TN Open Container Law

[Fallguy]

I agree that's the way that it should be. But I'm also one of the few here that has no problems with a permit because it does allow easier incarceration of those that can not carry. I do have a problem with it being 'taxed' though.

How is that?

Even without carry permits, it is illegal for a felon to be in possession of a handgun....don't really need the lack of him having a permit to make it easier to jail him. Otherwise you are saying he is the same as a simple otherwise law abiding citizen that happens not to have a permit.

[Fallguy]

It technically still is legal to drink and drive so long as you aren't over the arbitrary, baseless limit. It's just that our courts have so eroded our Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment rights that the police can seriously ruin your day based on little of nothing.

Well...not exactly....

You're right in that you can only be charged with a DUI for being under the influence (regardless of a .08 BAC...at that point it is simply presumed) not just for drinking while driving. However that is where the Open Container law comes into place......as the driver you can't have an open container regardless of being under the influence or even consuming...just so long as it is in your possession.

[strickj]

So, you're comparing a law-abiding citizen carrying without a permit to stealing or doing dope?

Great.

Nope, never did that.

Just comparing two laws. No correlation whatsoever sept' they're two laws.

Right. And a law against felons and drug abusers carrying will allow for their arrest afterward. And decent folks like us won't be bothered with onerous regulation. Jeez. How hard is this for you to understand?

I'm happy that you think laws are burdensome that you do not like.

Please stop wasting our time. Your words here plainly reveal your values. If you believe they don't, then you believe that you're being false when you post. This is a silly little point for you to not yield. You're plainly wrong to argue this.

I would ask you to show me where in this thread I have said anything that tells you that I have no values, but...

I'd like to debate with someone who isn't simple. In fact, that's what I think I'll do.

Fine. Edited October 17, 2010 by strickj

[Fallguy]

Also while it has been somewhat as a direct response........some post are starting to border on personal attacks....so let's try to keep it from being personal.... Thanks.

[strickj]

How is that?

Even without carry permits, it is illegal for a felon to be in possession of a handgun....don't really need the lack of him having a permit to make it easier to jail him. Otherwise you are saying he is the same as a simple otherwise law abiding citizen that happens not to have a permit.

A domestic violence, stalking, or restraining order come to mind. Doesn't necessarily make the offender a felon.

I could see an officer missing one of those, but it would be pretty hard not to catch the lack of permit.

Like I said, I wish we didn't need a permit but at the same time I also don't have a problem with them really.

But I do have a problem with a fee and state cert class being attached to them.

Edited October 17, 2010 by strickj

[Fallguy]

A domestic violence, stalking, or restring order come to mind. Doesn't necessarily make the offender a fellon.

I could see an officer missing one of those, but it would be pretty hard not to catch the lack of permit.

Like I said, I wish we didn't need a permit but at the same time I also don't have a problem with them really.

But I do have a problem with a fee and state cert class being attached to them.

Well I see where you're coming from anyway at least....

[strickj]

Well I see where you're coming from anyway at least....

Just one of them things that I'm neither here nor there on really.

I do see the why for both sides and highly support both.

The short time I lived in GA made me really appreciate and like their process for carrying.

50 bucks, no class, no loooong wait limit, and it entitles you to no BG check when buying guns from FFLs. That 50 bucks can pay for itself very quickly.

No permit needed for car carry either.

Edited October 17, 2010 by strickj

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow, it's nice to see people can still act civilized these days. I never really understood the need to start insulting people just because you disagree with them.

[Punisher84]

Wow, it's nice to see people can still act civilized these days. I never really understood the need to start insulting people just because you disagree with them.

Well that's because you suck Nancy.

FWIW I do agree with Crimson and others' viewpoint. I see the fallout from DUI all the time. I've yet to hear someone say "Bill sitting in the backseat drinking made me crash." It all comes to personal responsibilty. Remember? We talked about that in another thread recently...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East_TN_Patriot]

This is clearly a debate between two competing views of the law. The first, and the classical Enlightenment/republican view of the law is to prevent and punish direct harm to another person. The other is the progressive view that the law can be used as a tool to regulate behavior, enforce morality, and prohibit behaviors that MIGHT lead to harm. We have far too many of the latter forms of laws and they do a very good job of punishing people for behaviors that cause no direct harm to anyone. For example, in this particular debate we are debating whether a passenger drinking should be illegal. The supporters immediately go to the 'might' argument without any sense of how likely it is that a driver would suddenly be enticed to drink while driving or whether the law actually deters anyone from driving under the influence.

