Vehicle on School Property

[Guest HexHead]

So the exception in the second half of 39-17-1309©(1) only applies to subsection © which is not the intent to go armed part. As I said in my first post if the gun is loaded, there could be an argument that is your intent to go armed, in that case you are in violation of subsection ( the felony, and there is no exception for leaving it in your car for that subsection.

But doesn't having a HCP override "intent to go armed"? Especially if you're not handling the weapon?

[tt0511]

Words do have meaning. Except to a liberal.

That's really my point, lol. In legal statutes, you have to obtain the "legal" definition of the word. Legal terminology can be what's called "colorable language". That's why Black's Law Dictionary exists. I looked at the definitions section below and unfortunately it did not define whether operated is a term of "responsible charge over" or if it means "actively being driven right here, right now". I will get the answer, one way or another.

39-17-1301. Part definitions. — [Amended effective January 1, 2010. See the Compiler’s Notes.]

Also, ...

39-17-1309. Carrying weapons on school property. —

© (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. It is not an offense under this subsection © for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property.

If a school is the "operator" of a property, ...do they have to be present for the property to be operated by them? What happens when they are at home, in bed snoozing? Is the property no longer "operated" by them? This would be a clause effective in the case of a school that meets in a location that is leased rather than owned by the board of education or by a private school. So, ...I don't believe the term "operated by" is necessarily so clear cut that it means "actively driving right here, right now".

Edited February 10, 2010 by tt0511

[Guest Ggun]

I drive to a school with a loaded handgun which I put under the seat before entering the premises. I walk in and see my wife sitting with adult son. She gets the keys and drives home, gets her gun and drives back, putting her loaded gun in the glove box before entering the premises. Adult son gets the keys, goes to his house and gets his gun, drives back, putting his loaded gun in the center console before entering the premises.

All three operated the car.

Who is the operator of the car for purposes of the statute?

IMO the one with the keys in their posession at the time.

What if all three have keys to the car?

[Guest HexHead]

What if all three have keys to the car?

Then it only apples to the one(s) that have the HCP.

[Guest Ggun]

What if all three have keys to the car?

Then it only apples to the one(s) that have the HCP.

Wait, what if adult son number two, with no HCP, with keys, goes to his house, gets his shotgun and puts it in the trunk, and comes back to the school?

[Guest HexHead]

Wait, what if adult son number two, with no HCP, with keys, goes to his house, gets his shotgun and puts it in the trunk, and comes back to the school?

In the absence of a HCP, it would fall under "intent to go armed" and be in violation of guns on school property. The exception is solely for those with a HCP.

[Guest Ggun]

In the absence of a HCP, it would fall under "intent to go armed" and be in violation of guns on school property. The exception is solely for those with a HCP.

Won't work. The legislature sure could have included HCP in its wording. And, it could have used the specific word "handgun" as well. Since they didn't we must conclude that the exception is not limited to apply only to a nonstudent adult with HCP.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Ggun
spelling

[Fallguy]

But doesn't having a HCP override "intent to go armed"? Especially if you're not handling the weapon?

Not that I know of.

It is simply a defense to a violation of 39-17-1307, not 39-17-1309 or any other law under part 13.

Won't work. The legislature sure could have included HCP in its wording. And, it could have used the specific word "handgun" as well. Since they didn't we must conclude that the exception is not limited to apply only to a nonstudent adult with HCP.

I agree

Edited February 10, 2010 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

What if all three have keys to the car?

Then it only apples to the one(s) that have the HCP.

Wait, what if adult son number two, with no HCP, with keys, goes to his house, gets his shotgun and puts it in the trunk, and comes back to the school?

That is what courts are far...in this case all may be charged and the court decided who the operator is.

...but I would like to try and stay out of court if possiable.

[Guest Patty]

The answer is No.

[tt0511]

Regarding HB1806, I find the bill description and summary interesting. I copied this directly from the bill description on the legislature's website.

HB 1806 by *West. (*SB 1622 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.

Notice it doesn't say anything here about "operating" a vehicle. It simply states that the legislation allows a permit holder to carry onto school grounds so long as the gun remains in their vehicle.

