URGENT - Permit-less Car Carry in the Senate Tomorrow

[Oh Shoot]

.... Apply your logic to our homes and it would suggest that we should not leave our guns at home alone either!

 

Bingo.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Sad? No, sensible.

 

What is the point of carrying a weapon in the car with you when you are just going to leave it there when you get out of the car? You know the odds of being carjacked? Traffic accident in which someone pulls a gun? Again HUGE odds against that. Or are you going to play superman and stop a mugging that you see? Oh wait, you can't leave the car with the gun. ....

 

You should know that if you use a firearm in justifiable self defense or defense of another, none of the weapons section penalties are applicable, permit or not, so that's a pretty moot point.

 

Certainly, having a legal firearm in the car is a big benefit, same as in your domicile. Maybe you take a nap at a rest area or truck stop and get accosted, maybe you come to the defense of your spouse who is outside the car toting purchases, maybe any other reasonable circumstances nearby but not actually in the confines of your vehicle -- parking lots indeed are a large percentage of robberies, shootings, etc. . Point is, law abiding folks are much more likely to be able to respond to whatever arises nearby outside the vehicle when they can legally pack heat inside the vehicle, that's only logical.

 

Same with your home. The castle doctrine does not give you the same presumption for deadly force outside the confines of your home, you are certainly fee to respond outside if circumstances dictate your reasonable fear of death or serious injury, something you couldn't do if you couldn't also keep loaded weapons inside the home. Yes, there's a minor difference, since you can pack heat anywhere on your property, but that is a technical one, as the rules regarding deadly force outside the domicile are the same as on the street.

 

Yes, stepping outside your vehicle with a loaded gun and no permit could possibly get you a Class A, B, or C Misdemeanor conviction. It could also save your or another's life in justifiable self defense, with no charge at all.  But risking conviction every day for simply having a loaded firearm in your vehicle is absurd, law abiding folks won't do it, and hence have no chance of saving that life.

 

Being able to have loaded firearms inside your vehicle without a permit is indeed the biggest stride toward the intent of 2A in TN since carrying a firearm became a crime in the first place.

 

- OS

Edited April 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

So I got to thinking maybe we need a sign of our own and then I got an itch to scratch and so I scratched it.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

Free for use for (if) anyone who wants it

[Twitch]

Sad? No, sensible.

 

What is the point of carrying a weapon in the car with you when you are just going to leave it there when you get out of the car?  What!?  Wild Wing Cafe in Knoxville has a sign up and I was swinging in for lunch?  Guess I'll drive home and lock up my gun, then come back and eat.  Glad you have time to do this. You know the odds of being carjacked?  I would imagine not astronomically more than being mugged outside a car.  I'm sure Chris would've loved to have a firearm in his car.  Instead, an acquaintance was rapped and killed along with his girlfriend.  Carrying based on probability is the stupidest things I've heard.  Traffic accident in which someone pulls a gun? Again HUGE odds against that.  See above for the probability stuff.  Or are you going to play superman and stop a mugging that you see?  I don't carry to protect others, I carry to protect myself and loved ones.  Oh wait, you can't leave the car with the gun.  Sure you can, if its justified.  Or hows about when you are standing in line at the 7-11 and the guy that just walked in puts a gun to your head. Is that gun you left in the car going to help you then?  That happen much more often than carjackings?  Nope, didn't think so.

 

Either get the HCP and carry all the time or don't get it and be don't carry.  Again, glad you have time to go back home and lock up your guns when you're out and about.

 

Bringing the 2A rights into the argument for or against is pointless. If the lawmakers that are in place wanted to act according to the Constitution, we would already have no permit needed carry. Since that ain't gonna happen, go and get a HCP and stop leaving the damn weapon in the car where it is absolutely useless to you unless the big bad man comes to your window demanding the car which has less odds than hitting the lottery or being struck by lightning.  Probability again?  Why do you need to carry?  The neighborhoods you frequent that bad?  Think I'd avoid them.

[tnguy]

To be fair to jh25, I think he is more talking about people who do not have a permit carrying in cars. I see his point that a gun *only* allowed in a car will not often be useful but there are always times when it could be and even if not, I don't agree with the conclusion that it shouldn't be allowed. Though I'm all for permitless carry anyway.

[jh225]

To be fair to jh25, I think he is more talking about people who do not have a permit carrying in cars. I see his point that a gun *only* allowed in a car will not often be useful but there are always times when it could be and even if not, I don't agree with the conclusion that it shouldn't be allowed. Though I'm all for permitless carry anyway.

 

Well at least someone gets it.

 

Biggest 2 points being..................

 

To carry permitless in your car just to go from home to wherever and then leave the weapon in the car is doing exactly what for the carrier? A feeling of security? Odds are about a zillion to one you will ever need that weapon while traveling from point A to point B.

