URGENT - Permit-less Car Carry in the Senate Tomorrow

[eRay]

It'd be nice to the TN-AG to write an opinion on this.

 

Be careful what you ask for.

[Oh Shoot]

Be careful what you ask for.

 

My two faves:

 

- you can be convicted of Class A Misdemeanor for carrying in a prohibited park even if there is no signage at all

 

- you can be convicted of Class E Felony for stumbling onto a school ballgame while carrying even in a non-restricted park

 

So pretty sure he'd back up what I said above. And he's right, as far as how the laws are written, which is what his opinions are to be based on, the letter of the law as enacted by the ignorami on the hill.

 

That's why I maintain there's no "illegal" signage -- because the statute does not specify that if the signage is non-compliant then you are exempted from the law.

 

- OS

Edited May 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[JAB]

They are not going to advertise taking away authority from local jurisdictions. ;)

 

Think of it what you will, I'm a bit conflcted on the issue myself, but I simply don't approve of centralizing authority,

 

City is to State as State is to Federal Government.  Get my drift?

 

I get what you are saying but do not see the two as truly parallel.  Especially in states like TN where driving ten miles down the road could mean passing back and forth through two or three counties - not to mention the number of cities/towns, etc.  For instance, on my just under 30 mile commute to work, I am in three, different counties (Roane, Loudon and Knox.)  On that same commute, I pass through the city of Loudon, Lenoir City, Farragut and maybe clip the western edge of the city of Knoxville.  For something like carrying a firearm, it is simply not reasonable for every little city, town, berg and cow patch to have their own carry rules, ordinances and laws.  The potential for patchwork laws/rules/ordinances has to stop at some level.

 

I am very much a states' rights person but I do believe that many things should be consistent within each state from a legal standpoint.  I, personally, tend to see the relationship of states to the federal government as being quite different than the relationship of cities/towns/counties to the state.

Edited May 5, 2014 by JAB

[Ladyhay]

Thanks for the update. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest PapaB]

I get what you are saying but do not see the two as truly parallel.  Especially in states like TN where driving ten miles down the road could mean passing back and forth through two or three counties - not to mention the number of cities/towns, etc.  For instance, on my just under 30 mile commute to work, I am in three, different counties (Roane, Loudon and Knox.)  On that same commute, I pass through the city of Loudon, Lenoir City, Farragut and maybe clip the western edge of the city of Knoxville.  For something like carrying a firearm, it is simply not reasonable for every little city, town, berg and cow patch to have their own carry rules, ordinances and laws.  The potential for patchwork laws/rules/ordinances has to stop at some level.

 

I am very much a states' rights person but I do believe that many things should be consistent within each state from a legal standpoint.  I, personally, tend to see the relationship of states to the federal government as being quite different than the relationship of cities/towns/counties to the state.

 

To bolster JAB's point, imagine if local jurisdictions were allowed to pass their own laws regulating drivers licenses and car registrations. In one town you can only drive if you're 18 to 68 years old but in the county you have to be at least 21. You need full coverage insurance to drive a car on Knox county streets but not on roads owned by Knoxville or the state. Cars have to pass inspection to drive through Franklin but Brentwood requires their own and doesn't accept any others while Williamson County only accepts their own inspection stickers. How does that local control look now? Like JAB said, some things need to be consistent within an area.

 

The reason "City is to State as State is to Federal Government." is not true is that the States created the Federal Government. City Governments did not create the States. In addition, although it's greatly abused, the U.S. Constitution limits the powers granted to the Federal Government by the States. That's not how it works between Cities and the States. The problem is that, because the feds abuse their power so much, it's sometimes difficult to remember that the Federal Government was created with the sole purpose of benefiting the States. The benefit was to provide services, in a single centralized source, that all States needed.

Edited May 6, 2014 by PapaB

[JAB]

Here is something I am wondering about the new law:

 

My nephew is 19.  He can legally own and possess a handgun.  Will this law allow him to carry one in his car?  I know that the law states, in part:

 

 

...the person is not otherwise prohibited from carrying or possessing a firearm

 

and that is the part that I think is unclear.  A person who is 18 or older is not 'otherwise prohibited' from possessing firearms, including handguns.  That person, however, is ineligible for a carry permit and therefore generally prohibited from carrying a handgun as such a permit is required for a private citizen to carry in TN.  As this law effectively waves the 'carry permit' requirement when carrying in a car, however, I think it is unclear as to whether or not a person who is over 18 but under 21 is still 'prohibited' from carrying in their (or another) privately owned vehicle - or even if they might be okay having a loaded long gun in their vehicle but not a handgun.

