check out this rock throwing contest i started

[molonlabetn]

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.

There's nothing wrong with cops carrying anywhere. The law already 'dicks' both groups.

The problem is that the law is essentially the same for both groups, and since it has not been changed, there exists a double standard when it is enforced discriminantly.

So, yes, if it would bring attention to the bad law, because I think we all agree the law-enforcement community should help us do something about it... this is the best way for them to be forced to realize it. And moreover, move away from the elitist attitude that they are the only ones 'professional enough' to be entrusted with the ability to stop a whacko holding up an Applebees.

[Guest canynracer]

I dunno...it doesnt bother me...I hear all points...

[cadillacdude1975]

interesting.

[wjh2657]

Consumption of the alcohol should be the criterion. I like to eat at a lot of places that serve alcohol (Chilis, Appleby's, O'Charleys, Logans, etc.) and if I were carrying I would not consume alcohol. As it is now I cannot and do not carry in those places. If I don't drink then nothing has changed from eating at McDonalds.

I do drink, but normally only at home. I am not a closet drinker but I have to drive anywhere I go and I can't drink and get back in a car. At home I pick a time that I feel relatively safe and make a compromise. I take the gun out of my pocket and place it in the Gun Vault next to my bed. I don't handle it at all until the next morning. It is readily available but I do not have a tendency to inadvertantly set it off. The trouble in being inebriated is not so much silliness as clumsiness. Your reactions are too slow and you are much more likely to do something wrong and pull trigger inadvertantly. The same would prevail if I were out drinking.

Consumption should be the key. That pertains to LEO and HCP. If bar/restaraunt owner feels differently then he has legal right to post. Then LEO and HCP have the right to choose not to eat in that establishment.

[cadillacdude1975]

and that reverts back to making it a felony if you were to do it and get caught. it is politics and its BS. almost every surrounding state has amended the carry laws for restaurant carry.

[Fallguy]

I personally feel someone could have a drink with dinner and still be ok to carry, just as they can still drive. However I know no bill would ever pass that allowed any consumption while armed. Although many states actually have BAC limit for carry just as they do for driving. In some it is the same as for DUI in some it is less.

The bills that would remove the restriction to carry in those places for both HCP holders and LEOs both stipulated the person could not be consuming any alcohol.

[EMTRN]

I agree with the people that have posted that the law needs to be changed. The problem I have is with the few people on here that bring their personal vendetta against the police into the discussion with off topic posts stating that LEOs don't take care of their weapons and speed everywhere. I don't lump all HCP holders into one group just because of the unsavory ones I have dealt with. Also, I don't go off duty when I eat. This varies by officer and dept. Can't we all just get along.

[Guest tedbo]

I would really like to see everyone be able to carry in restaurants regardless of alcohol being served or not. Being okay to maybe have a drink and stay under the the legal limit is not what I would do.

I prefer to stay on point and not give anyone with the power to direct my life any ammunition (pun intended). At home is another thing. Out in public,no way.

[Guest Phantom6]

Does anyone else read this thread and think of Kwickrnu or what ever his damned user name was? The law needs to be changed for all involved. If the cops aren't drinking I don't have a problem with it just as I don't have a problem with it if Paul Public ain't drinkin'. Get out and vote and get this mess cleaned up instead of throwing rocks. Get rid of Naifeh and get this mess cleaned up. Wanna know how? Check out this thread.

[Guest canynracer]

I agree with the people that have posted that the law needs to be changed. The problem I have is with the few people on here that bring their personal vendetta against the police into the discussion with off topic posts stating that LEOs don't take care of their weapons and speed everywhere. I don't lump all HCP holders into one group just because of the unsavory ones I have dealt with. Also, I don't go off duty when I eat. This varies by officer and dept. Can't we all just get along.

+10,000

[Guest eyebedam]

I agree with the people that have posted that the law needs to be changed. The problem I have is with the few people on here that bring their personal vendetta against the police into the discussion with off topic posts stating that LEOs don't take care of their weapons and speed everywhere. I don't lump all HCP holders into one group just because of the unsavory ones I have dealt with. Also, I don't go off duty when I eat. This varies by officer and dept. Can't we all just get along.

