Bills Being Heard Today 3/10/10

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

The only difference I see is in the original wording it was "for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm" whereas the new bill words it as "allows non-student adult who has a permit to carry a handgun". So maybe they are trying to make it so that a person MUST have an HCP in order to drive/park on school property with a firearm stowed in their vehicle. ??

[Fallguy]

Can someone clarify this one for me - especially since it is now basically a dead bill. I thought that it was already legal for a HCP holder to keep a firearm locked in their car (provided they don't handle it etc...) while on a school property? That whole argument about people dropping their kids off at school etc... Am I wrong?

3. HB1806 by *West. (*SB1622 by *Beavers.)

Handgun Permits - As introduced, allows non-student adult who has a permit to carry a handgun to carry gun onto school grounds if gun remains within private vehicle and is not handled by the adult or a person acting with the adult's consent. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

Summary for HB1806

There are many debates on here about school carry, you may want to search some of those threads.

But basically this bill would have cleared things up a bit.

The part of the law you posted in the other post is only a defense to the misdemeanor charge of having a weapon on school property.

However there is also a felony violation of having a weapon on school property as set forth in subsection ( there is no defense for that.

The main difference between ( and © is whether you had an "intent to go armed" If you have an "intent to go armed" then there is no defense for carry on school property. (Other than those laid out in 39-17-1310)

Some say that if the gun is loaded, then you have an intent to go armed.

This bill would have made a simple exception for those that have a HCP period.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Thanks Fallguy.

[JAB]

Another sticking point is that the current law mentions the vehicle being 'operated' by the adult. To some (and I sort of take this view), operated by means just that - the person must remain behind the wheel, effectively 'operating' the vehicle - in order to be protected by this law. In other words, the current law appears to say that leaving your firearm in the vehicle, even unloaded, and getting out of the vehicle is illegal. It is literally only intended to allow one to pick up/drop off passengers (students) without exiting the vehicle and without either taking the weapon from the vehicle on school grounds or leaving it unattended in a vehicle on school grounds. The new law did away with the unclear language and made it clear that the firearm could legally be left in the vehicle.

I hate that this bill is effectively dead. I was almost more interested in seeing this become law even than restaurant carry. I work at a satellite campus for a private college so the current law means I am basically unable to legally have a firearm in my vehicle, much less carry, until I get home from work five days out of the week. To me, it is stupid that the state legislature has decided that a person who has passed background checks and taken the steps to get an HCP - and who they (the legislature) considers trustworthy to carry at Walmart, in a state park and in restaurants where alchohol is served (after all, the legislature passed that law once, already) is somehow a 'menace', because he or she wants to have his or her carry weapon in their vehicle, simply because they are on school grounds. It is also offensive that my safety and ability to be equipped for self defense is considered somehow less important simply because of where I work. What is the point of an HCP if I still can't be trusted - and still can't be legally armed the majority of the time? I spend a lot more time at work than I do in restaurants so, to me, this bill and the 'parking lot' bill (which would impact even more folks) are in some ways more important than restaurant carry and certainly at least equally important.

Edited March 11, 2010 by JAB

[Guest 270win]

Yeah it is dumb that the law is not easier on those with permits who must go on school property. The times I go to University of Memphis for work related things...I unload it before getting there to not have 'intent to go armed' and put it in the trunk. It is so stupid to have to do that to do what I think is to comply with the law. Then others think they can't legally possess. What a mess.

What is funny is that if you are on a school shooting team, taking say hunter ed, you can bring a gun to school...and they haven't been fingerprinted and had a background check like we have. Not saying I have a problem with shooting team members or hunter ed students bring guns to campus...but if the state legislature doesn't have a problem with that..and obviously none of those students (some who are minors) never cause problems.....how can folks who are 21 and over who have gone through the hoops we have and paid the state a good chunk of change cause trouble when carrying a gun on us at a school??? Ohhh...that would make too much common sense for the govt types to understand.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I can pretty much guarantee that every day in TN there are many many vehicles that drive through schools dropping off/picking up kids that have loaded firearms in them. People with HCP's are simply not going to leave their gun at home all week just because they have to spend 10 minutes each day in a school parking lot.

[Fallguy]

I can pretty much guarantee that every day in TN there are many many vehicles that drive through schools dropping off/picking up kids that have loaded firearms in them. People with HCP's are simply not going to leave their gun at home all week just because they have to spend 10 minutes each day in a school parking lot.

Nor do they have to. There is a specific defense in 39-17-1310 that allows for reaming armed while picking up and dropping off of students.

The situation that needs to be addressed is going to the school and leaving the car to attend to something inside the school.

