Permitless carry in vehicle

[Guest Shooter00]

Already did. Was immediate on becoming law, whatever exact date that was.

 

Haven't heard a peep regarding Knoxville City Council response. Maybe they're not even aware of the change for all I know. But barring official resolution and (presumably) proper signage, it's legal to carry in Knoxville parks/rec areas today.

 

- OS

Was there a change in wording or amendments to 39-17-1311 in this last session that Knoxville City Council would need to respond to ?

[macville]

Was there a change in wording or amendments to 39-17-1311 in this last session that Knoxville City Council would need to respond to ?

Yes. The knoxville's park carry law was pre '86 so they didn't have follow the new parks law. However, this law preempts all local weapon laws, so now for knoxville to ban carry in their parks they would have to pass a resolution and post just like the rest of the state. But let's not point that out to them.

[Guest Shooter00]

Yes. The knoxville's park carry law was pre '86 so they didn't have follow the new parks law. However, this law preempts all local weapon laws, so now for knoxville to ban carry in their parks they would have to pass a resolution and post just like the rest of the state. But let's not point that out to them.

Thanks Mac,

I just found the info stating that.

Wonder how much all those signs are going to cost us :)

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks Mac,

I just found the info stating that.

Wonder how much all those signs are going to cost us :)

 

Pretty massive undertaking really, when you consider not just all park entrances, but all the greenway access points also -- a lot of them. 86 miles right now in city limits.

 

Even the relatively few places that may have "no firearms" in rules list signs here and there aren't even in the ballpark of being statutorily compliant. Unlike the Public Meetings postings, parks/rec areas have exact wording specified, and even minimum size.  Of course, there's the big unknown about whether they really have to be compliant for one to be convicted ...

 

One bad thing about it is that it was only a relative slap on the wrist under the local ordinance if charged, but if they do their thing under 3011, it's a Class A 'meanor.

 

Again, not that I keep that close a watch on the local pulse, but I haven't heard one peep regarding anything being done about it. Maybe they're just gonna let it be, and hope that most folks think it's still against city ordinance to carry, dunno. Although probably at some point they'll be some kind of incident that will bring it into the news.

 

- OS

Edited June 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[GKar]

Better slow down a minute, folks.  House bill 1399 (and Senate bill 1612, its sister) does NOT pre-empt local regulation of carry-in-parks: at least, that is exactly what the bill's sponsor, Judd Matheny, told the House Civil Justice committee in presenting the bill on March 26, 2014. Watch below, right at 35 minutes into the meeting.

 

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=269&clip_id=9180&meta_id=172546

 

And if memory serves, he said the same thing about the bill the week prior in the CJ sub - in response to a direct question about that issue from Mike Stewart.

 

So, looks like Knoxville City Council has nothing to address...the rationale apparently is that the legislature had ALREADY ceded parks carry regulation to local authorities, and this bill does not undo that act.  Any questions should be sent to Rep Matheny and Sen Green...good luck in getting a cogent, direct response.

Edited June 17, 2014 by GKar

[Oh Shoot]

Better slow down a minute, folks.  House bill 1399 (and Senate bill 1612, its sister) does NOT pre-empt local regulation of carry-in-parks: at least, that is exactly what the bill's sponsor, Judd Matheny, told the House Civil Justice committee in presenting the bill on March 26, 2014. Watch below, right at 35 minutes into the meeting.

 

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=269&clip_id=9180&meta_id=172546

 

And if memory serves, he said the same thing about the bill the week prior in the CJ sub - in response to a direct question about that issue from Mike Stewart.

 

So, looks like Knoxville City Council has nothing to address...the rationale apparently is that the legislature had ALREADY ceded parks carry regulation to local authorities, and this bill does not undo that act.  Any questions should be sent to Rep Matheny and Sen Green...good luck in getting a cogent, direct response.

 

You misinterpret what he was trying to say in that link. He means, without referring to it directly,  having already given yes/no local regulation of carry in parks though 39-17-1311 and that it is a part of state legislative control. If he said something different elsewhere, he's simply wrong in same way as Ramsey claiming the parking lot bill makes it illegal to fire people for it.

