2015 TN Legislative Goals

[Oh Shoot]

I don't care if they fire me for not flushing the toilet, I just want to ability to have my gun in my personal vehicle without fear.  Very practical too me! 

 

Are you really worried about them searching your car?  If not, why worry about keeping your heater in there?

 

- OS

[runco]

Are you really worried about them searching your car?  If not, why worry about keeping your heater in there?

 

- OS

Principal! 

[bersaguy]

I'd personally like to see the criminal penalties for carrying past gun busters go away.

If I could like this 10,000 times I would.............................. :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

[GlockSpock]

Principal!

In the state of TN, your employer can fire you if they find out you simply like guns.

In my opinion anyone that supports freedom and liberty should agree with me.

When someone is pulling money out of their pocket and paying you to do work for them, they should be able to stop the flow of that money to you for any reason they prefer.

Gators fan?
Wore mismatched socks by accident?
Interrupted your boss during a meeting?
Ate a hamburger in front of your vegan boss?
Showed up to work late.
Showed up to work early.
Drive a foreign vehicle.
Drive a Ford.
Drive a Chevy.

Keep a gun in your locked car.

Any of those reasons are good enough to fire someone in the state of TN. You don't need a reason in the state of TN to fire someone.

What protecting gun owners in the way you suggest would do is create another protected class. I'm sure we need another one of those don't we?

Then anytime someone that had a gun in their vehicle that got fired would claim it was for that reason. See the problem?

Also, as anti-gun as this may sound to some, it is perfectly within the right of an employer to fire you for even liking guns. They could fire you if they wanted if they found out you were a member of TGO. They should have this right. Anything contrary to that is government interference.

[Oh Shoot]

Principal! 

 

Well, it's either a school, involves money, or you mean "principle". ;)

 

- OS

Edited November 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Moped]

Best of luck, I'm pretty sure if Beth Harwell could have gotten a restraining order for her town hall meetings during the restaurant and park carry debate on me, she would have...

 

The simple solution is to primary her...  she is a weak RINO, while we might loose the seat to the democrats in the general, but we'll be rid of her.

In this state, you could more than likely find a gun loving Democrat to run in that primary. Then it would be a win win! It's not unheard of!

[runco]

Well, it's either a school, involves money, or you mean "principle". ;)

 

- OS

I yield.............. :bow:  I'm not the best speller, but I bet you got the gist of my comment! ;)

[dcloudy777]

We need to get rid of the state laws regarding NFA weapons.

 

They're fully redundant with fed law anyway, and as written could be used to really make life miserable for NFA owners.  (Basically you could be subject to arrest until the proper registration could be confirmed with BATFE :down: ).

[Oh Shoot]

We need to get rid of the state laws regarding NFA weapons.

 

They're fully redundant with fed law anyway, and as written could be used to really make life miserable for NFA owners.  (Basically you could be subject to arrest until the proper registration could be confirmed with BATFE :down: ).

 

The state wants to be able to charge you for violation independent of federal law though.

 

- OS

[dcloudy777]

The state wants to be able to charge you for violation independent of federal law though.

 

- OS

 

Why?  I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being charged...  And we all know one of our local jackalope celebs tried pretty hard to get the book thrown at him recently. 

[Garufa]

Why?  I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being charged...  And we all know one of our local jackalope celebs tried pretty hard to get the book thrown at him recently. 

 

And he never violated any state or federal laws.

[Oh Shoot]

Why?  I don't recall ever hearing of anyone being charged...  And we all know one of our local jackalope celebs tried pretty hard to get the book thrown at him recently. 

 

Ummm, he was charged, eh?

 

You can ask "why" for any state law I guess.  Because they want to make sure TN can charge them even if the Feds don't I guess? It's a Class E felony, independent of any federal charge.

 

- OS

Edited November 14, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[dcloudy777]

 

 

You can ask "why" for any state law I guess.  Because they want to make sure TN can charge them even if the Feds don't I guess? It's a Class E felony, independent of any federal charge.

 

- OS

 

Honestly, if you have to ask "why"... it probably shouldn't be a law (laws are by definition abridgements of liberty after all).

 

The problem is, the way it's written, the state NFA law could be used to cause major headaches to a lawful NFA owner.  The cops don't have to recognize your Form 4 (or whatever) as proof of proper registration. 

 

Getting rid of state laws about NFA stuff would remove this potential pitfall, and wouldn't make a bit of difference for people illegally possessing NFA stuff.  The feds are still gonna crucify them (unless they are a Mexican drug cartel anyway). 

[Oh Shoot]

.....

 

The problem is, the way it's written, the state NFA law could be used to cause major headaches to a lawful NFA owner.  The cops don't have to recognize your Form 4 (or whatever) as proof of proper registration.

 

Well, it's only a "defense" -- same as your HCP is for unlawful carry.

 

- OS

[chipperi]

I can legally keep my gun in my truck while on campus....but I can be expelled for having it in my truck????? Need to change that law to prevent Schools and employers from doing that. The law just needs to declare your vehicle as an extension of your home. No one can tell you what you can or can't have in it.

[robin48]

That won't happen as long as Fed Ex runs the house and Haslam.

[Worriedman]

I can legally keep my gun in my truck while on campus....but I can be expelled for having it in my truck????? Need to change that law to prevent Schools and employers from doing that. The law just needs to declare your vehicle as an extension of your home. No one can tell you what you can or can't have in it.