Other examples of this argument are the multiple drug laws that are regulating what an individual wants to put into their body on the basis that it's "wrong" to use drugs and the person 'might' do something to harm others while under the influence of said drugs. They also point to the crime that surrounds the drug trade without considering the very obvious fact that the violence that surrounds the drug trade is the direct result of drug prohibition (remember that pesky little period of American history called Prohibition?). Do I think drug use is a good idea? Generally speaking, no. Do I think the law should incarcerate people who choose to do it? Absolutely not. Do I think that the law should punish someone who uses drugs irresponsibly and then causes some harm to another person? Absolutely yes. Are there some drugs that are so inherently harmful that they should be prohibited by law? Possibly, meth being one that comes to mind. This is coming from a guy who has never used any illegal drug and started his police career with a 100% support for the war on drugs and has made probably hundreds of arrests for drug law violations. As the years passed, I started to realize the problem was not with drug use, but with the illegal drug trade and that would no longer exist if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed just like alcoholic beverages (I guess in this debate you couldn't smoke a joint as a passenger in a car). Prostitution is another example. Gambling is yet another example (nevermind that the government has been running their own gambling operation for years with the lottery that is done "for the kids").

My point here is that we have a perspective of the law and behavior that we don't take the time to question and that includes prohibiting behaviors that violate our own personal views and standards of personal conduct. If we follow the progressive line of thought that prohibits behaviors that we think are simply a bad idea or bad for you, then we see what we have now with laws banning certain foods (trans-fats and salt) because you may overeat and have a heart attack. There is plenty of legitimate harmful behavior out there without looking for other behaviors to add to the mess.

[Punisher84]

This is clearly a debate between two competing views of the law. The first, and the classical Enlightenment/republican view of the law is to prevent and punish direct harm to another person. The other is the progressive view that the law can be used as a tool to regulate behavior, enforce morality, and prohibit behaviors that MIGHT lead to harm. We have far too many of the latter forms of laws and they do a very good job of punishing people for behaviors that cause no direct harm to anyone. For example, in this particular debate we are debating whether a passenger drinking should be illegal. The supporters immediately go to the 'might' argument without any sense of how likely it is that a driver would suddenly be enticed to drink while driving or whether the law actually deters anyone from driving under the influence.

Other examples of this argument are the multiple drug laws that are regulating what an individual wants to put into their body on the basis that it's "wrong" to use drugs and the person 'might' do something to harm others while under the influence of said drugs. They also point to the crime that surrounds the drug trade without considering the very obvious fact that the violence that surrounds the drug trade is the direct result of drug prohibition (remember that pesky little period of American history called Prohibition?). Do I think drug use is a good idea? Generally speaking, no. Do I think the law should incarcerate people who choose to do it? Absolutely not. Do I think that the law should punish someone who uses drugs irresponsibly and then causes some harm to another person? Absolutely yes. Are there some drugs that are so inherently harmful that they should be prohibited by law? Possibly, meth being one that comes to mind. This is coming from a guy who has never used any illegal drug and started his police career with a 100% support for the war on drugs and has made probably hundreds of arrests for drug law violations. As the years passed, I started to realize the problem was not with drug use, but with the illegal drug trade and that would no longer exist if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed just like alcoholic beverages (I guess in this debate you couldn't smoke a joint as a passenger in a car). Prostitution is another example. Gambling is yet another example (nevermind that the government has been running their own gambling operation for years with the lottery that is done "for the kids").

My point here is that we have a perspective of the law and behavior that we don't take the time to question and that includes prohibiting behaviors that violate our own personal views and standards of personal conduct. If we follow the progressive line of thought that prohibits behaviors that we think are simply a bad idea or bad for you, then we see what we have now with laws banning certain foods (trans-fats and salt) because you may overeat and have a heart attack. There is plenty of legitimate harmful behavior out there without looking for other behaviors to add to the mess.

