Nashville - Las Palmas posted?

[Guest Jamie]

True but other precedent are often used to interpret uncharted territory and there is a very LONG list of precedent if there ever were a test case. Again, it doesn't matter to me but some folks get all worked up about the letter of the law and forget their is a whole other side called application. Application tends to be much more broad and few have the resources to push the law back to the letter in small cases as this would be.

My point here is that we're talking about a new, untested law who's wording has never been questioned or interpreted by a court... and that may very well have an unintended loophole in it.

You also can't use the standard set for trespass, since anywhere on the property is subject to that, not just a specifically-mentioned area.

As for the codes or requirements of the ABC board or the Building commission... not really part of the whole criminal law thing.

Now having said all that and much more besides, I do think this whole conversation has been academic... 'cause there's no way someone rabid enough to post in the first place is going to leave an area unposted for us gun nuts to sneak into.

J.

[partypilot1]

I appreciate your opinion and see how LE would try to interpret the law as best they could and enforce it in the same manor but they can't make charges stick without breaking a law.

Were you carrying a weapon within the confines of this restaurant, no your honor I wasn't. Officer XXX, did you see mister xxx carrying a weapon within the confines of this restaurant, well, no your honor I didn't. Well, officer XXX, why did you arrest him for carrying a weapon within the confines of this restaurant?

I believe that will be the last time officer XXX try's to interpret the law for judge XXX

[Guest Jamie]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Nashville isn't the only place or only courts who get to have a go at this one... And if someplace else rules on it before they get the chance to say what they think "within the confines of a building" means...

Anyway... it should be interesting to see how this all goes.

... if the veto is ever over-ridden, that is.

J.

[Fallguy]

I was going to jump in again...but after I thought for a moment...I said why.

Because....

When the veto is overridden...39-17-1305 will be gone. So there is no "confines of a building" To prohibit carry a place will have to post. Now we know the can post as little as one room or as much as the whole property.

So if they do post on the front door...it really won't matter where you sit, inside or outside.

The new 39-17-1321 says, "confines of a establishment" IMO, that would include any outdoor areas as well.

But regardless...the only time that comes into play is if you are armed and consuming and/or armed and under the influence, which you shouldn't be doing anyway.

So while this was good debate...the days of it's relevance are numbered.

[Guest Jamie]

So while this was good debate...the days of it's relevance are numbered.

So you're saying it had any to begin with?

J.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

lol... in b4 the LOCK!!!!