 

The language in the statute is uncharacteristically crystal clear, leaving zero wiggle room.

 

All current and future local ordinances involving firearms are null, except regarding actually discharging firearms and firing range locations.

 

 

 

- OS

Edited June 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Erik88]

On another forum it was quoted that the vehicle must belong to you. I'm not seeing that in the statute though. 

 

 

Sorry, only has to do with passengers, which is still silly IMO.

 

 

"Passengers may NOT lawfully carry or possess a firearm without a valid permit, unless they are the registered owners of the vehicle."

Edited July 6, 2014 by Erik88

[Oh Shoot]

On another forum it was quoted that the vehicle must belong to you. I'm not seeing that in the statute though. 

 

 

Sorry, only has to do with passengers, which is still silly IMO.

 

 

"Passengers may NOT lawfully carry or possess a firearm without a valid permit, unless they are the registered owners of the vehicle."

 

Interesting, hadn't given it much thought before your post, thanks.

 

I would think push come to shove that's probably correct as far as having a loaded gun on the person. The condition "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle" suggests that the exception only applies to owner or lawful driver -- who could both be in the vehicle at same time, or not.

 

But a far as loaded firearms not actually on the person, seems it's another gray area -- there is nothing in the statute that suggests ownership of the firearms is a factor, so I'd posit that anyone in lawful possession of the vehicle can be deemed to be as much "in possession" of the firearms as the actual owner. After all, in purely practical sense of enforcement, there's no way to determine actual ownership of firearms on the side of the road anyway.

 

Perhaps depends on legal meaning of possession of the firearm in this case as much as possession of the vehicle? And here I thought we had a statute that was pretty clear, but of course what could I have been thinking? :)

 

- OS

Edited July 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

Perhaps depends on legal meaning of possession of the firearm in this case as much as possession of the vehicle? And here I thought we had a statute that was pretty clear, but of course what could I have been thinking? :)
 
- OS

I don’t think the statute requires that the person “own” or even be the driver of the vehicle; only that they are not in possession of the vehicle unlawfully. Constructive possession.

If you have a gun in the console, have other people in the car, and need to go into a store, what are you supposed to do, make the people get out of the car because they don’t own it? I doubt it. As long as they can lawfully possess a gun I think they would be okay; they are also in possession of the vehicle.

But I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. Edited July 6, 2014 by DaveTN

[Oh Shoot]

I don’t think the statute requires that the person “own” or even be the driver of the vehicle; only that they are not in possession of the vehicle unlawfully. Constructive possession.

 

Says "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle", so would seem to be owner and/or driver to me. Five unrelated folks in a car, they're not all in legal possession of the vehicle are they?

 

Also,  do you not see a difference between firearms in the vehicle and firearms on the person in the vehicle?

 

I don't know, just wondering.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Says "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle", so would seem to be owner and/or driver to me. Five unrelated folks in a car, they're not all in legal possession of the vehicle are they?

Yes, just like if they stole it or had drugs in it.
 

Says "is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle", so would seem to be owner and/or driver to me. Five unrelated folks in a car, Also, do you not see a difference between firearms in the vehicle and firearms on the person in the vehicle?

Nope, not unless you throw a barred person into the mix.

I know the laws don't always make sense as to their intent, but if you can legally have a gun in your car, why couldn't you legally have a gun in my car?

[Oh Shoot]

......

I know the laws don't always make sense as to their intent, but if you can legally have a gun in your car, why couldn't you legally have a gun in my car?

 

Well, I expect that's the way it'll be handled for the most part on the side of the road, just mainly wondering when folks get arrested for something else and they look for the add on charges.

 

That is, hey passenger 1 wasn't in possession of the vehicle, but had loaded guns of his own in the vehicle, or a gun on him with no permit, etc.

 

 

- OS

Edited July 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

Well, I expect that's the way it'll be handled for the most part on the side of the road, just mainly wondering when folks get arrested for something else and they look for the add on charges.
 
That is, hey passenger 1 wasn't in possession of the vehicle, but had a gun on him with no permit, etc.
 
- OS

If the “something else” is drugs or DUI; the gun will add charges.