That's one of the best things I've ever read on here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If localities have enacted more restrictive open container laws, would they have immunities for such as--

1. A bunch of Jimmy Buffet fans on a charter bus to see their Great One, getting smashed on Margaritas the whole trip?

2. A couple on a date drinking in the back of a limo or taxi?

3. A fellow driving 4 or 8 of his friends to a college ball game in his fancy stretch van or RV, and all the friends are having a party in back?

I kinda imagine a 'strict' open container law being applied more to a beat-up old car full of college kids or rednecks, at 2 am on Saturday night. But are the laws written so the po folks can be harrassed while giving yuppies a pass? Or do they just selectively enforce the law?

[DaveTN]

This is clearly a debate between two competing views of the law. The first, and the classical Enlightenment/republican view of the law is to prevent and punish direct harm to another person. The other is the progressive view that the law can be used as a tool to regulate behavior, enforce morality, and prohibit behaviors that MIGHT lead to harm. We have far too many of the latter forms of laws and they do a very good job of punishing people for behaviors that cause no direct harm to anyone. For example, in this particular debate we are debating whether a passenger drinking should be illegal. The supporters immediately go to the 'might' argument without any sense of how likely it is that a driver would suddenly be enticed to drink while driving or whether the law actually deters anyone from driving under the influence.

Other examples of this argument are the multiple drug laws that are regulating what an individual wants to put into their body on the basis that it's "wrong" to use drugs and the person 'might' do something to harm others while under the influence of said drugs. They also point to the crime that surrounds the drug trade without considering the very obvious fact that the violence that surrounds the drug trade is the direct result of drug prohibition (remember that pesky little period of American history called Prohibition?). Do I think drug use is a good idea? Generally speaking, no. Do I think the law should incarcerate people who choose to do it? Absolutely not. Do I think that the law should punish someone who uses drugs irresponsibly and then causes some harm to another person? Absolutely yes. Are there some drugs that are so inherently harmful that they should be prohibited by law? Possibly, meth being one that comes to mind. This is coming from a guy who has never used any illegal drug and started his police career with a 100% support for the war on drugs and has made probably hundreds of arrests for drug law violations. As the years passed, I started to realize the problem was not with drug use, but with the illegal drug trade and that would no longer exist if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed just like alcoholic beverages (I guess in this debate you couldn't smoke a joint as a passenger in a car). Prostitution is another example. Gambling is yet another example (nevermind that the government has been running their own gambling operation for years with the lottery that is done "for the kids").

My point here is that we have a perspective of the law and behavior that we don't take the time to question and that includes prohibiting behaviors that violate our own personal views and standards of personal conduct. If we follow the progressive line of thought that prohibits behaviors that we think are simply a bad idea or bad for you, then we see what we have now with laws banning certain foods (trans-fats and salt) because you may overeat and have a heart attack. There is plenty of legitimate harmful behavior out there without looking for other behaviors to add to the mess.

Absolutely. My views on this are emotional and personal. They are based on my experience as a Police Patrol Officer and as a Traffic Officer. Your experiences are obviously quite different that mine; I have no idea why that is.

The legislature makes laws based on facts, personal experience and yes, even emotion. Most states (40) have seen fit to outlaw drinking by anyone in vehicles. Tennessee is one of the few that have seen fit to allow it. Some Counties on the other hand have seen fit to step in and outlaw it in their county. I can’t find any information on how many counties have outlawed it or even if it is outlawed in my own county. I don’t drink and drive and don’t allow open liquor in my vehicle, so that is a piece of information I have never needed until now. And I don’t find it anywhere… so I would guess this is not a big concern for Rutherford County and they allow it.

So… the question seems to be does allowing open liquor in a vehicle mean the driver will be drinking. My experience says the driver will be drinking. But let me clarify that by saying I was in a state where open liquor is illegal, period. When I stopped a carload of people drinking was the driver sober and not drinking? Rarely… usually the driver was toasted and was arrested for DUI. Responsible sober drivers won’t generally allow open liquor in a vehicle they are responsible for and in control of. That’s just my experience yours may vary.

So painting a picture of a sober non-drinking driver hauling around a bunch of drunks with open containers is just not realistic.

[mikegideon]

Like I said, I wish we didn't need a permit but at the same time I also don't have a problem with them really.

But I do have a problem with a fee and state cert class being attached to them.

I think the cert class probably does a lot of good. I think we have way too many laws, but that one is a keeper.

