Simplified gun law for Tennessee.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would like something in the law holding the business/ property owner partly responsible for all damages that could have reasonably been prevented if patrons were allowed to carry a firearms for self defense.

Example:

I am having dinner in an establishment that does not allow me to carry my defensive firearm. During dinner a bad guy comes in and with a deadly weapon injures my family, myself or innocent bystanders because I am not allowed to defend myself.

These injuries could have been reduced or prevented if myself or someone else had been armed and intervened. Because the property owner denied the patron the means to defend themselves they should be responsibility for part of the damages that occurred during teh assault. The damages should be split between the business/ property owner and the bad guy.

I hope it is understandable but in my mind it seems pretty clear.

Dolomite

[Guest Bonedaddy]

. On properties owned, leased or under the control of private parties, those parties may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting a sign of not less than eight (8) inches wide and not less than ten (10) inches tall containing only the following wording. THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BANNED WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY, OR WITHIN THIS BUILDING OR THIS PORTION OF THIS BUILDING. Posted notices shall be displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the building, portion of the building or buildings where weapon possession is prohibited. If the possession of weapons is also prohibited on the premises of the property as well as within the confines of a building located on the property, the notice shall be posted at all entrances to the premises that are primarily used by persons entering the property. The notice shall be in English but a notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.[/color] [/size][/font]

4. No person, including those holding a valid and current Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit, may consume alcohol in public, or be under its influence, while in possession of weapons. Under the influence shall be defined as having a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater.

This would allow carry in schools, churches, restaurants, State and local Government buildings and properties by HCP holders. I know it couldn't pass, unless people vote smarter, but that's not my point. Let me know if you see the need for any changes. The key to this is simplified. Did I miss anything? I actually prefer the Circle and Bar over weapon sign to the worded versions because so many places put up so much crap on their entrances to read that it could easily be missed. I spend so much time reading all that crap that I feel like my attention is diverted enough to become an easy victim in a robbery situation, etc. I spot the circle type sign easily. Other than that, the statement "or be under its influence" should be in front of "alcohol in public" or the lawyers will have a field day with that loop hole. I like simplicity. It makes things simple when thought out enough. Good luck.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I would like something in the law holding the business/ property owner partly responsible for all damages that could have reasonably been prevented if patrons were allowed to carry a firearms for self defense.

Example:

I am having dinner in an establishment that does not allow me to carry my defensive firearm. During dinner a bad guy comes in and with a deadly weapon injures my family, myself or innocent bystanders because I am not allowed to defend myself.

These injuries could have been reduced or prevented if myself or someone else had been armed and intervened. Because the property owner denied the patron the means to defend themselves they should be responsibility for part of the damages that occurred during teh assault. The damages should be split between the business/ property owner and the bad guy.

I hope it is understandable but in my mind it seems pretty clear.

Dolomite

I totally agree with this, too but make the damages 100%. Same damn thing as you getting bit by my dog in my yard. The dog don't get sued. I do. Do this and more business owners will think twice before banning patron weapons.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I totally agree with this, too but make the damages 100%. Same damn thing as you getting bit by my dog in my yard. The dog don't get sued. I do. Do this and more business owners will think twice before banning patron weapons.

I understand but the bad guy needs to bear some responsibility. Maybe hold the bad guy for 50% and the property owner for 50% but if the bad guy cannot cover his 50% the property owner takes up the bad guys slack.

Or maybe the property owner is held liable for 100% with the provision the bad guy pays any restitution to the property owner.

I just don't want the bad guy to get off relatively penalty free. Especially in today's sentencing climate when a bad guy might be able to plea out to a much reduced sentence.

In you dog analogy your dog would be penalized by being put to sleep unless it was justified in biting and in that case you would not be held responsible anyways.

Dolomite

[Guest Jamie]

Thanks for the great responses. The sign clause allows posting but there would be no criminal penalty, that's why none is listed. friesepferd, I think that addresses your concerns. The alcohol provisions are in 2 parts. The first is consuming which I think I'll change to "consuming in public" because this shouldn't affect what you do in private. The second is being under the influence. You can have a few drinks at home, then get your weapon and go out. Unfortunately there are a few that would do this and I think that's a bad idea. The .08 BAC simply matches the DUI level.

Here's my thinking on the part in red up there:

If I can get in my car, drive someplace and have a drink with my dinner and drive back home legally.... then I should be able to be armed the whole time.

Now, if I have a bunch of drinks... and no dinner... it becomes a different story. 'Cause then I can't even drive home legally.

In other words, lose the "no drinking at all while armed" crap. You might not like it, or think it's a good idea, but the fact is it's no worse and certainly no more dangerous than what I outlined above with simply driving.

J.

[Guest PapaB]

Here's my thinking on the part in red up there:

If I can get in my car, drive someplace and have a drink with my dinner and drive back home legally.... then I should be able to be armed the whole time.

Now, if I have a bunch of drinks... and no dinner... it becomes a different story. 'Cause then I can't even drive home legally.

In other words, lose the "no drinking at all while armed" crap. You might not like it, or think it's a good idea, but the fact is it's no worse and certainly no more dangerous than what I outlined above with simply driving.