The "Law" already does, those legislators who swear an oath to defend the Constitutions just do not recognize it, as it keeps the Chamber from donating money if they do.

39-11-611.  Self-defense.

  (a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

  (1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

   (2) "Curtilage" means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

   (3) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

   (4) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

   (5) "Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

 [b] (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

   (2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

      (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

      [B]  The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

      [C]  The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

[c] Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(d) The presumption established in subsection [c] shall not apply, if:

   (1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

   (2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

   (3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

   (4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

   (1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

   (2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

      (A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

      [B] The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

   (3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

      (A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

      [B] The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

The best thing that could happen, (will not of course) is to repeal TCA 39-17-1307.  (Senator Bell was able to rescind the "Knife" portion of this Jim Crow Law last session, never did smoke that out, but normally money talks and BS walks).  Should that be accomplished, it would once again be a "Right" to bear arms in Tennessee, it currently is not.
 

As it stands, one must purchase a "license" or, due to certain activities, a firearm carrier has a defense against prosecution only.

[300winmag]

All you need is a sentence somewhere in the criminal code that is similar to Missouri's and also similar to the TN safe commute legislation:

 

Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions 1 to 17 (long list of places) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 (Missouri's version of handgun carry permits) shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premisis or removal from the premisis.  If such person refuses to leave the premisis and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

 

Those two sentences would fix Tennessee's local park problem, school property problem, and also the no gun sign problem.  The businesses and schools would feel like they can still ask people to leave and people smart enough to carry a gun discreetly do not have to worry about going to jail because they are legal.  Basically in Missouri, you can legally carry just about anywhere without fear of criminal prosecution but property owners are still able to ask folks to leave.  I doubt you'll ever get any sort of bill passed that removes property owners' (including colleges) ability to ask people carrying guns to leave, but you'd have a good chance of passing this sort of bill.

[300winmag]

I think if we concentrated on such a bill with the NRA, something like this would have a chance of passing.  Yes, in an ideal world you could carry without a permit, open carry, but you have to focus your limited political capital on what can pass and I think this has a much better chance of passing.  Have a low key bill that is not a lightning rod like the open carry bills and it won't attract much media attention.

[Worriedman]

I think if we concentrated on such a bill with the NRA, something like this would have a chance of passing.  Yes, in an ideal world you could carry without a permit, open carry, but you have to focus your limited political capital on what can pass and I think this has a much better chance of passing.  Have a low key bill that is not a lightning rod like the open carry bills and it won't attract much media attention.

There is no political capital re gun issues with this administration, it has in fact been anti-firearms since the swearing in ceremony.  Case in point, Goins' Parks Bill of last year.  Mr. Tillman, (former Marine) is as gun friendly as any legislator, they killed his bill before it got off the ground.

The sitting governor intends to run for President, and having guns assoicated with him in any fashion is anathema to his perception that only "Moderates" can succeed in that endeavor, (he has to attract those female Democrat voters you understand, all those Moms Against Anything Hairy Chested and Even Remotely Resembling Conservatism).

And by the way, the NRA would not recognize a decent Tennessee specific gun bill if it bit them in the hinney.

[GKar]

All you need is a sentence somewhere in the criminal code that is similar to Missouri's and also similar to the TN safe commute legislation:

 

Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions 1 to 17 (long list of places) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 (Missouri's version of handgun carry permits) shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premisis or removal from the premisis.  If such person refuses to leave the premisis and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

 

Those two sentences would fix Tennessee's local park problem, school property problem, and also the no gun sign problem.  The businesses and schools would feel like they can still ask people to leave and people smart enough to carry a gun discreetly do not have to worry about going to jail because they are legal.  Basically in Missouri, you can legally carry just about anywhere without fear of criminal prosecution but property owners are still able to ask folks to leave.  I doubt you'll ever get any sort of bill passed that removes property owners' (including colleges) ability to ask people carrying guns to leave, but you'd have a good chance of passing this sort of bill.

Another show-stopper in TN with regards to the proposed language above - in TN, there is no differentiation between concealed carry and open carry, in that the permit is simply for "handgun carry".  Don't believe under the current construction of TN law, you could carve out that distinction: that then would mean such a proposal would apply to both open and concealed carry...and you can bet your bottom dollar THAT won't be palatable to the Chamber, nor to Haslam, Harwell, Ramsey, McCormick et al.

[wk05]

I can legally keep my gun in my truck while on campus....but I can be expelled for having it in my truck????? Need to change that law to prevent Schools and employers from doing that. The law just needs to declare your vehicle as an extension of your home. No one can tell you what you can or can't have in it.

 

Many other sections of TN Statutory law already do.  That was the "supposedly" the rationale behind the permits car carry bill that was introduced and passed last legislative session. 

[Radlink54]

Absolutely agree with 300winmag.  

 

Decriminalize "carry past posting", and rephrase first offense as trespass misdemeanor offense, should be the goal of every CCP holder.  Model on the Missouri law or several other similar state laws.

 

Is there any state legislator out there willing to advance this cause?  Has this ever been really attempted since the CCP law was written?

[chipperi]

Now several said I can keep my gun in my truck while taking classes, and Yes legally I can...But TBR's Student Code of Conduct spells out immediate expulsion for having a gun on the grounds of ant TBR governed college. So damned if I do and damned if I don't. I wont be in trouble with the law but I wouldn't be a student anymore.