[DaveTN]

I think the cert class probably does a lot of good. I think we have way too many laws, but that one is a keeper.

See… everyone has their own ideas on what laws to keep based on their personal experience.

I think the HCP carry class is a joke. It’s a day of smokin’ and jokin’ at the range and the state gets a payday. I’m sure there are probably some good instructors but I’ve seen some post here that are clueless.

Unless a person is an Attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Tennessee and specializing in criminal law and the use of deadly force; they have absolutely no business getting paid to explain it to people.

I think you should have to take a test to vote, but the legislature does not agree. Therefore no test should be required to carry a gun.

[mikegideon]

Absolutely. My views on this are emotional and personal. They are based on my experience as a Police Patrol Officer and as a Traffic Officer. Your experiences are obviously quite different that mine; I have no idea why that is.

The legislature makes laws based on facts, personal experience and yes, even emotion. Most states (40) have seen fit to outlaw drinking by anyone in vehicles. Tennessee is one of the few that have seen fit to allow it. Some Counties on the other hand have seen fit to step in and outlaw it in their county. I can’t find any information on how many counties have outlawed it or even if it is outlawed in my own county. I don’t drink and drive and don’t allow open liquor in my vehicle, so that is a piece of information I have never needed until now. And I don’t find it anywhere… so I would guess this is not a big concern for Rutherford County and they allow it.

So… the question seems to be does allowing open liquor in a vehicle mean the driver will be drinking. My experience says the driver will be drinking. But let me clarify that by saying I was in a state where open liquor is illegal, period. When I stopped a carload of people drinking was the driver sober and not drinking? Rarely… usually the driver was toasted and was arrested for DUI. Responsible sober drivers won’t generally allow open liquor in a vehicle they are responsible for and in control of. That’s just my experience yours may vary.

So painting a picture of a sober non-drinking driver hauling around a bunch of drunks with open containers is just not realistic.

I know you have a lot of experience in this area, but you're kinda throwing away the concept of the "law abiding citizen". Personally, i can drive around all day with passengers that are drinking without touching the stuff. Nobody likes beer more than me. I don't want a DUI, or for that matter, any altercation with an LEO.

With that said, I don't normally allow people to drink in my car. I don't want the hassle of an LEO having to sort it out in a routine stop. Liquor bottles are a whole other animal. Most aren't "one serving" containers.

[mikegideon]

See… everyone has their own ideas on what laws to keep based on their personal experience.

I think the HCP carry class is a joke. It’s a day of smokin’ and jokin’ at the range and the state gets a payday. I’m sure there are probably some good instructors but I’ve seen some post here that are clueless.

Unless a person is an Attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Tennessee and specializing in criminal law and the use of deadly force; they have absolutely no business getting paid to explain it to people.

I think you should have to take a test to vote, but the legislature does not agree. Therefore no test should be required to carry a gun.

You can make similar comments about driver's license testing. You see the results of that every day on the roads. You have people buying defensive handguns every day that have never seen a "real" gun until the day they walk out of the store with one. The quality of the instructors is a seperate issue. My guy was actually very good. I was in the class by myself, shooting a gun I have owned for 30 years, and still learned some stuff.

Guess I better get back on topic now before fallguy thumps me on my noggin

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

See… everyone has their own ideas on what laws to keep based on their personal experience.

I think the HCP carry class is a joke. It’s a day of smokin’ and jokin’ at the range and the state gets a payday. I’m sure there are probably some good instructors but I’ve seen some post here that are clueless.

Unless a person is an Attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Tennessee and specializing in criminal law and the use of deadly force; they have absolutely no business getting paid to explain it to people.

I think you should have to take a test to vote, but the legislature does not agree. Therefore no test should be required to carry a gun.

I doubt the average HCP class participant would want to have to pay a licensed attorney to teach their class lol

[DaveTN]

I doubt the average HCP class participant would want to have to pay a licensed attorney to teach their class lol

If I was the instructor I would ask my county DA’s office to supply someone from their office as a public service. Since they would be the ones deciding if you go to trial or not for a shooting.

I would do the safety and shooting instruction and leave the law to them.

How many hundreds of posts have we seen on this very forum where people are clueless about the law governing a shooting? How many posts have we seen by people that think the Castle Doctrine is a law that was passed by this state to let them execute anyone that unlawfully enters their home?