[Oh Shoot]

Oh, and Dave

 

If the “something else” is drugs or DUI; the gun will add charges.

 

Well, yeah, that part certainly valid...

 

Oh, and you were absolutely right about the part that carry on person making no diff. Statute says "carrying or possessing", duh. Only question is still, "who" is possessing the firearms among 5 guys with a bunch of different guns in the car.

 

If four of them are drunk but owner/operator is sober, a bunch of loaded guns in the car, are each of the other four guilty of "possession while under the influence"? Does it have to be the gun they actually own in such state?  Or does the exception exonerate all of them if only the driver is indeed in "possession" of he vehicle. Etc ...

 

- OS

Edited July 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

Oh, and Dave
 
 
Well, yeah, that part certainly valid...
 
Oh, and you were absolutely right about the part that carry on person making no diff. Statute says "carrying or possessing", duh. Only question is still, "who" is possessing the firearms among 5 guys with a bunch of different guns in the car.
 
If four of them are drunk but owner/operator is sober, a bunch of loaded guns in the car, are each of the other four guilty of "possession while under the influence"? Does it have to be the gun they actually own in such state?  Or does the exception exonerate all of them if only the driver is indeed in "possession" of he vehicle. Etc ...
 
- OS

If there is only one gun and the owner\operator who is sober says it’s his; no problem. If it isn’t his he’s risking an obstructing charge. (Probably a felony in this state, but I’m not sure on that.) Edited July 6, 2014 by DaveTN

[Oh Shoot]

If there is only one gun and the owner\operator who is sober says it’s his; no problem. If it isn’t his he’s risking an obstructing charge. (Probably a felony in this state, but I’m not sure on that.)

 

Well, I guess we could postulate minutiae about virtually any of the weapons statutes .. just seems this one might be riper to settle out in case law than many others since I can see  so many various possibilities and debates happening on it.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Well, I guess we could postulate minutiae about virtually any of the weapons statutes .. just seems this one might be riper to settle out in case law than many others since I can see  so many various possibilities and debates happening on it.
 
- OS

With multiple people involved I’m sure it will go down the same way drugs do. Separate/Mirandize/Interrogate; some go home and some go to jail.

[Oh Shoot]

With multiple people involved I’m sure it will go down the same way drugs do. Separate/Mirandize/Interrogate; some go home and some go to jail.

 

Not that simple until decided who is legally in possession of the vehicle.

 

- If as you opinied, anyone in there is, then nobody legal to own them could be charged with having loaded firearms per se.

- Or the other bent,  if only a driver or owner is in legal possession of vehicle, does their exemption extend to firearms owned by others?

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Not that simple until decided who is legally in possession of the vehicle.

That's usually pretty simple.
 

- If as you opinied, anyone in there is, then nobody legal to own them could be charged with having loaded firearms per se.

As I said, I don’t see anything that would make me believe that me and all my friends could not have a gun in my car.
 

- Or the other bent, if only a driver or owner is in legal possession of vehicle, does their exemption extend to firearms owned by others?

I see nothing to indicate it is limited to one person, or only the owners of the vehicle. But I could be wrong. I don’t think that is the intent of the law.

[Oh Shoot]

... I don’t think that is the intent of the law.

 

According to at least one prominent lawmaker on the hill, it was the intent of the parking lot with HCP law that you couldn't be fired for abiding by it, too.

 

The intent of the conditions under which an adult non-student may keep a firearm in vehicle on school grounds is gray to this day.

 

The definition of "unloaded" firearm has never been clear, and is likely incomplete syntax according to intent,  but fortunately seems never to be enforced as to exact wording.

 

etc etc

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

According to at least one prominent lawmaker on the hill, it was the intent of the parking lot with HCP law that you couldn't be fired for abiding by it, too.
 
The intent of the conditions under which an adult non-student may keep a firearm in vehicle on school grounds is gray to this day.
 
The definition of "unloaded" firearm has never been clear, and is likely incomplete syntax according to intent,  but fortunately seems never to be enforced as to exact wording.
 
etc etc
 
- OS

As I have said many times we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system. If there is a problem you will get as much justice as you can afford.