+10,001

[Fallguy]

I agree with the people that have posted that the law needs to be changed. The problem I have is with the few people on here that bring their personal vendetta against the police into the discussion with off topic posts stating that LEOs don't take care of their weapons and speed everywhere. I don't lump all HCP holders into one group just because of the unsavory ones I have dealt with. Also, I don't go off duty when I eat. This varies by officer and dept. Can't we all just get along.

I agree with all that. I also agree that the both laws should be changed.

You talk about not going off duty when you eat....and I agree that an officer while working is really always subject to call, even when he is eating. The real question is what does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean?

I think we all would agree that a LEO that is not in uniform, not clocked in, not in his patrol car can not legally carry in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption any more than someone with a HCP.

So does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean when,

1) He is simply in uniform, clocked in and in his patrol car or

2) Does it mean actually responding to a call for assistance?

If you think...

1) then it is fine for him to be in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption having a meal while on duty.

2) then technically it is against the law.

AFAIK there has been no legal definition or AG opinion of that phrase.

[Angus]

I agree with the people that have posted that the law needs to be changed. The problem I have is with the few people on here that bring their personal vendetta against the police into the discussion with off topic posts stating that LEOs don't take care of their weapons and speed everywhere. I don't lump all HCP holders into one group just because of the unsavory ones I have dealt with. Also, I don't go off duty when I eat. This varies by officer and dept. Can't we all just get along.

+ infinity...HAH!

Honestly......nm

[Guest canynracer]

I agree with all that. I also agree that the both laws should be changed.

You talk about not going off duty when you eat....and I agree that an officer while working is really always subject to call, even when he is eating. The real question is what does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean?

I think we all would agree that a LEO that is not in uniform, not clocked in, not in his patrol car can not legally carry in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption any more than someone with a HCP.

So does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean when,

1) He is simply in uniform, clocked in and in his patrol car or

2) Does it mean actually responding to a call for assistance?

If you think...

1) then it is fine for him to be in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption having a meal while on duty.

2) then technically it is against the law.

AFAIK there has been no legal definition or AG opinion of that phrase.

I agree, but we HAVE to use some common sense around it as well...

Here is the thing, it works all ways, not just about resturaunt carry...because if you think:

So does "in the actual discharge of official duties." mean when,

1) He is simply in uniform, clocked in and in his patrol car or

2) Does it mean actually responding to a call for assistance?

If you think...

1) then it is fine for him to be in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption having a meal while on duty.

2) then technically it is against the law.

Well then now we opened up a whole can of worms...

if I am a cop on patrol, I stop to grab a big gulp, and a pack of Hubba-Bubba at 7-11, and there is a purse snatching in the parking lot, I dont have to prevent it cause if "in the actual discharge of official duties." means actually responding to a call for assistance.....I never "got the call" so oh well.

We cant pick and choose when a uniformed cop is "On Duty" his uniform makes it official.

[Guest db99wj]

LEO's in my opinion are on duty as long as they are in uniform. If they are scheduled to work 8-5 on Monday, between those hours, they are law enforcement, are performing their duties, they are in "discharge of their duties", whether they are eating or not. If you need a LEO, you are in front of Applebees, you see LEO car out front, you go in, there he is, he is eating, remember I said that you need help from a LEO, you go to him and ask for help. It seems with some ways of thinking, he is off the clock, he is "out of service", shouldn't be carrying that gun, so the LEO should be able to say, "I can't help you, I'm at lunch" Does this happen.....NO. They would get up and go help. That tells me that they are "in service". If a cop were to disarm before he went into eat at the above mentioned applebees, and something were to happen and he was not able to perform his duties, or his car got broken into because the bad guys know they keep all the guns in there when they eat, then we would be crying that he was negligent or some other bull****.