Odds are a hell of a lot better for said vehicle to be stole with your weapon inside of it.

And the other point being, if you have a HCP and you have it with you when you leave the house, said weapon stays on your person until you step foot back into your house. What good is the weapon if you leave it in the car while in a store and you walk into a robbery?

 

As for brand new member and obviously young man Twitch, you said you went into a wing place that didn't allow weapons because you wanted those wings. Guess what young man? If that store doesn't want my weapon inside, that store doesn't want me inside either, period. Why would you contribute to any business who clearly cares nothing about you and your rights?

 

 

Pretty simply folks, you can poo-poo my thoughts and or comments all you want, but you have to ask yourself:

A) Do I really care what you think?

B) Do you really think that you will change someones thinking who has carried on & off duty for over 25 yrs and has lived the life? I do not EVER leave my house without a weapon on me, and I will not leave my weapon in a car just because I want a certain item that a store has. The only time a weapon gets left in a vehicle is when entering the post office. Most courthouses have lockers for a person to secure your weapon.

 

Y'all can continue with the rants,but do so without me. I am done with this conversation.

[dcloudy777]

Well, whatever will we do without the only one professional enough.....?

We get it JH. We "mere civilians" don't know what we're talking about. Thanks.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, whatever will we do without the only one professional enough.....?

We get it JH. We "mere civilians" don't know what we're talking about. Thanks.

 

C'mon, you are just one of the "rants".

 

- OS

[tnguy]

Well, what permitless car carry does give you is the option to be closer to your weapon. If something goes down at work or at a ball game, it's marginally better than not having anything at all.

 

My suspicion though is that is mostly a "throw them a bone" proposition. "Hey, you didn't get X, Y and Z that would actually be useful but you do get this kewpie doll consolation prize"

[RobertNashville]

I don't like leaving my firearm in my vehicle but I like being unarmed a whole lot less. Therefore, I carry everywhere and anywhere I can legally do so which means I often must leave my firearm in my vehicle; locked in a lock box secured to the vehicle with my other firearms in my safe at home.

 

While not completely "safe" in my vehicle, my significant gun safe in my home under multiple layers of security isn't "completely" safe either which means that if being afraid of someone steeling my firearm is the ultimate determinant of having one then the only logical conclusion is that no one should own a firearm because NO ONE can absolutely guarantee that the firearm(s) in their possession is/are totally and completely secure 100% of the time.

 

That said, Mr. jh225 makes an interesting claim about how bad an idea vehicle carry (and leaving the weapon in the vehicle) is but I would suggest we look to other states where vehicle carry without a permit is already allowed as it is here in Georgia (where I happen to be now). I wonder if Mr. jh225 has any data to substantiate his claim...can he show that his alleged problem actually IS a problem where permit-less vehicle carry is already legal?

 

Much like the poorly named "guns in bars" issue...the anti gun crown loves to claim that allowing such will result in shoot outs in bars yet in no state where it's already allowed has there been any significant problems (not that a lack of data keeps the anti crown from continuing to make the same claim). I can't help but think that this claim of Mr. jh225 has about the same merit as the old "blood in the streets" mantra.

[monkeylizard]

I will not leave my weapon in a car just because I want a certain item that a store has.

The only time a weapon gets left in a vehicle is when entering the post office.

 

 

1) You must not be married. I go in all sorts of posted places because a happy wife is a happy life. You must also never travel by airplane. You must never attend concerts, conventions, or sporting events in several of Tennessee's most popular arenas (U.T., Vanderbilt, Bridgestone Arena, LP Field, etc.) You also must live in a place with sensible guns-in-parks laws unlike some of us. I suppose that when you visit any of our wonderful National Parks that you never enter any of the Visitors' Centers. I also suppose you don't have young kids or grandkids so you never have to go see a school play or meet with a teacher. Another sign that you don't have kids is that you must never visit theme parks like Disney World or Sea World. You never take your kids to the beach or if you do, you never get in the water with them.

 

2) If you have it in your car in the Post Office parking lot, you're already breaking the federal law, just as if you carried it in with you, so you might as well keep it on you. The entire P.O. property is off limits.

[jh225]

1) You must not be married. I go in all sorts of posted places because a happy wife is a happy life. You must also never travel by airplane. You must never attend concerts, conventions, or sporting events in several of Tennessee's most popular arenas (U.T., Vanderbilt, Bridgestone Arena, LP Field, etc.) You also must live in a place with sensible guns-in-parks laws unlike some of us. I suppose that when you visit any of our wonderful National Parks that you never enter any of the Visitors' Centers. I also suppose you don't have young kids or grandkids so you never have to go see a school play or meet with a teacher. Another sign that you don't have kids is that you must never visit theme parks like Disney World or Sea World. You never take your kids to the beach or if you do, you never get in the water with them.