Fiscal Summary

Decrease State Revenue - Not Significant Decrease State Expenditures - Not Significant Decrease Local Revenue - Not Significant Decrease Local Government Expenditures - Not Significant

Bill Summary

Present law makes it an offense for a person to possess or carry a firearm not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on any school building, bus, or grounds or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. The offense is a Class B misdemeanor, unless committed with an intent to go armed, in which case it is a Class E felony.

Under present law, the Class B misdemeanor offense does not apply if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property. This bill adds that the Class E felony offense also does not apply in such circumstances; however, under this bill, the exception will only apply to the offenses if the person has a handgun carry permit.

And then, we get back to this funky "operated" crap. I doubt their intent is that someone may pick up or drop off a student, but they may NOT go inside for a parent/teacher conference while the gun stays in the car. I just don't get that sense from reading it. Hopefully I will hear back from my senator/representative soon.

[Oh Shoot]

The answer is No.

The answer to what question is no?

Who were you responding to?

What did they say?

- OS

[Fallguy]

Regarding HB1806, I find the bill description and summary interesting. I copied this directly from the bill description on the legislature's website.

HB 1806 by *West. (*SB 1622 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.

Notice it doesn't say anything here about "operating" a vehicle. It simply states that the legislation allows a permit holder to carry onto school grounds so long as the gun remains in their vehicle.

Fiscal Summary

Decrease State Revenue - Not Significant Decrease State Expenditures - Not Significant Decrease Local Revenue - Not Significant Decrease Local Government Expenditures - Not Significant

Bill Summary

Present law makes it an offense for a person to possess or carry a firearm not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on any school building, bus, or grounds or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. The offense is a Class B misdemeanor, unless committed with an intent to go armed, in which case it is a Class E felony.

Under present law, the Class B misdemeanor offense does not apply if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property. This bill adds that the Class E felony offense also does not apply in such circumstances; however, under this bill, the exception will only apply to the offenses if the person has a handgun carry permit.

And then, we get back to this funky "operated" crap. I doubt their intent is that someone may pick up or drop off a student, but they may NOT go inside for a parent/teacher conference while the gun stays in the car. I just don't get that sense from reading it. Hopefully I will hear back from my senator/representative soon.

In the part where it is talking about "operated" is where it is telling what the current law is. Well...the current law does contain operated.

As we have discussed the current law contains two violations, felony and misdemanor, depending on the circumstances. This bill would create an exception for both if you have HCP and the gun is in any private vehicle, not just one operated by you.

So not sure what the problem with the bill is. Did you read the actual text of it here? http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1806.pdf

Sec 2 of the bill removes that second half of ©(1) which is what is causing all of us to debate this.

Sec 1 of the bill creates a new exception under part (e)...which makes exceptions for both (-felony and ©-misdemeanor sub-parts, for those with a HCP as long as the gun stays in the car.

There is no need to address the dropping off or picking up of people as that is already covered in 39-17-1310

Edited February 10, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest Patty]

The answer to what question is no?

Who were you responding to?

What did they say?

- OS

To the OP.

Who is What ?

[tt0511]

So not sure what the problem with the bill is. Did you read the actual text of it here? http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1806.pdf

Thanks, ...actually, somehow I missed the actual text of the bill. I guess I just didn't see the link. The actual bill reads much better than the summary of the bill. This bill would eliminate all concerns. Good bill for us.

Do you know how to understand the legislation calendar on the state website? What's the status of the bill? The most current action I see is the following, but I don't understand what it means.

Action Def. in s/c Criminal Practice and Procedure of JUD to 2/10/201001/27/2010

Edited February 10, 2010 by tt0511

[Fallguy]

Thanks, ...actually, somehow I missed the actual text of the bill. I guess I just didn't see the link. The actual bill reads much better than the summary of the bill. This bill would eliminate all concerns. Good bill for us.

Do you know how to understand the legislation calendar on the state website? What's the status of the bill? The most current action I see is the following, but I don't understand what it means.

Action Def. in s/c Criminal Practice and Procedure of JUD to 2/10/201001/27/2010

From the first page link you posted if you click on on the actual bill number HB 1806 in blue, it takes you to the actual text of the bill.

What you posted from the calendar just shows that on 01/27/2010 action was defered on the bill until 02/10/2010, today. Today the bill was defered (rolled) until next Wed 02/17/2010.

