check out this rock throwing contest i started

[cadillacdude1975]

it has pissed me off enough to see all these police officers in Tennessee business' that serve alcohol by the drink, in full uniform armed with a handgun. i made a post about my thoughts on it and posted the law, and now by god they (the police here in chatanooga) are mad as hell about it.

they are claiming that eating is a part of being on duty, and the gun is part of the uniform even though they have to go out of service or use the eating code over the radio meaning they are not taking any calls other than emergencies i guess.

i put this in the politics section as this is exactly what this is, even though it is at a city level, but it is a problem that has been created by the high and mighty Naifeh.

anyone can feel free to correct me, but from what i have read and been told about the law, is the only way a police officer can be armed in an establishment that serves alcohol for on site consumption is in official discharge of police duties I.E. working a fight call, theft inside the establishment, etc. since when did eating become part of an official duty. here is the law in case some are not aware of what it states.

http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/112da/11cd2/1201e/120ba?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0

39-17-1350. Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions

section C states this.......

© The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

subsection 3 gets a little more detailed.

(3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while within the confines of an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-the-premises

go on over to the forums, it is in the police blotter section. here is the link. feel free to chime in with your facts/opinions on this subject. i feel the only way to deal with it is to look at it head on and i really dont care how many local cops get mad at me for stirring it all around for all to smell.

http://sceniccity.proboards98.com

there is the site to create a username, and the link below is the link directly to the thread.

http://sceniccity.proboards98.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=police&thread=12238&page=1#126095

[Guest jwp]

That thread is about to go where no man has gone before.

[Guest 2HOW]

Excellent dude:cheers:

[Fallguy]

I fully agree with your reading of the law. It does say "in the discharge of official duties" not simply on duty. ...and I don't think being out of service eating a meal is in being in the discharge of official duties.

There has been discussions about the definition of "in the actual discharge of official duties" by top LEOs of the state and legislators in Nashville. There has been no definite answer ever come of it. To my knowledge the AG has never issued an opinion on it.

The trouble is....who are you going to call if you see an officer eating a meal at a restaurant that serves alcohol? Even if it is another agency that responds, do you really think they will do anything? Also....do you really want to be the guy that single handily eliminated the majority of places that your local LEOs can eat?

[Smith]

You are correct. There are two bad laws in force there. It is unreasonable to expect LE, in uniform or out, to be on "duty" 24/7 and then restrict certain tools of the trade in certain places. It is likewise unreasonable to expect HCP holders to lower their self defense standards in certain places. I don't expect either party to suddenly become incapable of good judgment due to their location.

[cadillacdude1975]

oh it got a few hot responses overnight. maybe the AG needs to be pressured into making a decision on this subject. the 2 that i know are cops on there are already spitting mad. i wish others would go over there and post in that thread about it. let them know we know the law, no matter what the uniform makes them think.

EDIT: and eliminating places they can eat? maybe that is what this state needs. if that law was actually pushed to cover the ones that are to protect and serve, maybe LEO pressure on king jimmy would make for an adjustment of some sort to this BS law we are all stuck to dealing with.

Edited September 29, 2008 by cadillacdude1975

[Guest db99wj]

The law is stupid, in regards to LEO and law abiding citizens, and should be dropped completely. It seems that the intent was to keep guns out of bars and night clubs and the common sense part of it fell in the crapper, so even Restaurants that serve were included. But I digress.

IMO LEO should be excluded from this law due to the fact that even if they are "out of service" they are on duty. If they are sitting there eating and a call comes in, they don't call in and tell the dispatch that they are eating and to call someone else. No, they jump up and go to where ever they need to go, leaving that meal laying if they can't grab and go. So IMO, it would seem that the LEO is on "duty" whether they are "out of service" eating lunch or not. If a call comes in, they go. So when I drive by that applebee's and I see that LEO in there, I sure as hell hope he does have all his tools in case me or my family needs him, even when he is eating. And yes I will be prepared as well.