 

2) If you have it in your car in the Post Office parking lot, you're already breaking the federal law, just as if you carried it in with you, so you might as well keep it on you. The entire P.O. property is off limits.

 

Have to come back in to reply to the obviously uninformed Monkeylizard.........

 

A Federal judge ruled well over a year ago that you CAN bring a gun into a post office parking lot and leave it there when you go inside, so know your facts before spouting off, ummmmmkay?

 

I personally do not attend concerts or conventions, have no need to attend a college game, no need whatsover to visit a theme park, and when I do visit a national park, I do not enter the visitors center. I have no small kids, so nope, no teacher meetings.

 

And I have been married for well over 25 years, and while you may not wear the pants in your house, I can assure you that I do.

 

Got anything else big guy?

[TMF]

[quote name="jh225" post="1139929" timestamp="1397774976"]Sad? No, sensible. What is the point of carrying a weapon in the car with you when you are just going to leave it there when you get out of the car? You know the odds of being carjacked? Traffic accident in which someone pulls a gun? Again HUGE odds against that. Or are you going to play superman and stop a mugging that you see? Oh wait, you can't leave the car with the gun. Or hows about when you are standing in line at the 7-11 and the guy that just walked in puts a gun to your head. Is that gun you left in the car going to help you then? Nope, didn't think so. Either get the HCP and carry all the time or don't get it and be don't carry. Bringing the 2A rights into the argument for or against is pointless. If the lawmakers that are in place wanted to act according to the Constitution, we would already have no permit needed carry. Since that ain't gonna happen, go and get a HCP and stop leaving the damn weapon in the car where it is absolutely useless to you unless the big bad man comes to your window demanding the car which has less odds than hitting the lottery or being struck by lightning.[/quote] Who cares? It's none of your business when and where a person carries or if they leave a firearm in their car. Certainly none of the government's business that there would be a law restricting such. I have no issue with you having an opinion on someone storing a firearm in their automobile, but when you want to use the force of the LAW to prevent people from making a choice, you are no different than the fascists who seek to control every aspect of our lives; an enemy to the concept of liberty. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="jh225" post="1140394" timestamp="1397875059"] I personally do not attend concerts or conventions, have no need to attend a college game, no need whatsover to visit a theme park, and when I do visit a national park, I do not enter the visitors center. I have no small kids, so nope, no teacher meetings. [/quote] Ah, now it makes sense. You don't care about anyone else's rights because the current laws don't restrict you since your situation isn't the same as the rest of us. How incredibly self centered. In that case, since it doesn't affect me, I would have no issues with the government deciding to strip all YOUR natural rights away immediately, since it doesn't affect me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Worriedman]

jh225, what about when I have to drive from Jackson to Clarksville for work.  I have to leave at 2:30 A.M. for the schedule I am required to keep, and I return to my home on average at 11:00 P.M. I am driving half way across the State (and back), from the 3rd most dangerous small municipality in the Nation to a location that is posted.  To work the 8-10 hour day, I have to leave my vehicle parked off site and ride in with some of my on site employees, leaving my personal vehicle parked at their house, as I can not even have a firearm in my vehicle on their parking lot (thanks Ramsey).

By your reasoning, I should simply quit my job I guess, giving up 20+ years in seniority and at my advanced age, probably having no chance at picking up other employment because of my age and my wife's serious health problems.

I think I will keep my own council, as yours seems less than prudent for my needs, and I agree with TMF, you seem less than concerned with your fellow Citizen's well being.
 

Edited April 19, 2014 by Worriedman

[teecro]

Ah, now it makes sense. You don't care about anyone else's rights because the current laws don't restrict you since your situation isn't the same as the rest of us. How incredibly self centered. In that case, since it doesn't affect me....

 

Whole lot of arrogance and do as I say because I said so is what I see above.... 

 

Do we have an "ignore" feature here? Might want to use it....

[TMF]

[quote name="teecro" post="1140408" timestamp="1397878058"] Do we have an "ignore" feature here? Might want to use it....[/quote] Yeah, but I can't get it to work on tapatalk. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

Have to come back in to reply to the obviously uninformed Monkeylizard.........

 

A Federal judge ruled well over a year ago that you CAN bring a gun into a post office parking lot and leave it there when you go inside, so know your facts before spouting off, ummmmmkay?

 

I personally do not attend concerts or conventions, have no need to attend a college game, no need whatsover to visit a theme park, and when I do visit a national park, I do not enter the visitors center. I have no small kids, so nope, no teacher meetings.

 

And I have been married for well over 25 years, and while you may not wear the pants in your house, I can assure you that I do.

 

Got anything else big guy?

 

Yeah...I do.

