember, he IS on our side!

Yeah, I know he is 100% on our side. That's why I am meeting with him because I know he will support the changes I bring to him and try to get them into law.

I will try and make a summary before I meet with him so we are all on the same page. Keep the ideas coming!

Matthew

[GoVols]

Absolutly get rid of the stupid opt-out option. I just moved to TN (in July) and knowing where I can or can't carry is beyond possible! Especially when nobody posts signs like they are supposed to. (traveled thru chattanooga while back and applebees had a tiny sign at the entrance that said "no guns allowed, no matter what the law says" and I didn't see it until on the way out.)

My true logic behind removing the opt-out option was summed up by three above posts:

Don't allow opt out by any government entities below the State level. The State shouldn't grant the right to other governmental groups to determine when and where our Constitutional rights can be abridged.

I would suggest they make it illegal for restaurants, cities, and counties to opt out where state law allows. It's asinine.

... GA & KY don't allow businesses to opt out. Why should we?....

Edited October 8, 2009 by GoVols

[seez52]

I'd check his temperature on states rights and Tennessee's sovereignty. If we ever hope to rein in the fed. gov't., states demanding their rights back according to the 10th amendment is the only way it's ever going to happen, peacefully.

[Guest flyinglowwithheat]

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

Makes you want to move to Kentucky!!! Seems like a very gun friendly state...odd that TN isn't more friendly BUT it could be after the next session!!!! :-)))

[Guest HexHead]

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

Makes you want to move to Kentucky!!! Seems like a very gun friendly state...odd that TN isn't more friendly BUT it could be after the next session!!!! :-)))

Don't hold your breath, I'm hoping we still have restaurant carry come Nov. 6th.