[cadillacdude1975]

i see the very good positive point you make, but like i said, this is a BS law. and a law is a law, but the law can break the law because they are the law.

who's on first?

[Guest DaG]

I don't see a problem with it as I used to be a LEO. I also don't see a problem with HCP holder being in a place that serves.....as long as you're not consuming. If it bothers some people that bad, apply and join a dept. and you can carry in a restaraunt that serves. But the thinking that why can he carry and I can't is immature in my opinion. If you're that paranoid about not being able to carry in a place that serves, you shouldn't be carrying to begin with. Give the LEO a break, he's gotta eat same as the rest of us. He's not going to bother you as long as you're not causing trouble. Believe me, all the guy wants to do is eat in peace for 30 minutes or so. Don't knock'em until you've walked in their shoes. Sorry if I p#$s someone off, but arm chair cops/lawyers don't have a clue.

DaG

[Guest Jason F.]

When I was working in the restaurant business I packed up more than a few meals very quickly for an officer, canceled orders in the process of being cooked, or replaced food when an officer could come back after a call. I also more than once comped a ticket for an officer that could not get the chance to eat before being called away. Those that would not let me comp it either had me print it early or in one case came back over an hour later to pay it and close the tab out. In that case we made sure he got some dinner on us to take home to his family since he barely got three bites out of his dinner but insisted on paying for it. They are very much on duty even during the lunch break if they can manage to get a lunch break.

With that said I see the problem with the law and how it is spelled out. I agree with the points above. The laws surrounding restaurant carry are just plain stupid and there should be no need to clarify or debate things like this. If one is legally allowed to carry a firearm they should be allowed to do so even in a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as they are breaking no laws by consuming it.

[cadillacdude1975]

i wonder if king jimmy reads this internet forum?

[strickj]

The only thing that I didn't like was this

no, i refuse to go in a place that serves alcohol for 2 very obvious reasons. one, the drunk idiots that are always in there.

Thats not helping our case for wanting to carry in these places,after all,when I go to Chili's,I'm a drunken lunatic!

I did like the comment from the one officer

if you and I were eating at the same establishment where alcohol is sold and consumed, and some nut comes in and starts waving a gun around, do YOU want me to be armed and deal with the situation or not?

Two things about that.

1) sold and consumed?

2) really,I feel the same way about a nut comes in and starts waving a gun around! I want to be able to defend myself too

[Fallguy]

I don't see a problem with it as I used to be a LEO. I also don't see a problem with HCP holder being in a place that serves.....as long as you're not consuming. If it bothers some people that bad, apply and join a dept. and you can carry in a restaraunt that serves. But the thinking that why can he carry and I can't is immature in my opinion. If you're that paranoid about not being able to carry in a place that serves, you shouldn't be carrying to begin with. Give the LEO a break, he's gotta eat same as the rest of us. He's not going to bother you as long as you're not causing trouble. Believe me, all the guy wants to do is eat in peace for 30 minutes or so. Don't knock'em until you've walked in their shoes. Sorry if I p# someone off, but arm chair cops/lawyers don't have a clue.

DaG

It's not that a LEO can carry in a restaraunt that serves alcohol and that I can't. Because by law neither of us can....unless the LEO is "in the actual discharge of his official duties". It is more the law would be rarely, if ever enforced against them as opposed to those with a HCP. Just as with those that a HCP, it's not like the LEO can't eat somewhere else, even if it has to be McDonalds or Burger King.

If a druken idot starts trouble at Chili's etc.... then when the LEO responds he will be in the actual discharge of his duties.

But I do agree that most LEOs would simply ask the person to go outside and disarm instead of actually charging someone.

[NuTcAsE]

An officer has as much if not more duty to obey the law than the average citizen. There are plenty of places to eat that does not serve alcohol. A citizen with a permit should be able to carry every where an officer does. There is no reason officers "need" any more than that. Only to feel empowered over the citizenry.

