Prosecution for HCP holder carrying in banned location?

[jgradyc]

Has there ever been a case of a Tennessee HCP holder being prosecuted or having the HCP revoked due to carrying in a banned location in Tennessee?  I'm talking about legal, HCP handgun carry in all other respects except for the location itself... gun buster sign, school, parks, etc.  From what I've heard, the worst that has happened is that the individual has been asked to leave. (Excluding airports and courthouses) Can anyone offer any insight on this question?

Edited April 5, 2015 by jgradyc

[nightrunner]

I'm pretty sure that schools are prohibited by federal law not just state.

[PackinMama]

I think that schools, airports and government buildings (post office, courthouse, etc.) are the only places that will get you prosecuted for carrying.

Edited April 5, 2015 by PackinMama

[RED333]

As far as I know there has not been a case yet about what you ask.

[dralarms]

I'm pretty sure that schools are prohibited by federal law not just state.

Nope, it's a felony by state law but there is no federal law against carrying. If there was Utah could not arm teachers and they are doing that.

[dralarms]

I think that schools, airports and government buildings (post office, courthouse, etc.) are the only places that will get you prosecuted for carrying.

Courthouses are not off limits unless posted. Court rooms while court is in session is another story. Edited April 5, 2015 by dralarms

[TrickyNicky]

Airports are not off limits unless posted, provided you are not entering the sterile area.

[TN_Jim]

Some discussion here:
http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/69530-concealed-carry-in-private-posted-businesses/?hl=tn_jim#entry1022452

[monkeylizard]

There was a case in Memphis at a Kawasaki dealer where they had an incident (a shooting or armed robbery I think?) and responded by posting. A guy walked in shortly after that (while tensions would have been quite high) OC'ing past the obvious posting and a security guard, IIRC. I'm pretty sure he was charged. Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could share some specifics on that case?

 

There has been no incident that I know of where a person has been charged for carrying past a non-statutorily compliant sign, but that's not to say it can't happen.

[JayC]

The only charges we've seen documented involve courtrooms and airports with one single exception...

 

A politician in Williamson County was charged for carrying into a school administrative building to attend an official meeting she was part of...  All indications are the charges are 'colored' by local politics.

 

We've heard rumors of other cases brought including the one mentioned about in Memphis, but the documentation on these cases (via court records or media reports) are non-existent. 

 

I don't think anybody here would suggest breaking the law... although many of us have mistakenly and without knowledge walked passed signs or into gray areas...  for example, exactly which sidewalks in the Vandy area of town would be considered 'school property' and which ones public?  Does a hospital become 'school property' if a resident or medical student is in the hospital?  Does that just include the building they're in, or the entire hospital campus?  What if it's a visiting professor from the local medical college giving a lecture, but there are no medical students involved?

 

As you can see there are a lot of gray areas in TN firearm laws, ones I hope over the coming years we can work to clear up.

 

I think the reason you don't see more people charged, is because the vast majority of HCP holders are reasonable law abiding citizens, they don't intend to carry where they're not supposed to, and when asked by the owner, or law enforcement to leave they comply, therefore defusing the situation without the need of charges.

 

But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work long and hard to reduce the number of areas law abiding citizens can't carry in...  because in reality restrictions on HCP don't reduce crime one bit...  If you feel comfortable with a police officer being armed at a location, you should feel more comfortable with your average HCP holder being armed there as well...  Stats just don't lie, law abiding citizens are convicted of felonies at a fraction of the rate of police officers, judges, politicians...  and are 5 times less likely to kill an innocent person in a justified shooting.

 

Has there ever been a case of a Tennessee HCP holder being prosecuted or having the HCP revoked due to carrying in a banned location in Tennessee?  I'm talking about legal, HCP handgun carry in all other respects except for the location itself... gun buster sign, school, parks, etc.  From what I've heard, the worst that has happened is that the individual has been asked to leave. (Excluding airports and courthouses) Can anyone offer any insight on this question?

 

[rmiddle]

Nope, it's a felony by state law but there is no federal law against carrying. If there was Utah could not arm teachers and they are doing that.

 

There actually is a federal law but the way it is written a state permit can allow you to carry.  A Utah permit allows you to carry in a Utah school.  I know there are a few other states that allow it as well not sure what they are off the top of my head.

 

Thanks

Robert

Edited April 8, 2015 by rmiddle

[dralarms]

I stand corrected.

[1pointofview]

Now what I understand, in tn, you can have a gun in your car if you are licensed to carry if you are dropping off or picking up your child at school Correct? You just can't bring the gun with you into the school. The way i read the law also is, if you are a school employee, you can not leave a firearm in you vehicle even if you are licensed. Edited April 8, 2015 by 1pointofview

[monkeylizard]

I'm pretty sure you're correct on the first, but not on the second. I don't think there's a law preventing a school employee from leaving one in the car. I don't see anything in 1309 referencing employment. It's likely against employment rules of every school district, but not against the law. Someone will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong.  :D

Edited April 8, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

I'm pretty sure you're correct on the first, but not on the second. I don't think there's a law preventing a school employee from leaving one in the car. I don't see anything in 1309 referencing employment. It's likely against employment rules of every school district, but not against the law. Someone will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong.  :D

 

39-17-1313 allows any permit holder to have loaded firearms in private vehicle any public or private parking lot. That includes schools. Has been legal for one or two years now, I forget.

