SB0397 (Campfield): Expanded carry legislation

[GKar]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0397.pdf

This one should be fun. The old bat from Memphis will pass out when she reads this.

[DRM]

Where is the FaceBook "Like" Button?

Like, Like, Like, Like!

[JayC]

Well there are some serious problems with this law... first it would remove the ability for us to have loaded (but not chambered) long guns in our vehicles... second it would strengthen the prohibiting of firearms in parks, by changing the language in 39-17-1311...

It would make it a crime to handle any firearm even on your own property after drinking any alcohol, or any drug (legal or illegal)... This could have possible issues with our 'castle' laws. Not sure about this one, maybe one of the lawyers could comment and see if my reading is correct?

I'm not exactly sure whats going on here... Maybe Fallguy could read through this and give his opinion... at first glance it sounds like constitutional carry, but I don't see where they do away with the class, test, finger prints or anything else? Am I missing something?

[Lumber_Jack]

Well there are some serious problems with this law... first it would remove the ability for us to have loaded (but not chambered) long guns in our vehicles... second it would strengthen the prohibiting of firearms in parks, by changing the language in 39-17-1311...

It would make it a crime to handle any firearm even on your own property after drinking any alcohol, or any drug (legal or illegal)... This could have possible issues with our 'castle' laws. Not sure about this one, maybe one of the lawyers could comment and see if my reading is correct?

I'm not exactly sure whats going on here... Maybe Fallguy could read through this and give his opinion... at first glance it sounds like constitutional carry, but I don't see where they do away with the class, test, finger prints or anything else? Am I missing something?

The long gun section only refers to persons under 21. And it says "under the influence" so I read that to be the same as driving. A beer or two is fine, legally drunk is not. Not sure about carry in parks, not familiar enough with that legislation. Just my impression from reading, definitely not a lawyer

[Fallguy]

This does seem to be a "Constitutional Carry" bill. Sec 2 of the bill would seem to also remove the prohibition of carrying knives with blades over 4" and clubs.

Well there are some serious problems with this law... first it would remove the ability for us to have loaded (but not chambered) long guns in our vehicles... second it would strengthen the prohibiting of firearms in parks, by changing the language in 39-17-1311...

I think those 21 and over would still be able to have loaded long guns in their car...even with one in the chamber. It seems to only apply to those under 21. As far as changing the wording of 39-17-1311 it just seems to be cleaning it up a bit if people are allowed to carry without permits. Sec 6 is because people maybe carring other weapons besides handguns and would allow city/counties to ban those weapons as well. Sec 7 & Sec 8 are just so the ban would apply to everyone, not just permit holders.

It would make it a crime to handle any firearm even on your own property after drinking any alcohol, or any drug (legal or illegal)... This could have possible issues with our 'castle' laws. Not sure about this one, maybe one of the lawyers could comment and see if my reading is correct?

It does say "under the influence" not "consuming" per 39-17-1321 it is currently illegal to be under the influence and in possession of a handgun, even in your own home. There is even an AG opinion to that point 98-151

I'm not exactly sure whats going on here... Maybe Fallguy could read through this and give his opinion... at first glance it sounds like constitutional carry, but I don't see where they do away with the class, test, finger prints or anything else? Am I missing something?

They are not doing away with the class, test finger prints etc...for those that still want to get a permit. If they did away with that TN permits wouldn't be honored in very many other state. By leaving the permit process in place, TN permits should still be honored in all the states that they are now. That way those that travel and want a permit could get one. Also it appears that once a permit (actually just an endorsement on your DL per this bill) is issued, it would never expire unless suspended or revoked. But the new 39-17-1313 created in Sec 1 would allow carry without a permit. So it would be like AK and AZ that still issue permits as well and not VT that doesn't issue them at all.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

One interesting thing to note....this would seem to only apply to a "Resident of Tennessee" as it is worded now. So those from other states would still have to have permits unlike in AZ, AK or VT.

[Fallguy]

Something else that seems that it may need to be addressed is disarming by a LEO.

Sec 5 creates a new sub-division stating you must answer truthfully if an officer ask you if you are in possession of a "concealed" deadly weapon. So it seems you still don't have to inform unless asked. Also I'm assuming if you are carrying openly or the rifle/shotgun/etc... is in plain site in your vehicle the officer should see it and you only have to tell them about a weapon they may not see. If this bill passed I can see are you armed being a standard question on every encounter.

But to this disarming...the new bill doesn't seem to address that anywhere. Currently disarming is only mentioned in 39-17-1351(t) and only applies to permit holders. So to make it apply to all or none. it would seem 39-17-1351(t) needs to be removed or something added to the bill to allow for this disarming of anyone.

Personally I think 39-17-1351(t) should be removed. I see no need for an officer to disarm anyone unless they are violating the law.

[JayC]

Fallguy,

Thanks, I wanted somebody else to look at the bill, it's changing a bunch of sections, and I agree my first read was a bit off...

It seems as written it's constitutional carry of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns (very good)... I miss read the 39-17-1307e change, it looks much better now that I've re-read it...

I agree it would require permits for most visitors, but anybody currently employed in the state would seem to be covered.