[Guest Jamie]

The situation that needs to be addressed is going to the school and leaving the car to attend to something inside the school.

Seems to me that as long as there is no incident or trouble while inside the school, what is or isn't inside the vehicle will never be an issue... especially if the object in question isn't left laying out in plain sight.

You go to school and pick a fight, or leave a nickle bag laying on your front seat... or just pitch you gun in before you lock the car door... well, you've got serious problems any way.

J.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Jamie

[Fallguy]

Seems to me that as long as there is no incident or trouble while inside the school, what is or isn't inside the vehicle will never be an issue... especially if the object in question isn't left laying out in plain sight.

I agree, but doesn't make it legal.

[Guest Jamie]

I agree, but doesn't make it legal.

Given the apparent questions concerning the law, it doesn't necessarily make it illegal either.

J.

[Fallguy]

Given the apparent questions concerning the law, it doesn't necessarily make it illegal either.

J.

True, all the more reason to have tried and make it clear though.

Shouldn't even have to risk a felony just to into the office and pick up a paper or something.

[Guest Jamie]

True, all the more reason to have tried and make it clear though.

Shouldn't even have to risk a felony just to into the office and pick up a paper or something.

Yes... but: Just how many permit holders have been charged for bringing a gun onto school property, when they left their gun in the car, went in and tended to whatever business they were there for, and DIDN'T have any other incidental trouble?

I guess what I'm asking is how much of a problem is there, due to the current law being what it is? How may "law-abiding" people are getting hung out to dry over this one?

J.

[Fallguy]

Sometimes it's just the principal of the thing....

[Guest Jamie]

Sometimes it's just the principal of the thing....

I understand that, however, there's so many other matters that really need tending to... the whole mess with HCP applications and renewals, restaurant carry, being able to keep a gun in one's vehicle while at work, etc.... that a matter that really isn't causing a problem to speak of just doesn't warrant much worry, in my opinion.

I'm not saying the laws governing carry on school property don't need to be straightened out and clarified, only that it's not any big deal if it takes a while to happen. Especially if they SEEM to be working okay for the moment.

I'd much rather see restrictions loosened up for State buildings, for instance, so that my wife could carry to and from the car, when she goes to work, rather than to worry about the non-issue of what to do with my gun when we have to go have a meeting with my step-daughter's teachers.

J.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Jamie

[JAB]

I understand that, however, there's so many other matters that really need tending to... the whole mess with HCP applications and renewals, restaurant carry, being able to keep a gun in one's vehicle while at work, etc.... that a matter that really isn't causing a problem to speak of just doesn't warrant much worry, in my opinion.

J.

This may be true for people who only spend a few minutes a week on a school campus. However, as I mentioned, I work on a satellite campus of a private college. You specifically site "being able to keep a gun in one's vehicle while at work" as being a matter than needs tending to more than the ability to have a firearm in one's vehicle on school property. Does it not occur to you that there are people for whom going to work means being on school property?

Under current state law, some version of the 'parking lot' bill would mean absolutely nothing to those of us who work for educational institutions. In fact, as it would in effect be saying that everyone except those who have the audacity to work for a school have the right to self defense when driving to and from work, passage of such a bill without changing the law with regard to school premises would be a bit of a slap in the face. That is because even if the state legislature changed state law to forbid employers from interfering with my legal ability to have a firearm in the confines of my property (my vehicle), that very same legislature would still be - hypocritically - leaving in place a law that interferes with that exact, same ability.

I want to see carry in restaurants that serve alchohol legalized. However, I spend maybe 45 minutes to an hour at a time in a restaurant and even if said restaurant serves alchohol I can at least legally have my firearm in the vehicle. I spend 40 hours a week on the premises of a school - and can't even legally have my firearm in my vehicle to be available for the trip to and from work or anywhere else I must stop during that trip. Kind of makes having an HCP a moot point for the better part of my week.

Yes, I could look for a job elsewhere - just as your wife could seek employment that wouldn't require her going to a State building every workday - but neither of us should be forced, by the law, to make that decision. The fact that we have gone through the process and met the requirements to obtain and maintain our HCP should be enough.

Edited March 12, 2010 by JAB

[Guest Jamie]

JAB, what you've outlined there is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about; there are much more important issues to be dealt with than a re-hash of the "visiting a school" law(s).

And when I said "being able to keep a gun in one's vehicle while at work", I pretty much meant everybody, teachers/staff included.

Hopefully, SCOTUS and the McDonald case will give a little ( a lot? ) more leverage to get some of this stuff changed to what it should be, instead of what it currently is.

J.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Jamie