Edited May 9, 2014 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

Here is something I am wondering about the new law:

 

My nephew is 19.  He can legally own and possess a handgun.  Will this law allow him to carry one in his car?  I know that the law states, in part:

 

 

 

and that is the part that I think is unclear.  A person who is 18 or older is not 'otherwise prohibited' from possessing firearms, including handguns.  That person, however, is ineligible for a carry permit and therefore generally prohibited from carrying a handgun as such a permit is required for a private citizen to carry in TN.  As this law effectively waves the 'carry permit' requirement when carrying in a car, however, I think it is unclear as to whether or not a person who is over 18 but under 21 is still 'prohibited' from carrying in their (or another) privately owned vehicle - or even if they might be okay having a loaded long gun in their vehicle but not a handgun.

 

He can carry it in lots of legal situations without a permit. There are 21 year old and up people who can not get a TN permit who can legally buy, possess, and carry firearms in certain situations too.

 

I don't think ability to get a TN HCP could be determined as the qualifier in the statute.

 

As always, my legal opinion is worth what you paid for it.

 

- OS

Edited May 9, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

I wish carry for all citizens had passed, and I hate the term “baby steps” , but maybe in a few years we will join the ranks of states that recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

[towerclimber37]

when will this bill become active law? what date? On a plus side, I can see a rifle rack being fabricated for the roll bar on my jeep, for my m1 carbine....

[Oh Shoot]

when will this bill become active law? what date?...

 

July 1st

[towerclimber37]

July 1st

excellent! I guess I'm going to have to make time to get into the accuracy lab and build that mount! (my brother mark (aka old radar tech) calls it the 'mad scientists' club"..either way, I see a locking rack being machined and installed for the trunk monkey!!

[Oh Shoot]

excellent! I guess I'm going to have to make time to get into the accuracy lab and build that mount! (my brother mark (aka old radar tech) calls it the 'mad scientists' club"..either way, I see a locking rack being machined and installed for the trunk monkey!!

 

Is it going to be visible? Meaning, nowadays if somebody tries to steal it, and can't, might trash it in spite? And if visible at all, all the more likely you'll have at least a broken window?

 

- OS

[jtmaze]

Have the particulars of this law been studied by anyone here yet. Is it going to have to be in plain sight during a traffic stop like in KY or must inform or did they even put any of the particulars in the law and we have to wait and see. JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union......

[DaveTN]

Have the particulars of this law been studied by anyone here yet. Is it going to have to be in plain sight during a traffic stop like in KY or must inform or did they even put any of the particulars in the law and we have to wait and see. JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union......

View is not a requirement, notification is not required by law.

HB 1480 by *Faison, Roach, Powers, Ragan, Dennis, Dunn, Evans, Bailey, Hill M, Hall, Brooks H, Todd, Lollar, Floyd, White M, Hill T, Hawk, Littleton, Casada, Lynn, Williams R, Sanderson, Travis, Moody, Sparks, Kane, McManus, Haynes, Holt. (SB 1774 by *Bell.)
Firearms and Ammunition - As enacted, creates an exception to the offense of carrying a firearm in public without a handgun carry permit that the person carrying or possessing a firearm or ammunition in a motor vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm and is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

Fiscal Summary
(CORRECTED) NOT SIGNIFICANT

Bill Summary
Present law generally prohibits persons from carrying weapons with the intent to go armed, however, it is an exception to the general prohibition that:

(1) A person authorized with a valid handgun carry permit is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. Although, the person does not violate this exemption by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense; or
(2) A person who does not have a handgun carry permit is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber or cylinder, and no clip or magazine containing ammunition is inserted in the rifle or shotgun or is in close proximity to both the weapon and any person.

This bill replaces the exceptions described in (1) and (2) with a general exception to the prohibition against carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed so that a person carrying or possessing a firearm in a motor vehicle will not commit an offense if:
(1) The person is not otherwise prohibited from carrying or possessing a firearm; and
(2) The motor vehicle is privately-owned.

ON APRIL 9, 2014, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 1774, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 revises this bill's exception to the present law prohibition against carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed so that a person carrying or possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition in a motor vehicle will not commit an offense if the person:

(1) Is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm by federal law or purchasing a firearm under state law; and
(2) Is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle.