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Oh I agree further explanation would be helpful. And yes the Castle Doctrine does nothing more than supply a rebuttable presumption in the homeowner's favor.

[Fallguy]

So painting a picture of a sober non-drinking driver hauling around a bunch of drunks with open containers is just not realistic.

Perhaps not in your expierence.....but it has been known to happen.

I'd hate to see laws made based soley on any one persons expierences.......

[DaveTN]

Perhaps not in your expierence.....but it has been known to happen.

I'd hate to see laws made based soley on any one persons expierences.......

I can assure you that no one made any laws based on my experiences. They didn’t check with me or even seek my input.

I’m just basing my opinion on a chit load of traffic stops involving drunks and drunks that didn’t even know they were drunk until I made them aware of that little fact.

I have also observed that if you have a mix of people consuming alcohol in vehicles or if you have a bunch of people drinking and handling firearms; chances are pretty high you will have an incident involving someone getting arrested or going to the hospital. Because you see “law abiding citizens†and other people living at the foot of the cross don’t usually find themselves in these situations.

[mikegideon]

I can assure you that no one made any laws based on my experiences. They didn’t check with me or even seek my input.

I’m just basing my opinion on a chit load of traffic stops involving drunks and drunks that didn’t even know they were drunk until I made them aware of that little fact.

I have also observed that if you have a mix of people consuming alcohol in vehicles or if you have a bunch of people drinking and handling firearms; chances are pretty high you will have an incident involving someone getting arrested or going to the hospital. Because you see “law abiding citizens” and other people living at the foot of the cross don’t usually find themselves in these situations.

Didn't you say you were in a state where OC's were against the law? That may not count, since they were willfully violating the law when you caught them.

[Guest Jamie]

If laws were based on my experiences, observations, and general opinion, then the law probably wouldn't let most people even leave the house.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I know you have a lot of experience in this area, but you're kinda throwing away the concept of the "law abiding citizen". Personally, i can drive around all day with passengers that are drinking without touching the stuff. Nobody likes beer more than me. I don't want a DUI, or for that matter, any altercation with an LEO.

With that said, I don't normally allow people to drink in my car. I don't want the hassle of an LEO having to sort it out in a routine stop. Liquor bottles are a whole other animal. Most aren't "one serving" containers.

This is exactly my point on this. The assumption that it's not possible for a sober driver to haul around a bunch of drunks is no more logical than the opposite. In either case, it's irrelevant because it ultimately comes down to the driver making a decision whether to drink and drive or not. I strongly believe that for a driver to make such an irresponsible decision, the existence of an open-container law is a moot point. Once a driver is willing to do something that stupid and illegal, a silly open container law has zero influence. Also, if an officer must rely on the presence of an open-container to make a legal DUI arrest, then they either need more training on how to detect and investigate a DUI, they have allowed themselves to get lazy, or they don't care whether they need to criminalize a harmless behavior in order to make it easier to make an arrest. One poster doesn't understand where my perspective comes from, but the answer is simple: I don't mindlessly go about my daily life accepting the world as it is without questioning the logic of it all. When I have encountered multiple people doing things that are technically illegal, but see that they are causing no other person any direct harm, I wonder why we are wasting time and resources worrying about it. When I see drug dealers shooting it out in the streets over the illegal drug trade so people can sit in their houses and get stoned out of their mind without harming anyone else, I question the logic of the policies we have. When I can look at US government data that clearly shows the rate of illegal drug use is higher in 2010 than when the "War on Drugs" was started in 1982 and I consider all of the money and lives that have been wasted on it, I question the logic of the policy. When I see alcohol causing more harm than marijuana and cocaine, but we make alcohol legal and outlaw the others, I question the logic of the policy. Finally, I strongly believe that it is morally wrong to use the law as a tool to force people to act in certain ways, not because they are doing harm to me or someone else, but because I simply disagree with the behavior. If someone wants to drink a beer while riding to a concert or party, what harm are they doing to anyone? Why do we care? If the driver does it, then we have a different story, but until someone can show any sort of causal relationship between passengers consuming alcoholic beverages and the increased likelihood a driver will suddenly be enticed to drink and drive, then we need to worry about more important crime problems.