As for 39-17-1351t, as you know I'm not very fond of that statue... but it does require that officers must return a firearm to the permit holder unless they arrest the permit holder on the spot... my only concern with removing that part of the law, is that officers could legally confiscate a firearm and require you to jump through hoops to get it back. With 1351t in place, that can't happen... While I think the law should be changed to prevent disarming of permit holders unless they're being arrested, if my choice is between 1351t, and no requirement that firearms are returned on the spot, then I'd rather see 1351t stand.

While we're at it, how about removing the April 1986 clause from 39-17-1314a? It'd be nice to have true state wide preemption.

Also, should this pass, remember every bodies favorite draco pistol totting, 6 shot revolver carrying buddy will be allowed to carry again

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0397.pdf

This one should be fun. The old bat from Memphis will pass out when she reads this.

If this passes, I'll probably pass out! Like I said before, I can't believe gun legislation is even on the table after the last 2 years restaurant bill fiasco.

Also how will this effect HOUSE BILL 355 if it passes also. Shouldn't the wording of HOUSE BILL 355 be included in this bill?

Edited February 9, 2011 by StreetWK05

[Fallguy]

Fallguy,

Thanks, I wanted somebody else to look at the bill, it's changing a bunch of sections, and I agree my first read was a bit off...

It seems as written it's constitutional carry of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns (very good)... I miss read the 39-17-1307e change, it looks much better now that I've re-read it...

I agree it would require permits for most visitors, but anybody currently employed in the state would seem to be covered.

As for 39-17-1351t, as you know I'm not very fond of that statue... but it does require that officers must return a firearm to the permit holder unless they arrest the permit holder on the spot... my only concern with removing that part of the law, is that officers could legally confiscate a firearm and require you to jump through hoops to get it back. With 1351t in place, that can't happen... While I think the law should be changed to prevent disarming of permit holders unless they're being arrested, if my choice is between 1351t, and no requirement that firearms are returned on the spot, then I'd rather see 1351t stand.

While we're at it, how about removing the April 1986 clause from 39-17-1314a? It'd be nice to have true state wide preemption.

Also, should this pass, remember every bodies favorite draco pistol totting, 6 shot revolver carrying buddy will be allowed to carry again

If an officer took/confiscated a firearm without cause...that would be theft I think. I don't think a LEO can take something just because they want to...at least not legally.

But I really don't see them not allowing armed people to be disarmed if "anyone" maybe armed. So I think when/why they can be disarmed is what needs to be addressed. Perhaps only those being legally detained and only if the LEO can reasonably articulate a safety need to disarm the person. It seems now that some people are disarmed simply because they are armed and it is more or less policy of the LEO/LEA.

Yep..if this passes as is....you could walk down the street with your AK-47 Rifle or 12ga Shotgun...although not sure I would....

I'd also like to here what they feel the meaning of "with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man". I'm pretty sure that would cover someone says, "I'm going to go kill so-and-so." to someone and that someone calls the police. But does it have to be that plain?

[Fallguy]

If this passes, I'll probably pass out! Like I said before, I can't believe gun legislation is even on the table after the last 2 years restaurant bill fiasco.

Also how will this effect HOUSE BILL 355 if it passes also. Shouldn't the wording of HOUSE BILL 355 be included in this bill?

Yes....while I wouldn't mind seeing this pass....I'm really not sure how much of a chance it has.

..and your're right in that HB0355 would either have to be changed...or it still would only apply to HCP holders and not everyone that could go armed, but that might be one "selling" point for it as well.

[JayC]

I'm pretty sure 1351t is worded the way it is because some LEOs took/confiscated some firearms from permit holders before it was passed. That language wasn't in place from day 1 of the permit process.

Requiring reasonable articulate suspension to disarm would be a good compromise, something I could live with

I'd like for them to add the word illegal or unlawful into the 1307a wording.

If an officer took/confiscated a firearm without cause...that would be theft I think. I don't think a LEO can take something just because they want to...at least not legally.

But I really don't see them not allowing armed people to be disarmed if "anyone" maybe armed. So I think when/why they can be disarmed is what needs to be addressed. Perhaps only those being legally detained and only if the LEO can reasonably articulate a safety need to disarm the person. It seems now that some people are disarmed simply because they are armed and it is more or less policy of the LEO/LEA.

Yep..if this passes as is....you could walk down the street with your AK-47 Rifle or 12ga Shotgun...although not sure I would....

I'd also like to here what they feel the meaning of "with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man". I'm pretty sure that would cover someone says, "I'm going to go kill so-and-so." to someone and that someone calls the police. But does it have to be that plain?

[Guest RussP]

This legislation is more complicated than most. We've had a couple bills here in VA differed to next year for having "hidden" consequences. It really requires close reading.

Yep..if this passes as is....you could walk down the street with your AK-47 Rifle or 12ga Shotgun...although not sure I would....

You-know-who has already posted his plans to walk through downtown Nashville with his Saiga 12 with 20-rnd drum.

[Guest Jcochran88]

Ok, so if this bill passes(fat chance) will TN still offer permits for carry in other states or will you have to get a non resident permit from another state?