We all give our opinions here based on our experience. Reading the law and understanding it should be easy; but it is not. It was written by lawyers. Law is bound by state boundaries, what is done is one state is something different in another state. My experience in law enforcement is from another state, so I have to try to find out what a particular set of circumstances would mean in Tennessee.

When I look at a law or someone asks me about a specific law I don’t try to think about what would win in court; I try to think of what action would keep me from going to court.

If I were a law maker in Tennessee and wanted to pass a bill that said someone couldn’t be fired for having a gun in their car; I would understand that I am in an employment at will state and have to address that with the law. That was not done.

If I were a student and wanted to know if I could keep a gun in my car I would go straight to the department that would be enforcing that and get an answer. Same with an unloaded firearm. (Although I’m not sure what law you are referring to)

What will be prosecuted and how it will be prosecuted can change County to County and Department to Department. We are responsible to find out what the law is where we are.

It’s ridiculous that someone would have to pay to listen to some out of state hack on the use of deadly force when it is the local DA that will be calling the shots and they should be putting on those seminars in every County for free. But I don't see that happening.

But that’s law. And it’s why in this information age we have these forums. You can ask a question and you will get answers. Some of the responses will be reasonable and informative and some will be completely wrong. It’s up to you to find out what is right.

My opinion on guns on traffic stops comes from having done thousands of traffic stops, having guns pulled on me, having been in shootings and having seen citizens and fellow Officers shot. I don’t think an Officer should disarm everyone that has a gun; but if I felt the need to disarm someone I would do it in a heartbeat I really wouldn’t be worried about what anyone else thought about it.

So my opinion will probably be different from that of someone that doesn’t really know what cops run into stopping cars. And think because they aren’t a criminal that all HCP holders are living at the foot of the cross.

So we all offer our feedback and it is what it is.

[K191145]

Okay, without reading all the posts in this thread I will ask these questions. If they have been covered I apoligize.

So SB1774 basically says in non-lawyer(laymans) terms that anyone who can legally own a handgun but doesn't have a HCP can posses a loaded(mag in and chambered) handgun in their vehicle without being charged with a crime. That's what I understand about SB1774.

I guess my question is, and I assume it also applies to anyone who does not have a HCP, that they are also protected by the SB142 "guns in trunks"(bad nickname) law. That they can leave their handgun in their vehicle out of sight on property that is posted without being charged unless they refuse to leave the property if told to do so by the property owner. The charge would be tresspassing.

That may be a dumb inquiry but I just want to clarify it before I advise my friends and sister about possessing a loaded handgun in their vehicle.

 

I am also embarrassed that I didn't keep up with recent gun laws and wasn't aware that 1774 had passed and became law, I was aware vehicle carry(possession) was being discussed in the legislature. I was keeping track of the new knife law, I guess the local news channels did a good job of hiding SB1774 from the public.

Edited July 19, 2014 by K191145

[Oh Shoot]

....

I guess my question is, and I assume it also applies to anyone who does not have a HCP, that they are also protected by the SB142 "guns in trunks"(bad nickname) law.

 

No. That still requires a permit.

 

Just because you can generally have loaded guns in vehicle without a permit, there was nothing in this revision to 1307 (unlawful carry) to exempt you from 1309 (schools), 1311 (parks),  or 1359 (posting) statue, which 1313 ("parking lots") specifically does for permit holders.

 

- OS

Edited July 19, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[K191145]

No. That still requires a permit.

 

Just because you can generally have loaded guns in vehicle without a permit, there was nothing in this revision to 1307 (unlawful carry) to exempt you from 1309 (schools) or 1359 (posting) statue, which 1313 ("parking lots") specifically does for permit holders.

 

- OS

 

I did read some of the language in SB142 that specifically mentions permit holders, maybe next year's sessions gun owners can push to change that language to amend SB142 to include any lawful gun owner. I mean if it's out of sight in your vehicle why not?

I know SB142 and SB1774 isn't everything we wanted but I still feel they are a step in the right direction, much better than some liberal controled states that pass legislation to limit a citizens 2nd. amendment rights.

I will advise friends and family that they are still limited by the old laws concerning prohibited places.