So in summation of my rant, I believe the law is stupid, that when cops eat lunch or dinner that they are still on the clock and NOT out of service, so the no handgun in restaurants that serve does not apply to them and if it does, the law is more stupid than I thought. I believe the law should be changed, and I will write to me representatives again this coming year, and continue to vote for representatives that have common sense.

Sorry for the rant, having a bad day.

[EMTRN]

LEO's in my opinion are on duty as long as they are in uniform. If they are scheduled to work 8-5 on Monday, between those hours, they are law enforcement, are performing their duties, they are in "discharge of their duties", whether they are eating or not. If you need a LEO, you are in front of Applebees, you see LEO car out front, you go in, there he is, he is eating, remember I said that you need help from a LEO, you go to him and ask for help. It seems with some ways of thinking, he is off the clock, he is "out of service", shouldn't be carrying that gun, so the LEO should be able to say, "I can't help you, I'm at lunch" Does this happen.....NO. They would get up and go help. That tells me that they are "in service". If a cop were to disarm before he went into eat at the above mentioned applebees, and something were to happen and he was not able to perform his duties, or his car got broken into because the bad guys know they keep all the guns in there when they eat, then we would be crying that he was negligent or some other bull****.

So in summation of my rant, I believe the law is stupid, that when cops eat lunch or dinner that they are still on the clock and NOT out of service, so the no handgun in restaurants that serve does not apply to them and if it does, the law is more stupid than I thought. I believe the law should be changed, and I will write to me representatives again this coming year, and continue to vote for representatives that have common sense.

Sorry for the rant, having a bad day.

Thank-you

[Fallguy]

I may not have explained myself well.

To me since the law says in the discharge of his duties...it isn't the old argument of "on duty" or "off duty". The law already says that a LEO can go armed anywhere (other than the places listed) in the stare regardless of his "duty hours".

So it seems to me (and stupidly, I agree) that they (law makers) were trying to make a distinction between being "on duty" and "discharging" official duties. But who really knows.

Also I didn't mean when he is working that 8-5 shift and "checks out" to eat that he is by any means off the clock or off duty. So if he is Applebee's, then yes he would be expected to help someone...the whole question is, should he be in Applebee's in the first place if they serve alcohol? Or that responding to a call for assistance actually meant being dispatched to call. If a LEO is at the 7-11 and sees a purse snatching the lady yelling HELP is way of being called for assistance I would say.

Again just let me say in my opinon I'm not trying to say LEOs or anyone for that matter should have to disarm to eat at a place that serves alcohol, the question is if that is what the law says or not...and if so it needs to be changed.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Fallguy

[Guest canynracer]

I hear ya fallguy, I wasnt responding to you as much as I was just making the broad statement for others. In my opinion, on the clock means in discharge of duties...but that is me

Yes, the law should be changed. I would like to go eat in a resturaunt like Chili's armed.

[Guest db99wj]

I may not have explained myself well.

To me since the law says in the discharge of his duties...it isn't the old argument of "on duty" or "off duty". The law already says that a LEO can go armed anywhere (other than the places listed) in the stare regardless of his "duty hours".

So it seems to me (and stupidly, I agree) that they (law makers) were trying to make a distinction between being "on duty" and "discharging" official duties. But who really knows.

Also I didn't mean when he is working that 8-5 shift and "checks out" to eat that he is by any means off the clock or off duty. So if he is Applebee's, then yes he would be expected to help someone...the whole question is, should he be in Applebee's in the first place if they serve alcohol? Or that responding to a call for assistance actually meant being dispatched to call. If a LEO is at the 7-11 and sees a purse snatching the lady yelling HELP is way of being called for assistance I would say.

Again just let me say in my opinon I'm not trying to say LEOs or anyone for that matter should have to disarm to eat at a place that serves alcohol, the question is if that is what the law says or not...and if so it needs to be changed.