[tt0511]

From the first page link you posted if you click on on the actual bill number HB 1806 in blue, it takes you to the actual text of the bill.

What you posted from the calendar just shows that on 01/27/2010 action was defered on the bill until 02/10/2010, today. Today the bill was defered (rolled) until next Wed 02/17/2010.

So they just keep deferring it? That means they are putting off consideration of the bill?

[Fallguy]

I know it's frustrating, but this is not out of the norm.

At the first of the year there usually more bills on a committee's calendar than they can here in one sitting, so all the ones that aren't got to are deferred to a later date.

I really doubt it was the only bill rolled.

When they publish the calendars for next week we'll have to see where it is and will have a better idea if it will get brought up then or not. Of course even if it is brought up and discussed, it is not uncommon for it to get rolled again if there are any questions members want to research further.

In all honesty by the time it is voted on in the committee, there will be little to any discussion and the sponsor will probably know the vote or he won't let be voted on.

[tt0511]

Sorry it took so long to post the last information I received from my friend, the LEO. After his previous messages to me, he left me a message stating that he spoke to his sergeant with a couple of others standing around, about carrying a gun in your car on school property if you are a teacher. He said they immediately said "NO", ...but then the sergeant immediately said "of course, we'd never enforce that", lol. So, right now it seems that it's not legal to do so. Which, ...makes sense considering the aforementioned new legislation is addressing that very thing. Hopefully that will go into effect soon.

[Guest Tiki Jane]

So essentially school employees in grades K-12 are prohibited from having their weapons locked up in their vehicles if the vehicles are parked on school property, not so much because of the law (which is unnecessarily vague, at best) but because the local district/board prohibits weapons on school property regardless of whether or not the owner has a permit, or the weapon is secured/locked up in trunk/unloaded etc.

Falcon, thank you for your clarification on the statute. Your analysis makes a lot of sense.

I've got queries out to folks who should know, but I'm guessing I'll get a different answer from each one. I'm writing a few TN legislators who are sympathetic to ask about the status of the legislation intended to clarify this stuff.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Tiki Jane

[DaveTN]

Bottom line, IMO, the legislature really needs to clarify what they mean in these laws. They are not very well written.

It is by design. Many legislators are lawyers; lawyers want you to think you need their interpretation.

Sure… we have access to Michie’s legal resources. But that is pretty much useless without having access to case law. (Which I have not yet seen, free on-line)

I have not tried this in Tennessee so I will ask the question. In Illinois I could walk into or call the (County) States Attorney’s Office and if someone was available they would answer general questions on the law. (Not the specifics of a case). They would give me their opinion on how a case would be handled in their county. Such as carrying at a school. Can you not do that in Tennessee?

[JayC]

Not just limited to K-12, it's ALL schools, college and universities.

The law is much more broad than it ever needed to be.

So essentially school employees in grades K-12 are prohibited from having their weapons locked up in their vehicles if the vehicles are parked on school property, not so much because of the law (which is unnecessarily vague, at best) but because the local district/board prohibits weapons on school property regardless of whether or not the owner has a permit, or the weapon is secured/locked up in trunk/unloaded etc.

Falcon, thank you for your clarification on the statute. Your analysis makes a lot of sense.

I've got queries out to folks who should know, but I'm guessing I'll get a different answer from each one. I'm writing a few TN legislators who are sympathetic to ask about the status of the legislation intended to clarify this stuff.

[Guest buttonhook]

So where do we stand on this...is it or isn't it ok for a teacher to have it on school poperty in the car locked?

[Fallguy]

So where do we stand on this...is it or isn't it ok for a teacher to have it on school poperty in the car locked?

Well there is not total agreement by the members here on it.

However if you have unloaded and locked up, legally you may be fine. But if the school/board of ed has a policy against it.....then you probably would not be as far as your job is concerned.

[Guest buttonhook]

ok well at least that makes sense...I wish the state would pass the law where your car is "YOUR castle".

I took a brass plated shotgun barrel to school last year. I just told the SRO the day before so he woould know and he said bring it in I want to see it too. I'm not too sure it would be a problem but like you said it might be if someone freaks out. You know I went to school there years ago and we took our hunter saftey class there including the shooting part.......man have times changed