 

And now that it has just been amended, any disciplinary action by the school for doing so is not lawful. Although there is no criminal liability on school for doing so, employee may take civil action, so schools had best be very careful starting now (or whenever soon this takes effect).

 

- OS

Edited April 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[peejman]

39-17-1313 allows any permit holder to have loaded firearms in private vehicle any public or private parking lot. That includes schools. Has been legal for one or two years now, I forget.

 

And now that it has just been amended, any disciplinary action by the school for doing so is not lawful. Although there is no criminal liability on school for doing so, employee may take civil action, so schools had best be very careful starting now (or whenever soon this takes effect).

 

- OS

 

 

Which means that while you can still be fired for violating your employer's policy, you can then sue them for firing you because what you did was legal.  Case law will on this will be interesting to determine whether an employer can enforce a policy that prohibits an otherwise legal activity. 

 

What also comes to mind is things like life insurance policies with clauses that exclude coverage for specific "dangerous" activities such as skydiving. 

[chances R]

While the new law for 'any lawful person' to possess a firearm in their auto is in play, I think one has to have a permit to have said firearm in their car while on school grounds.

[monkeylizard]

While the new law for 'any lawful person' to possess a firearm in their auto is in play, I think one has to have a permit to have said firearm in their car while on school grounds.

 

That's correct. OS pointed out above that 1313 allows any permit holder to have one in the car in all lots.

[KahrMan]

Which means that while you can still be fired for violating your employer's policy, you can then sue them for firing you because what you did was legal.  Case law on this will be interesting to determine whether an employer can enforce a policy that prohibits an otherwise legal activity. 

 

 

This will be interesting.  First thing that comes to mind is hospitals.  St. Thomas Hospital does not allow smoking on their property.  It is perfectly legal to smoke outside.  If you work for St. Thomas, you have to leave the property to have a smoke.  

 

I just do not see how willfully violating a companies policy, which you agreed to, gives you the right to sue them if you are fired.

[bud]

. Edited August 7, 2015 by bud

[2.ooohhh]

This will be interesting.  First thing that comes to mind is hospitals.  St. Thomas Hospital does not allow smoking on their property.  It is perfectly legal to smoke outside.  If you work for St. Thomas, you have to leave the property to have a smoke.  

 

I just do not see how willfully violating a companies policy, which you agreed to, gives you the right to sue them if you are fired.

Actually smoking anywhere near a hospital entrance is generally against the law in davidson county outside or not unless it is a designated smoking area. Some are 50 feet, many are 200 feet. I know some hospitals do little to enforce it, but I've seen VUPD write several tickets for it in the parking garage.

 

https://www.nashville.gov/mc/ordinances/term_2011_2015/bl2012_115.htm

 

Also, I haven't seen "the right to smoke shall not be infringed" anywhere in the constitution.

[DaveTN]

I'd love to know where this stat comes from. It makes a very powerful argument if it can be substantiated

You decide what you want the numbers to show and then you manipulate the data and requirements to show what you want. At some point common sense will kick back in; you would have to really fight that. Even then I doubt it would be a "powerful" argument. It's no different than the gun haters posting that guns kill more people than traffic accidents.

[KahrMan]

 

 

 

Also, I haven't seen "the right to smoke shall not be infringed" anywhere in the constitution.

 

And that refers to the government, not private companies.  Just like you could not claim your first amendment rights were violated for being fired for cussing out your boss.

[JayC]

Be happy to...

 

First, the great and wonderful gunfacts.info - which has lots of good stats on why citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms:

 

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

 

Look on page 19.

 

This comes from a paper called "Shall Issue" The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws - http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

 

It's written by two authors...

 

1. Dave Kopel a widely respected Gun Rights attorney - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kopel

Dave is the lead attorney against the Colorado gun control measures signed into law by Hickenlooper in 2010 making it's way to SCOTUS.

 

2. Clayton Cramer an American historian and software engineer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer

His work has was cited by SCOTUS in a couple of little know 2nd amendment cases, DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

 

These men are noted researches and scholars on gun laws, and 2nd amendment history....  Only better resource out there maybe John Lott.

 

So lets look at there work... the section we're interested in:

 

In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. 

 

This is a peer reviewed paper, which references a peer reviewed study by Silver & Kates - I've not been able to ever find a copy of their study online.

 

I think the facts speak for themselves ;)

 

 

I'd love to know where this stat comes from. It makes a very powerful argument if it can be substantiated

Edited April 9, 2015 by JayC

[bud]

. Edited August 7, 2015 by bud