[cadillacdude1975]

the sad fact is that no matter how many citizens respond in support of this, the law will always think they are correct. and i am really tired of that way of thinking.

the same thing goes for an LEO speeding his ass off on the freeway with no lights or sirens on. just flying down the road with the flow of traffic (that is usually 70+ MPH) and what do they do? move over and pass you like it is no ones business.

unless that car is responding to an emergency with lights and sirens on, it is supposed to obey the exact traffic laws we all have to abide by.

it is a long standing misconception that police officers are better acquainted with the service weapons they carry. i whole heartily disagree. do you think a service revolver is unloaded and stripped to the bone as much as we clean and strip ours? granted since gas prices jumped through the roof and ammo got really high, i dont go to the range near as much as i used to go, but i bet i went more in a 6 month period than 75% of the police force combined.

i would be willing to bet that the legally armed citizens know their own weapon better than a city cop knows his own service weapon.

[Smith]

the sad fact is that no matter how many citizens respond in support of this, the law will always think they are correct. and i am really tired of that way of thinking.

the same thing goes for an LEO speeding his ass off on the freeway with no lights or sirens on. just flying down the road with the flow of traffic (that is usually 70+ MPH) and what do they do? move over and pass you like it is no ones business.

unless that car is responding to an emergency with lights and sirens on, it is supposed to obey the exact traffic laws we all have to abide by.

it is a long standing misconception that police officers are better acquainted with the service weapons they carry. i whole heartily disagree. do you think a service revolver is unloaded and stripped to the bone as much as we clean and strip ours? granted since gas prices jumped through the roof and ammo got really high, i dont go to the range near as much as i used to go, but i bet i went more in a 6 month period than 75% of the police force combined.

i would be willing to bet that the legally armed citizens know their own weapon better than a city cop knows his own service weapon.

Yeah that really bugs me as well. I called in a car (unmarked, no number. Used license plate) who ran up on the back of me so fast I could see the whites of his eyes. After I didn't move over, he whipped in a narrow gap between me and the car I was passing in the other lane and speed off weaving in and out of traffic down I-24. The station said well, he was probably on a call. I responded (as nicely as I could) that was crap and explained why. They told me unmarked cars usually were not assigned, so there was no way to follow up on it. The lady was nice and understood, but wasn't a whole lot she could do. I even followed him (it was by my house) to the station. It was quiting time. Now this is an extreme example, but really annoyed me to say the least. He was actually dangerous.

Technically the only vehicles that can disregard street postings are the USPS! But I doubt that is a very good policy either. Common sense is what is often left out of legislation.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I don't see a problem with it as I used to be a LEO. I also don't see a problem with HCP holder being in a place that serves.....as long as you're not consuming. If it bothers some people that bad, apply and join a dept. and you can carry in a restaraunt that serves. But the thinking that why can he carry and I can't is immature in my opinion. If you're that paranoid about not being able to carry in a place that serves, you shouldn't be carrying to begin with. Give the LEO a break, he's gotta eat same as the rest of us. He's not going to bother you as long as you're not causing trouble. Believe me, all the guy wants to do is eat in peace for 30 minutes or so. Don't knock'em until you've walked in their shoes. Sorry if I p# someone off, but arm chair cops/lawyers don't have a clue.

DaG

I was waiting for the, "hey just join up if you want to carry in a restaurant that serves" argument.

It is along the same line as the "hey, join the military if you want an automatic weapon" line of thought, and has no place in civil discourse.

And carrying in a restaurant is 'paranoid' now? Why is a restaurant any different than any other place we would wish to carry? Are we all so paranoid, that we shouldn't be carrying then? Silly.

And immature? To me, it seems emotionally stunted to want preferential treatment under the law, and to become fall back on an elitist/bully attitude that assumes one class of citizen is better than another, when a perfectly logical point of view is expressed and backed up, even though that point of view differs from what is practiced in reality.

We are not supposed to have different 'classes' of citizens, "us" and LEOs. It seems to me that one side of this debate wants the law universally applied to all citizens, and one wants to cry for special treatment under the law, that they are supposed to uphold.

