Haslam signs Senate Bill 1701 into law

[daddyo]

Bill Summary

Under present law, unless expressly prohibited by federal law, the holder of a valid handgun carry permit recognized in this may transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle while on or utilizing any public or private parking area if:

(1) The permit holder's vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be; and
(2) The firearm or ammunition being transported or stored in the vehicle:
   A. Is kept from ordinary observation if the permit holder is in the motor vehicle; or
   B. Is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person's privately owned motor vehicle or a container securely          affixed to such vehicle if the permit holder is not in the vehicle.

 

This bill removes references to a motor vehicle being "privately owned" and clarifies that the above references to "vehicle" mean "motor vehicle". This bill defines "motor vehicle" for purposes of the above-described provisions to mean any motor vehicle as under the present law titling and registration provisions, which is in the lawful possession of the permit holder, but excluding any motor vehicle which is owned or leased by a governmental or business entity and that is provided by such entity to an employee for use during the course of employment if the entity has adopted a written policy prohibiting firearms or ammunition not required for employment within the entity's motor vehicles. 

Does this mean that I can keep my handgun in my vehicle in a Safepacker out of "ordinary observation"?

 

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/tennessee-governor-signs-pro-gun-bill/

Edited March 9, 2014 by daddyo

[Guest PapaB]

This becomes law on May 1, 2014. The only change it makes to current law is that it specifies "Motor vehicle" instead of any vehicle and drops the "privately owned" so you're covered in a rented, leased or borrowed motor vehicle. It still doesn't cover passengers with permits.

[QuietDan]

Very mixed emotions and mixed logic on this one. With no prosecutions for violations on record (?) this continues to solve a problem that may not exist except hypothetically. This may just be a flower offered to the law abiding. There are any number of otherwise law abiding folks who are going to do what they are going to do when it comes to concealed carry. It's a permission that a lot of folks wanted for a situation where most law enforcement personnel are perfectly willing to look the other way. And, of course, the criminals are going to do what they are going to do as well. 

 

Beat me up on this. I am prepared to modify my view based on persuasive arguments, though this has been beaten with a stick more thoroughly than Glock vs. 1911 arguments.

Edited March 9, 2014 by QuietDan

[Oh Shoot]

...Does this mean that I can keep my handgun in my vehicle in a Safepacker out of "ordinary observation"?

You already could keep a gun any way you wanted as long as vehicle was locked and you couldn't see the gun.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

This becomes law on May 1, 2014. The only change it makes to current law is that it specifies "Motor vehicle" instead of any vehicle and drops the "privately owned" so you're covered in a rented, leased or borrowed motor vehicle. It still doesn't cover passengers with permits.

 

Driver's permit should cover any number of guns within it, no matter who they actually belong to, eh?

 

- OS

Edited March 9, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[npgunner]

[quote name="QuietDan" post="1122241" timestamp="1394377779"]... this has been beaten with a stick more thoroughly than Glock vs. 1911 arguments.[/quote] There's still an argument over that? I was under the impression Glock won that argument many moons ago ... ?

[Guest PapaB]

Driver's permit should cover any number of guns within it, no matter who they actually belong to, eh?

 

- OS

 It's not the guns that get in trouble. If the passenger is seen unloading, they're going to have a problem. The law should cover any permit holder.

 

IMHO this law was so they could point to "pro gun" legislation they passed. This doesn't even reach the level of throwing us a bone, it's more like a ptcture of a bone.

[GKar]

Keep in mind that each of the 'shortcomings' described above ("privately-owned" vehicle, no coverage extended to passengers, etc) was identified during deliberations on the ORIGINAL bill passed last session, and remedies were proposed - and promptly rejected by the same leadership that pushed this one ( and a few others by Green) at lightspeed this session.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

[Oh Shoot]

.... no coverage extended to passengers, etc) ...

 

There's no exclusion for who owns the guns in the original bill or in the revised one.

 

"the holder of a valid handgun carry permit recognized in Tennessee may transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle"....

 

Doesn't say I can't store yours as well as mine, eh?

 

- OS

[bersaguy]

Well ok I'm lost now but that is nothing unusual for me. Ok , Here I go jumping in. Now we are talking about safely keeping your firearm in your car while going into a gun free zone or for any other reason. You have a passenger that also has an HCP and he is also armed but he cannot legally leave his firearm in your car along with yours locked up out of sight????????????