I know, see, and understand where you are coming from in regards to the letter of the law, I would think that the intent of the law is to restrict the general public, not an on duty LEO, I might be wrong and the law makers are really that f'n stupid. And I will state it like this, In my opinion, a LEO should be able to go anywhere they please to eat, just like I should be able to go anywhere to eat and NO one can tell me any different (other than my wife), so if he wants to go to Applebees, then he should be able to without restriction, without disarming. So should I. I guess I have the advantage over a LEO, because I can carry concealed....errr....umm but only in places that are legal, not in gun free zones.

[Fallguy]

NP canynracer.

I also understand whay you are saying, it is just IMO I think discharge of duties means more than just being on patrol or subject to being called. Otherwise there would be no real need to remove that restriction like they tried to do in SB3853/HB3622.

But...really it doesn't matter what either of us thinks, only the court. ...and I don't ever really see a case of this type going to court. So in the meantime all of us airmchairs get to discuss it until the law changes...lol

[Guest db99wj]

I hear ya fallguy, I wasnt responding to you as much as I was just making the broad statement for others. In my opinion, on the clock means in discharge of duties...but that is me

Yes, the law should be changed. I would like to go eat in a resturaunt like Chili's armed.

I'm usually armed after I go to Chili's....

[Guest meadowmb]

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.

Guess its ok for them to get free meals from resturants and coffee from MAPCO because there are in uniform.

[Guest db99wj]

Guess its ok for them to get free meals from resturants and coffee from MAPCO because there are in uniform.

If the business chooses to do so, then hell yes.

[Fallguy]

I know, see, and understand where you are coming from in regards to the letter of the law, I would think that the intent of the law is to restrict the general public, not an on duty LEO, I might be wrong and the law makers are really that f'n stupid. And I will state it like this, In my opinion, a LEO should be able to go anywhere they please to eat, just like I should be able to go anywhere to eat and NO one can tell me any different (other than my wife), so if he wants to go to Applebees, then he should be able to without restriction, without disarming. So should I. I guess I have the advantage over a LEO, because I can carry concealed....errr....umm but only in places that are legal, not in gun free zones.

The law we are discussing is for LEOs specifically. 39-17-1305 is what keeps HCP holders from going into a place that serves alcohol, but 39-17-1350 deals only with LEOs. It is the law that allows LEOs to generally carry everywhere. It says "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any law enforcement officer may carry firearms at all times and in all places within Tennessee, on-duty or off-duty, regardless of the officer's regular duty hours or assignments, except as provided by subsection ©, federal law, lawful orders of court or the written directives of the executive supervisor of the employing agency."

Subsection © says.

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

(1)

Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

(2)

Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance;

(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; or

(4)

Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

For those with a HCP

©(1) Is close to 39-17-1309

©(2) Is similiar to 39-17-1321 Although ©(2) says "consuming" and 39-17-1321 says "under the influnece" (Right or wrong we all know that one word can make a difference in what a law means)

©(3) Is like 39-17-1305 and we are talking about.

©(4) Is like 39-17-1306

[Guest db99wj]

The law we are discussing is for LEOs specifically. 39-17-1305 is what keeps HCP holders from going into a place that serves alcohol, but 39-17-1350 deals only with LEOs. It is the law that allows LEOs to generally carry everywhere. It says "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any law enforcement officer may carry firearms at all times and in all places within Tennessee, on-duty or off-duty, regardless of the officer's regular duty hours or assignments, except as provided by subsection ©, federal law, lawful orders of court or the written directives of the executive supervisor of the employing agency."

Subsection © says.

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

(1)

Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

(2)

Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance;

(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; or

(4)

Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

For those with a HCP

©(1) Is close to 39-17-1309

©(2) Is similiar to 39-17-1321 Although ©(2) says "consuming" and 39-17-1321 says "under the influnece" (Right or wrong we all know that one word can make a difference in what a law means)

©(3) Is like 39-17-1305 and we are talking about.

©(4) Is like 39-17-1306

Law-nerd.

Well if the intent of the law is to restrict "on duty" LEO's from going into a restaurant that happens to serve, for lunch, then the law and the law makers are even more F'n stupid than I thought. I definately see your p0int and understand the law that you posted, but I think you know how I feel.