Now, I can fully understand that the officer has to leave a meal behind, and I am deeply appreciative of the officers that are willing to answer the call. Please, don't mistake this post as 'cop' bashing.

However, wearing the uniform doesn't mean that they get to pick and choose what laws apply to them, and which laws don't. It will never be enforced against LEOs, but that doesn't mean that it isn't against the law as it is written.

The bottom line is that it is a bad law, and it needs to go.

[Fallguy]

Technically the only vehicles that can disregard street postings are the USPS! But I doubt that is a very good policy either. Common sense is what is often left out of legislation.

That is not correct.

T.C.A. 55-8-108 Authorized emergency vehicles.

(a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.

( (1) A driver of an authorized emergency vehicle operating such vehicle in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) may:

(A)

Park or stand, notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter which regulate parking or standing;

(

Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

©

Exceed the speed limits so long as life or property is not thereby endangered; and

(D)

Disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

(2)

The provisions of subdivision (

(1) shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of the driver's own reckless disregard for the safety of others.

© (1) The exemptions granted under subsection ( to a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall only apply when such vehicle is making use of audible and visual signals meeting the requirements of the applicable laws of this state, except that while parked or standing, an authorized emergency vehicle shall only be required to make use of visual signals meeting the requirements of the applicable laws of this state.

(2)

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, while parked or standing, from making use of both audible and visual signals meeting the requirements of the applicable laws of this state, in the discretion of the driver.

(d) An authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle may be equipped with or display a red light only in combination with a blue light visible from in front of the vehicle.

(e) Notwithstanding the requirement of this section that drivers of authorized emergency vehicles exercise due regard for the safety of all persons, no municipality or county nor the state or any of its political subdivisions, nor their officers or employees, shall be liable for any injury proximately or indirectly caused to an actual or suspected violator of a law or ordinance who is fleeing pursuit by law enforcement personnel. The fact that law enforcement personnel pursue an actual or suspected violator of a law or ordinance who flees from such pursuit shall not render the law enforcement personnel, or the employers of such personnel, liable for injuries to a third party proximately caused by the fleeing party unless the conduct of the law enforcement personnel was negligent and such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries to the third party.

[cadillacdude1975]

it needs to go for everyone. like i said long ago, IF a permit holder were to be found drinking and carrying at the same time, make it a felony. there you go, no more permit or gun.

[TGO David]

For what it's worth, John Harris (esq) agrees with the OP on this subject. But he also agrees that this stupid law needs to be changed.

[cadillacdude1975]

should i be a dick and call the local media and get them all over this? i think it would be quite a debate. i think the only way the law is going to get changed is by making a lot of noise.

[Fallguy]

should i be a dick and call the local media and get them all over this? i think it would be quite a debate. i think the only way the law is going to get changed is by making a lot of noise.

Depends on which law you are trying to get changed.

Media coverage might change the law for LEOs, but I don't think any amount of media coverage would help change the law when it comes to those with a HCP.

FWIW there are bills to change boths laws still in the summer study commitee of the house. Maybe they can work something out.

[molonlabetn]

The problem isn't so much that the cops' technically illegal activities aren't being punished... it's that we should be presenting a united front to change the law for both armed groups, neither of which should be forced to be defenseless based on the nature of the resturaunt we choose.

Pointing out that there is a double standard here, is totally valid. The fact that some don't like it is evidence of a completely different problem with regard to the attitudes of some LEOs, actually.

[Mike.357]

so basically because the law dicks HCP holders you want LEO to be treated the same way.

I see nothing wrong with cops carrying, while in uniform while they are grabbing lunch at O'Charleys or wherever.

[Smith]

should i be a dick and call the local media and get them all over this? i think it would be quite a debate. i think the only way the law is going to get changed is by making a lot of noise.

Personally, I think the better tact is to make the case that we need HCPs for the same reason an Officer needs to carry in "off limit" places. To be ready to defend oneself against unknown circumstances and adversaries. Are officers judgment going to be impaired just by their location? Then neither is a law abiding HCP holder.