 

Most of my last post was rhetorical. I don't have kids and I'm not a big fan of the beach, but I'm not so self-centered that I can't see that the law impacts other people besides me. Apparently you don't suffer from my affliction. Thanks for proving my point.

 

The USPS parking lot allowance was made by a federal judge in Colorado last summer. It applies only to Colorado for now. If it gets appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if they uphold it, then it would apply to the region governed by the 10 circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. It's now case law that a judge in another state will consider, but it's far from a settled issue. IANAL, but that's how I understand the federal court system to work. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs passed a measure this February to change the statute to exclude parking lots, but AFAIK, it hasn't gone beyond that yet. Maybe Congress will resolve it before we get case law from the TN District Court or the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals..

Edited April 19, 2014 by monkeylizard

[wk05]

Yeah...I do.

 

Most of my last post was rhetorical. I don't have kids and I'm not a big fan of the beach, but I'm not so self-centered that I can't see that the law impacts other people besides me. Apparently you don't suffer from my affliction. Thanks for proving my point.

 

The USPS parking lot allowance was made by a federal judge in Colorado last summer. It applies only to Colorado for now. If it gets appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if they uphold it, then it would apply to the region governed by the 10 circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. It's now case law that a judge in another state will consider, but it's far from a settled issue. IANAL, but that's how I understand the federal court system to work. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs passed a measure this February to change the statute to exclude parking lots, but AFAIK, it hasn't gone beyond that yet. Maybe Congress will resolve it before we get case law from the TN District Court or the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals..

 

Correct as to how the Federal legal system works in the aspect of case law.  If it were to be precedent set by the 10th Court of Appeals, the precedent would still not be followed as law in TN as we are not in the same district - the judge/prosecutor would treat it as a case of first impression.  They could use the ruling in Colorado in their prosecution/defense, but it could only be relied on as a secondary source and not necessarily cited and used the same as statutory law would be used in said case.  Long story short, if a similar case would happen in TN, you can't use the simple defense that a CO Fed. Judge ruled that guns were allowed in the USPS parking lot, you would have to force a case of first impression onto the federal judge almost as if the CO ruling didn't exist.  

 

Don't know how some can enforce the law without a basic knowledge of the legal system.  

[teecro]

 

Don't know how some can enforce the law without a basic knowledge of the legal system.  

 

 

Elementary my dear Watson they enforce their opinion or version of the law; and how dare we have a differing thought process than they do....

[Worriedman]

 

Don't know how some can enforce the law without a basic knowledge of the legal system.  

 

Sadly, it happens every day.  In many cases it is not "what you know, but who you know" that lands that position.

[wk05]

Elementary my dear Watson they enforce their opinion or version of the law; and how dare we have a differing thought process than they do....

 

Exactly why I drive around with hard copies of relevant legal precedent and case law (as well as TN Firearms Statutes) set that would be applicable to any situation I could find myself in!  

[eRay]

Has anyone heard any rumors as to when Haslem might sign this. I have my hopes up but nothing is for certain until the fat lady sings or in this case the governor signs.

[monkeylizard]

 

 

Correct as to how the Federal legal system works in the aspect of case law.  If it were to be precedent set by the 10th Court of Appeals, the precedent would still not be followed as law in TN as we are not in the same district - the judge/prosecutor would treat it as a case of first impression.  They could use the ruling in Colorado in their prosecution/defense, but it could only be relied on as a secondary source and not necessarily cited and used the same as statutory law would be used in said case.  Long story short, if a similar case would happen in TN, you can't use the simple defense that a CO Fed. Judge ruled that guns were allowed in the USPS parking lot, you would have to force a case of first impression onto the federal judge almost as if the CO ruling didn't exist.  

 

Don't know how some can enforce the law without a basic knowledge of the legal system.  

 

 

Yeah, I did some reading late last night to be sure of that, and it sure seems to be the case.

 

While I was at it, I re-read the Colorado decision (Bonidy v. U.S.). AIUI, and again, IANAL, the Bonidy case was brought against one particular post office (Avon, CO). The judge ruled on this case for that particular post office due to its services and parking lot configuration. That P.O. had a fenced in parking lot for the P.O.s mail handling. The judge decided that the public portion of that particular P.O.'s parking lot was not allowed to be off-limits because that area had nothing to do with the processing of the mail.

 

The judge specifically cited 3 other aspects of the Avon, CO post office in his decision:

• The post office does not provide delivery to the public
• They provide free post office boxes to Avon residents
• These post office boxes are the only method of retrieving mail

Even in Colorado, if your local P.O. has a combined parking lot or doesn't meet any (or all?) of the other criteria, it may very well still be off-limits.

Edited April 19, 2014 by monkeylizard

[wk05]

I'll get on WestLaw and do some reading on it!