J.

You can't consume alcohol while in control of a motor vehicle, being in control of a gun is no different.

[Guest PapaB]

I posted the completed blog on my website. For those interested in seeing the whole post, you'll find it here.

Tennessee needs a simplified gun law.

Thanks for the help and discussion.

[JayC]

I posted the completed blog on my website. For those interested in seeing the whole post, you'll find it here.

Tennessee needs a simplified gun law.

Thanks for the help and discussion.

PapaB,

You still only have the TN army national guard in this version, it would be better to state any member of the Tennessee Military Department which covers all members, army, air guard, state general officers, the state guard, and if called up would include the state militia.

[Guest Jamie]

You can't consume alcohol while in control of a motor vehicle, being in control of a gun is no different.

You can't consume alcohol while operating a motor vehicle. And yes, I realize that operating/controlling are viewed as one and the same where vehicles and "Under the influence" are concerned.

Unless you're going to a really bad place to eat and drink, you should normally be able to get there and back without having to operate your firearm.

And no, carrying a gun is not the same as operating it, though it is being in control of one.

55-10-416. Open container law. —

(a) (1) No driver shall consume any alcoholic beverage or beer or possess an open container of alcoholic beverage or beer while operating a motor vehicle in this state.

(2) For purposes of this section:

(A) “Open container” means any container containing alcoholic beverages or beer, the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed or the seal of which has been broken;

( An open container is in the possession of the driver when it is not in the possession of any passenger and is not located in a closed glove compartment, trunk or other nonpassenger area of the vehicle; and

© A motor vehicle is in operation if its engine is operating, whether or not the motor vehicle is moving.

( (1) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only.

(2) For a violation of this section, a law enforcement officer shall issue a citation in lieu of continued custody, unless the offender refuses to sign and accept the citation, as provided in § 40-7-118.

© This section shall not be construed to prohibit any municipality, by ordinance, or any county, by resolution, from prohibiting the passengers in a motor vehicle from consuming or possessing an alcoholic beverage or beer in an open container during the operation of the vehicle by its driver, or be construed to limit the penalties authorized by law for violation of the ordinance or resolution.

[Acts 1994, ch. 638, § 1.]

J.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Jamie
Edited to add relevant statute

[Guest 270win]

Someone in TN cannot consume alcohol presently within the confines of a building open to the PUBLIC when carrying a handgun. There is no law that makes it illegal to consume alcohol when at a private place...such at a private club, a supper club, a country club, your buddy's house, your own house, etc when carrying a handgun...you cannot be 'under the influence'. That itself is a decent enough law...zero consumption in public places where liquor is served to me is stupid b/c people can go there and DRIVE...but can't carry a gun??? that's nuts.

Also let's get down to another nitty gritty thing.....there is no law that makes it illegal to drink and carry a long gun period or be 'under the influence'...now you can't generally carry a long gun in public...but hey you're in the woods....on private property..whatever...or in the pickup...and have someone else driving....and you have a permit (you know you got that mag loaded now??)...no law prevents someone with a permit from being totally DRUNK as a SKUNK with a rifle or shotgun in Tennessee (please don't let that one come to light)....long guns are often over looked because of hunters in many states. I'm more worried about a piss drunk hunter in the woods than someone with a permit having a beer with pizza carrying a pistol....and just enjoying his meal..but then again I've done that in states where legal...and nothing wild happens.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Having a few drinks does impair judgement, even a single drink can impair judgement for some.

Allowing people to carry a handgun while consuming alcohol will lead to problems, probably not by the majority of HCP holders or even the majority of the populace. The ones that will cause us problems are the idiots that start out with impaired judgement, add alcohol and it only gets worse from there. We have all said to ourselves "what was that idiot thinking?" after seeing or reading what they had done. It is those idiots who scare me more than anything and are going to cause us the most problems if they are allowed to drink while carrying.

I just think giving up a few drinks with dinner is worth it to keep the idiots, with their impaired judgement, from drinking and carrying.

Dolomite

[Fallguy]

Hmmmm....maybe it isn't so "simple" to make laws....or at least not ones that everyone can agree on...

[Guest Jamie]

Having a few drinks does impair judgement, even a single drink can impair judgement for some.

This is true. But it's equally true that some people don't have good judgment to begin with, even without alcohol.

The fact is we're talking about laws here... and laws should punish people for showing poor judgment and poor behavior. But not before then.

If you or I can drink ourselves sick and not cause any harm with a gun, then I think the law should leave us the hell alone with 'em. However, the second we cause any grief, drunk or sober, then it's time to deal with that.

Remember folks, prohibition didn't work. And so far gun control hasn't faired any better.

So maybe it's time to forget about both those things and institute a little "a**hole control"? You know, punish the ones that actually cause the problems while leaving everybody else alone?

What'a ya think?

J.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

Hmmmm....maybe it isn't so "simple" to make laws....or at least not ones that everyone can agree on...

If it were, we probably wouldn't need the blasted laws to begin with...

J.

[Guest Jamie]

Allowing people to carry a handgun while consuming alcohol will lead to problems...

"And the streets will run red with blood"....

Sounds familiar somehow. Wonder where I've heard it before?

J.