[Lumber_Jack]

It appears they would still offer permits that way we could carry in other states. Also in debate is the restaurant carry bill which would still require a permit to carry where alcohol is served regardless of constitutional carry. That is unless they change the restaurant bill

[Guest ARMEDMARINE]

Many states are pusuing pro gun legislation. Hopefully this is the beginning of a new era. here is to God and Guns.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Something else I noticed, the part about where HCP permit will be an endorsement on your drivers license. How about include a state issued identification card in the wording also, just in case someone doesn't have a DL.

[JayC]

It appears they would still offer permits that way we could carry in other states. Also in debate is the restaurant carry bill which would still require a permit to carry where alcohol is served regardless of constitutional carry. That is unless they change the restaurant bill

I don't think that is correct.... The restaurant bill just removed the law against carrying in a restaurant/bar. Thus the only reason it's illegal today to carry into a restaurant or bar without a permit is the general law that prohibits carrying in general.

Since this bill would remove that law for anybody 21+, then they'd be able to carry in restaurants and bars with serve alcohol, as I understand the bill in it's current form.

[JayC]

Something else I noticed, the part about where HCP permit will be an endorsement on your drivers license. How about include a state issued identification card in the wording also, just in case someone doesn't have a DL.

Under the law state issued ID's are drivers licenses without the driving endorsement. There is room on them to include the carry permit endorsement.

[Fallguy]

Ok, so if this bill passes(fat chance) will TN still offer permits for carry in other states or will you have to get a non resident permit from another state?

It appears they would still offer permits that way we could carry in other states. Also in debate is the restaurant carry bill which would still require a permit to carry where alcohol is served regardless of constitutional carry. That is unless they change the restaurant bill

This bill would not change the permit process. The state would still issue permits and you would still have to go through all the same requirments as now to get one. Therefore it shouldn't change the abilty to carry in other states on a TN permit. The only thing it seems to change about HCP is making it an endorsement on your DL, instead of a seperate card and it also makes it permanent (no renewing) once you get it.

The restaraunt law repelead 39-17-1305, so there isn't an exception for HCP holders...because there is no law to be excepted from. As JayC says the only reason someone can't carry in a place where alcohol is served is because that is illegal to carry in general, so if this passed, anyone that could carry, could carry in a place that served alcohol unless they posted.

Something else I noticed, the part about where HCP permit will be an endorsement on your drivers license. How about include a state issued identification card in the wording also, just in case someone doesn't have a DL.

Hmmm...if necessary thta wouldn't be a problem I wouldn't think. However the state may already consider the ID they issue a DL for wording purposes in the T.C.A.

[JAB]

I would like to see our HCPs be lifetime unless suspended/revoked with no need for renewal. However, it would mean the state wouldn't be getting those renewal fees so, depending on how much $$$ the state currently 'keeps' after doing the renewal background checks, etc. that might be the end of the bill, right there.

I think there needs to be specific language as to what 'under the influence' means as in specific BAL, etc.

I'm not so sure about the whole endorsement on the DL thing - there are some folks who don't want every clerk who checks their ID when they write a check, etc. to know that they have a carry permit. Since any TN resident who could legally buy could also legally carry I don't see that this would make it any easier on LEO to tell if someone they stop is carrying or not. What is the big deal about continuing to give HCP holders a separate card - especially if it would be a one-time, lifetime issuance?

[JayC]

I doubt most clerks would notice a single letter in the endorsement line while glancing at a DL... but there is a valid concern over using the DL... by law you can only have 1... So that would remove our ability to have backup copies of the HCP...

So for that reason I'm kinda in agreement that a separate card would be better, they're still charging us $115 for the permit, making a card seems not too expensive

[Fallguy]

I would like to see our HCPs be lifetime unless suspended/revoked with no need for renewal. However, it would mean the state wouldn't be getting those renewal fees so, depending on how much $$$ the state currently 'keeps' after doing the renewal background checks, etc. that might be the end of the bill, right there.

True

I think there needs to be specific language as to what 'under the influence' means as in specific BAL, etc.

Agree

I'm not so sure about the whole endorsement on the DL thing - there are some folks who don't want every clerk who checks their ID when they write a check, etc. to know that they have a carry permit. Since any TN resident who could legally buy could also legally carry I don't see that this would make it any easier on LEO to tell if someone they stop is carrying or not. What is the big deal about continuing to give HCP holders a separate card - especially if it would be a one-time, lifetime issuance?

Many states us the endorsement deal. I bet only one in a thousand (although I admit I probably haven't show it to that many people) I've shown my DL to could tell you I have a Class B CDL and a Class M license and as I'm sure many on here know a CDL says "Commercial Drivers License" on it. They are only looking for the date and/or address.

I think it maybe a trade-off on the money they would save by not printing separate cards...it might even make it money neutral, but probably not.

[Guest ARMEDMARINE]

I would prefer to continue to have a seperate permit but it really doesn't matter to much.

[Garufa]

I would prefer to have Campfield not involved in legislative affairs whatsoever. If he propsed anything it is doomed.