Also, under this amendment, motor vehicles that are owned or leased by a governmental or private employer for the use of such employer's employees will not be covered by this bill's exception if the employer has adopted a written policy prohibiting firearms or ammunition not required for employment within their motor vehicles.

[JWKilgore]

I see no limitations on how the gun may be carried inside a vehicle, so there's nothing to prevent someone from carrying in a hip holster from house to car, down the road, then from car to shooting range.

 

Does anyone have any idea how this bill would apply to motorcycle riders? The bill says "in a motor vehicle", and you aren't "in" a motorcycle.

 

 

My only objection to this law is that I'm a firm believer in education. Anyone who wants to carry in public should be required to have some education in when and how deadly force may be used. Not, "my uncle talked to a cop who told him it's ok to point your gun at someone who curses at you in traffic." 

[Oh Shoot]

....

 

Does anyone have any idea how this bill would apply to motorcycle riders? The bill says "in a motor vehicle", and you aren't "in" a motorcycle.

 

 

Couldn't say for sure, but of course a motorcycle is a "motor vehicle", any way you want to cross reference it in TCA.

 

So as long as it is "in" something attached to the cycle? I mean, the only reason things can be "in" a car is because it has doors and a roof attached to it. :)

 

One of these would probably suffice:

 

 

- OS

Edited May 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

I mean, the only reason things can be "in" a car is because it has doors and a roof attached to it.

 

I don't think that's true. Is something no longer in a convertible car if the top is down? Or no longer in a Jeep if the top and doors are off?

 

I think something can be "in" a car because a car has exterior dimensions. anything within those dimensions is "in the car". A motorcycle has exterior dimensions too, but outside of small compartments like trunk/saddle bags, I don't think anything can actually be "in" a motorcycle.

 

That said, I think it would take a special kind of stupid for a DA to try to argue the nuance of "in" vs. "on" to a jury. I'm not saying there's not a DA out there with that special kind of stupid going on, just that I doubt it would be a common thing.

Edited May 30, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

I don't think that's true. Is something no longer in a convertible car if the top is down? Or no longer in a Jeep if the top and doors are off?

 

I think something can be "in" a car because a car has exterior dimensions. anything within those dimensions is "in the car". A motorcycle has exterior dimensions too, but outside of small compartments like trunk/saddle bags, I don't think anything can actually be "in" a motorcycle.

 

That said, I think it would take a special kind of stupid for a DA to try to argue the nuance of "in" vs. "on" to a jury. I'm not saying there's not a DA out there with that special kind of stupid going on, just that I doubt it would be a common thing.

 

Yeah, I was being at least half facetious.

 

Anyway, should be no real prob with handguns, as most every biker has some sort of tote attached. Loaded long guns would present a prob I guess.

 

Just never any consistency between all these weapons statutes though. Like, with a permit, a long gun is okay "in or on" motor vehicle and parking lot statute mentions "container securely affixed to such vehicle".

 

Just typical gray doofus crap.

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

Just be sure to duct-tape your loosley zip-tied rifle-shaped kydex case to your bike.  :stir:

[wk05]

In one of the videos during the senate judiciary committee hearings a question was asked how it would apply to motorcycles, and it was said that it indeed applied to motorcycles just as it would to a car/truck.

[Oh Shoot]

In one of the videos during the senate judiciary committee hearings a question was asked how it would apply to motorcycles, and it was said that it indeed applied to motorcycles just as it would to a car/truck.

 

Well, I hope every judge and LEO in the state heard that too, because it sure doesn't specify it in this statute like some of the others.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Just be sure to duct-tape your loosley zip-tied rifle-shaped kydex case to your bike.  :stir:

 

My guess is that Kwik ain't together enough to have survived riding a bike, likely would have been snuffed long ago trying to prove some point or other.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

Well, I hope every judge and LEO in the state heard that too, because it sure doesn't specify it in this statute like some of the others.

 

- OS

Come on Oh Shoot, you know how that "legislative intent" works.  Lt. Gov Ramsey pointed it out for all of us on the "Parking Lot" bill, as long as the legislature means for a bill to do something, that is what it does...

[tnguy]

It's about time they came up with a domain specific language for specifying laws exactly and avoiding ambiguities. It's not like us lay people are supposed to understand half of it anymore anyway.

[DaveTN]

It's about time they came up with a domain specific language for specifying laws exactly and avoiding ambiguities. It's not like us lay people are supposed to understand half of it anymore anyway.

It’s part of the plan. You get as much “justice” as you can afford. You can get charges dropped or found not guilty; but your attorney still gets paid.