[Oh Shoot]

Well ok I'm lost now but that is nothing unusual for me. Ok , Here I go jumping in. Now we are talking about safely keeping your firearm in your car while going into a gun free zone or for any other reason. You have a passenger that also has an HCP and he is also armed but he cannot legally leave his firearm in your car along with yours locked up out of sight????????????

 

No, currently in the statute there is no wording for a prohibition against your keeping his firearm in your vehicle, assuming you have a permit.

 

Indeed, with the new revisions, seems there would be nothing against him leaving it in your car even if you don't have a permit, since it's perfectly legal for you to loan him your car, and he could then be legally in possession of the vehicle.

 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

No, currently in the statute there is no wording for a prohibition against your keeping his firearm in your vehicle, assuming you have a permit.

 

Indeed, with the new revisions, seems there would be nothing against him leaving it in your car even if you don't have a permit, since it's perfectly legal for you to loan him your car, and he could then be legally in possession of the vehicle.

 

- OS

Ok but that is depending on the passenger also having an HCP or the passenger should not be armed to begin with. Correct???????

[Oh Shoot]

Ok but that is depending on the passenger also having an HCP or the passenger should not be armed to begin with. Correct???????

 

Correct. If neither of you has a permit, neither of you could have a loaded firearm in the car period, one of you could be charged with unlawful possession. Obviously anytime one has a loaded firearm on his person without a permit it is unlawful carry.

 

And remember that a firearm doesn't necessarily have to be actually loaded to be "loaded".

 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[LowBb]

I believe a legal HCP holder can carry multiple firearms. The law says "a firearm or firearm ammunition." It doesn't specify whos, only says "a". Edited March 11, 2014 by LowBb

[Oh Shoot]

I believe a legal HCP holder can carry multiple firearms. The law says "a firearm or firearm ammunition." It doesn't specify whos, only says "a".

 

"A" does not mean "one" in legalese. If you were limited to one, it would say "one" or "single". No TN weapon law does that, they all refer to "a" firearm or "any" firearm.

 

You are not charged with multiple counts of unlawful carry of "a" firearm if you have several on you either.

 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[LowBb]

Right. I was coming from the "a" not being an amount, but a specification related to who. And since it specifies a legal HCP holder, then the "a" would be any number of firearms that is in the legal HCP holder's car and legally stored. This also would count for passengers. Is this correct?

[Oh Shoot]

Right. I was coming from the "a" not being an amount, but a specification related to who. And since it specifies a legal HCP holder, then the "a" would be any number of firearms that is in the legal HCP holder's car and legally stored. This also would count for passengers. Is this correct?

 

IANAL, but I don't see how passengers' firearms could possibly be excluded, since the statute does not specify them as being so and neither is there any "personally owned firearm" wording or similar.

 

Actions that aren't specifically prohibited are legal, way it works.
 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[LowBb]

Even if the passenger doesn't have an HCP? If it doesn't specify it then it should be legal if they are with someone with an HCP.

What if both are carrying on their person, driver has an HCP but passenger doesn't (illegally carrying) yet still in the car driven by person with the legal HCP?

To me this is one of the fun part about firearms. Learning the laws and talking about them. Edited March 11, 2014 by LowBb

[Oh Shoot]

Even if the passenger doesn't have an HCP? If it doesn't specify it then it should be legal if they are with someone with an HCP.

Obviously the passenger is breaking 39-17-1307 by possessing a loaded firearm on his person. Period.

Though once he leaves it in the vehicle and exits the vehicle, I don't see how it's not as legal as any other firearm stored there; whether factor that driver should know about it or not and give permission is perhaps gray, but not addressed by the statute.
 

What if both are carrying on their person, driver has an HCP but passenger doesn't (illegally carrying) yet still in the car driven by person with the legal HCP?

 

Again, passenger is clearly guilty of 1307 violation. Can't see that the driver has broken any laws, unless they want to try aiding and abetting in the commission of a misdemeanor or something esoteric like that.

 

- OS

Edited March 11, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

By the way, when does this revised statute take effect?

 

- OS

[LowBb]

May 1, 2014 i think

[Guest tangojuliet]

There's still an argument over that? I was under the impression Glock won that argument many moons ago ... ?

pssh the 1911 won it befor the glock was even thought of  :usa:  :stir: