New Government in Tennessee

[E4 No More]

I do not follow state politics, but I'm hoping that some of you guys/gals do to give an educated guess as to the future. When I took my HCP class in August, the instructor stated that there were concerns of many that the Democrat-controlled state government was going to do away with the permits or restrict them severely, so there was a run on permits before January 1st. Now that the elections are over, power has transferred to the Republicans in Tennessee.

What changes can we expect for the HCP's? Will we be allowed to carry into restaurants? Any other changes?

[Magiccarpetrides]

I dont think anyone will try to touch carry permits in TN....hopefully restaurant carry(in places that serve alcohol) will become a reality like in Georgia

[Oh Shoot]

.. the instructor stated that there were concerns of many that the Democrat-controlled state government was going to do away with the permits or restrict them severely, so there was a run on permits before January 1st. ...

Oh horse pucky.

The Democrats have controlled Nashville since Hector was a pup. They enacted the carry permit and have done nothing to stifle it since.

Oh, course, the permit rules need to be relaxed more, but ...

- OS

[E4 No More]

Oh horse pucky.

The Democrats have controlled Nashville since Hector was a pup. They enacted the carry permit and have done nothing to stifle it since.

Oh, course, the permit rules need to be relaxed more, but ...

- OS

It was my understanding that Naifey (SP?) was behind driving the change while the Democrats had power. I understood that he was blocking changes that would allow carry in restaurants that served alcohol, and wanted to stop issuing permits.

[Guest nraforlife]

Naifeh is/was an ass of the 1st Degree. Now that he cannot block squat MAYBE we'll get some common sense laws based that actually benefit TN HCP holders.

[Warbird]

I think you are confusing two different levels of government. In the state Naifeh and his water carriers in the hous leadership did block revisions to the carry law, however it was also Naifeh who was speaker when we originally passed the carry bill and its first major revisions. He never sought to end that law, nor would he have succeeded with a repub senate. Note: even when the dems had the majority there were not enough anti-gun dems to have done it in the senate then either and again it was a dem led senate who passed the original bill.

Now, the talk of ending carry laws or severely restricting them is a plan of Obama, Pelosi, Boxer and their ilk in Washington. That plan is to eliminate every state permit law. They will have a hard time doing it. I'm not sure they could even get enough blue dogs in the house to vote for it much less the difficulty in the senate.

We must all be prepared to turn the pressure on the gun grabbers in congress when needed.

[Fallguy]

At $115 a pop and $50 for renewals...no way they are ending that source of revenue.

[Tim Nunan]

What changes can we expect for the HCP's? Will we be allowed to carry into restaurants? Any other changes?

With the change allowing carry in national parks it is possible we might be able to get the state law changed as well.

[frontier737]

With the change allowing carry in national parks it is possible we might be able to get the state law changed as well.

I didn't know the National Park restriction was lifted! Thanks for passing that along.

[DaveTN]

What changes can we expect for the HCP's? Will we be allowed to carry into restaurants? Any other changes?

I don’t see alcohol and firearms ever getting the nod.

But then I laughed out loud when I first heard that Hillary was running for the Senate and again when Obama ran for president; so obviously I can be wrong.

[Guest johnmattwill]

With the change allowing carry in national parks it is possible we might be able to get the state law changed as well.

That was my first thought... It sure would be nice!!!!

[E4 No More]

I don’t see alcohol and firearms ever getting the nod.

But then I laughed out loud when I first heard that Hillary was running for the Senate and again when Obama ran for president; so obviously I can be wrong.

I about spewed water when I read the latter statement!

I'm hoping that the majority of leadership understands that people can patronize an establishment without drinking alcohol. If an incident occurs, the authorities can test for blood alcohol content easy enough. But to state the obvious, common sense is something most politicians don't possess.

[Guest db99wj]

I don’t see alcohol and firearms ever getting the nod.

But then I laughed out loud when I first heard that Hillary was running for the Senate and again when Obama ran for president; so obviously I can be wrong.

Why not? Many states allow permit holders to go to resturants that serve alcohol. In larger cities, like Memphis, there are many sandwich shops that serve beer, there are chinese places that serve wine, there is a take out place here, italian, that does have half a dozen tables that you can eat at, that has italian beer for sale. It is hard for me to imagin a law that says permit holders can drink and still have there firearm (set up like drinking and driving laws), but even that is possible. I do see a law that allows a permit holder to go in and eat at these establishments passing as long as the permit holder isn't drinking.

I do like to have a drink, but If I had to chose between drinking and not carrying or not drinking but carrying, I am going to go with the not drinking but carrying and save the drink for when I get home.

[Guest benchpresspower]

Why not? Many states allow permit holders to go to resturants that serve alcohol. In larger cities, like Memphis, there are many sandwich shops that serve beer, there are chinese places that serve wine, there is a take out place here, italian, that does have half a dozen tables that you can eat at, that has italian beer for sale. It is hard for me to imagin a law that says permit holders can drink and still have there firearm (set up like drinking and driving laws), but even that is possible. I do see a law that allows a permit holder to go in and eat at these establishments passing as long as the permit holder isn't drinking.

I do like to have a drink, but If I had to chose between drinking and not carrying or not drinking but carrying, I am going to go with the not drinking but carrying and save the drink for when I get home.

"Nothing for me tonight, thank you, I'm the designated shooter." Those of us that carry KNOW what the risks are and we KNOW what we can and cannot do. It irks me knowing that when a leo goes into say O Charleys and sits down to lunch, knowing dang well he is not there "carrying out his duties", and keeps his firearm on him when according to law he is supposed to leave it in the car just like a permit holder has to. Nope, when common sense was being handed out, politicians were standing in the wrong line.

[Guest db99wj]

"Nothing for me tonight, thank you, I'm the designated shooter." Those of us that carry KNOW what the risks are and we KNOW what we can and cannot do. It irks me knowing that when a leo goes into say O Charleys and sits down to lunch, knowing dang well he is not there "carrying out his duties", and keeps his firearm on him when according to law he is supposed to leave it in the car just like a permit holder has to. Nope, when common sense was being handed out, politicians were standing in the wrong line.

Exactly for the most part. We have followed the rules from the start in order to get the permit by following the law of the land.

I said for the most part because I have a different view of the LEO at O Charlies. IMO, and there are a lot of people on here that I respectfully disagree with about this and it has been discussed/argued ad nauseum, but I feel if the LEO has their uniform on, they are on duty. If they are in Ocharlies, in uniform, in the middle of their shift, they need to have and should be armed. Unlike LEO's, we take that hour or whatever time you have and that is your time. You can leave, go take a nap, eat, do whatever, it is your time. A leo, if called, responds, immediately. If not, someone gets hurt, gets robbed, or worse, gets killed. They drop what they are doing or eating, and go. That is what they do, they know that it is a possiblity that they might not to get that 15 minutes, 30 minutes for lunch if it is busy. If me or my family needs a LEO, I sure as hell want them to stop and come help me, with all their tools.

You are right that the politicians were in the wrong line. I understand and respect the argument that LEO's are not above the law, they are not a "special class", they are not, and they should not, but I think it is justifiable that they "break" this law, because if they were to follow it, peoples lives are in danger. The law has to be changed. Hopefully for us and for LEO's.

Just my opinion, and like a$$holes, we all have one!;)

[Guest justme]

Exactly for the most part. We have followed the rules from the start in order to get the permit by following the law of the land.

I said for the most part because I have a different view of the LEO at O Charlies. IMO, and there are a lot of people on here that I respectfully disagree with about this and it has been discussed/argued ad nauseum, but I feel if the LEO has their uniform on, they are on duty. If they are in Ocharlies, in uniform, in the middle of their shift, they need to have and should be armed. Unlike LEO's, we take that hour or whatever time you have and that is your time. You can leave, go take a nap, eat, do whatever, it is your time. A leo, if called, responds, immediately. If not, someone gets hurt, gets robbed, or worse, gets killed. They drop what they are doing or eating, and go. That is what they do, they know that it is a possiblity that they might not to get that 15 minutes, 30 minutes for lunch if it is busy. If me or my family needs a LEO, I sure as hell want them to stop and come help me, with all their tools.

You are right that the politicians were in the wrong line. I understand and respect the argument that LEO's are not above the law, they are not a "special class", they are not, and they should not, but I think it is justifiable that they "break" this law, because if they were to follow it, peoples lives are in danger. The law has to be changed. Hopefully for us and for LEO's.

Just my opinion, and like a$$holes, we all have one!;)

LEOs are no different that anyone else--they have to, and should obey the same laws as everyone else--they are not special just because they do the job that they chose to do. If they want to go into a place that serves alcohol--they should be forced to be disarmed, just like everyone else--and if they don't like it--they have the same options as we do--not eat there, or complain to the state legislature for a change in the law....otherwise they should either disarm themselves, or find somewhere else to eat--or be arrested when they go into the establishment for anything other than official business.

As for being "justifiable" that they break the law--it is no more justifiable that they are allowed to break the law than it would be if you sat down in a restaurant that serves alcohol--you would be arrested, and so should they.

The laws apply IMO to everyone, you, me and those who work as Leos...and if not--then how can we say that the laws should apply to anyone?

[Guest db99wj]

LEOs are no different that anyone else--they have to, and should obey the same laws as everyone else--they are not special just because they do the job that they chose to do. If they want to go into a place that serves alcohol--they should be forced to be disarmed, just like everyone else--and if they don't like it--they have the same options as we do--not eat there, or complain to the state legislature for a change in the law....otherwise they should either disarm themselves, or find somewhere else to eat--or be arrested when they go into the establishment for anything other than official business.

As for being "justifiable" that they break the law--it is no more justifiable that they are allowed to break the law than it would be if you sat down in a restaurant that serves alcohol--you would be arrested, and so should they.

The laws apply IMO to everyone, you, me and those who work as Leos...and if not--then how can we say that the laws should apply to anyone?

This argument is not new, it has been argued here several times, I have been part of all of them, and your opinion is a shared opinion. I still disagree. Some or dare I say many, consider as policy that their LEO's are "on duty" the whole time they are on shift, and they are required to do so.

Here is a question for the law guys, cough cough 'Fallguy' cough cough, and even LEO's that are one here, or anyone else that might know. Carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Is that a Handgun Carry Permit associated law or a law that specifically mentiones LEO's? Or does the HCP law mention both in the law?

[DaveTN]

LEOs are no different that anyone else--they have to, and should obey the same laws as everyone else--they are not special just because they do the job that they chose to do. If they want to go into a place that serves alcohol--they should be forced to be disarmed, just like everyone else--and if they don't like it--they have the same options as we do--not eat there, or complain to the state legislature for a change in the law....otherwise they should either disarm themselves, or find somewhere else to eat--or be arrested when they go into the establishment for anything other than official business.

As for being "justifiable" that they break the law--it is no more justifiable that they are allowed to break the law than it would be if you sat down in a restaurant that serves alcohol--you would be arrested, and so should they.

The laws apply IMO to everyone, you, me and those who work as Leos...and if not--then how can we say that the laws should apply to anyone?

Good grief.

Eating is “Official Businessâ€; they are on duty and eating is part of their routine.

They have nothing to do with whether we get this legislation or not.

They are different and just like HCP holders they are a “special groupâ€.

Those not in a “special group†would be the overwhelming majority of Tennessee residents that can’t carry a firearm anywhere outside their home.

There are “special groups†and there will always be.

[Fallguy]

This argument is not new, it has been argued here several times, I have been part of all of them, and your opinion is a shared opinion. I still disagree. Some or dare I say many, consider as policy that their LEO's are "on duty" the whole time they are on shift, and they are required to do so.

Here is a question for the law guys, cough cough 'Fallguy' cough cough, and even LEO's that are one here, or anyone else that might know. Carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Is that a Handgun Carry Permit associated law or a law that specifically mentiones LEO's? Or does the HCP law mention both in the law?

There are two different laws about places that serve alcohol and firearms. One in general and there is a part about it in the law that generally allows LEOs to go armed 24/7.

39-17-1305 Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served.

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

© The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1)

In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2)

On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

39-17-1350 Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(a) 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.

( The authority conferred by this section is expressly intended to and shall supersede restrictions placed upon law enforcement officers' authority to carry firearms by other sections within this part.

© 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.

So 39-17-1305©(1) and 39-17-1350©(3) both say a LEO must be "engaged in the actual discharge of official duties" to be able to carry in a place that serves alcohol for onsite consumption.

So the question is what does "engaged in the actual discharge of official duties" actually mean? Some think it means simply when they are on the clock or in uniform or "on duty". Some think that because of the words "engaged" and "discharge" it means like responding to a call for assitance or taking a report or some other "action" and not just eating lunch.

AFAIK there has been no AG opinion on this or court ruling. So there is no real legal definition of what it means. So no real way of saying for sure who is right and who is wrong. I really don't ever see a LEO being charged though because of eating lunch in place that serves alcohol though.

[Guest db99wj]

Thank you fallguy.

[Guest justme]

This argument is not new, it has been argued here several times, I have been part of all of them, and your opinion is a shared opinion. I still disagree. Some or dare I say many, consider as policy that their LEO's are "on duty" the whole time they are on shift, and they are required to do so.

Here is a question for the law guys, cough cough 'Fallguy' cough cough, and even LEO's that are one here, or anyone else that might know. Carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Is that a Handgun Carry Permit associated law or a law that specifically mentiones LEO's? Or does the HCP law mention both in the law?

Yes, but you see herein lies the problem-LEOs have the ability to decide to NOT eat in establishments that serve alcohol----if they choose--and that is exactly what they do--they Choose to eat in an establishment that serves alcohol--then they should be absolutely required to disarm before they enter on lunch. We do not have the ability--so why should they? If they want to eat in the establishment, then they should have to be unarmed when they do so. If they don't like that--then they don't have to eat in the alcohol serving restaurants.

If we can't be trusted to carry in alcohol serving restaurants--then LEOs certainly do not deserve the trust--same laws should apply to them that apply to us.

As for them being able to break certain laws in the performance of their duties--if they would uphold and enforce the same laws against us--then they should not be immune to their effects--the laws apply to us all, or they should not apply to anyone. LEOs are not special just because of the job they do--they chose to do it, no one made them...so why give them special privileges that we don't have access to--such as qualified immunity? They deserve no breaks that they would not give us.

Here is the text from T.C.A 39-17-1305 in its entirety taken from Michie.com I have italicized the most relevant part to possession of a weapon by LEOs And as I read it--they are only allowed on premises that serve alcohol as long as they are in the actual PERFORMANCE of or discharge of their official duties--and eating lunch would not I don't think constitute any type of official duty, or the performance thereof, so taking this law at its face value--any LEO who dines in a restaurant that serves alcohol is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I'm not trying to cause trouble--I just think it would be nice if they had to obey the same laws that they would enforce against you, or john regular on the street....

39-17-1305. Possession of firearm where alcoholic beverages are served. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for on premises consumption.

( A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

© The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who is:

(1) In the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer, or is employed in the army, air force, navy, coast guard or marine service of the United States or any member of the Tennessee national guard in the line of duty and pursuant to military regulations, or is in the actual discharge of duties as a correctional officer employed by a penal institution; or

(2) On the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or who is the employee or agent of the owner of the premises with responsibility for protecting persons or property.

Edited December 18, 2008 by justme

[Guest justme]

Good grief.

Eating is “Official Businessâ€; they are on duty and eating is part of their routine.

They have nothing to do with whether we get this legislation or not.

They are different and just like HCP holders they are a “special groupâ€.

Those not in a “special group†would be the overwhelming majority of Tennessee residents that can’t carry a firearm anywhere outside their home.

There are “special groups†and there will always be.

First, eating lunch is conducting "personal business"--not official business, regardless of who you work for--official business means actually discharging your duties--eating lunch would not fall under that category.

Second, they are citizens--just like everyone else--they are subject to the laws as everyone else. If they would arrest you for the offense of possession of a gun while eating in such an establishment--then they should suffer the same consequences. The laws are not different for them than for us, although ofttimes we make a distinction that should have never been made to begin with.

Third, there are "special groups" because they are told they are special. I'm not special because I have a permit. I'm just an average citizen now bound by stricter laws than I was before--because before I did not have to worry about knowing where a gun is and is not permitted--now I am. Now I am responsible for knowing that I can't take a gun into a city, county or state owned park, or into a court house, or into a place that sells beer like a pizza hut, or any place clearly designated as a "no firearms" zone, among others...That is the difference between those who do have and those who do not have permits...The laws are stricter on those who carry--because those who don't--they don't have to worry about it one way or another.

Finally, again--just expressing my opinion on 39-17-1305--but it would be nice to see an AG opinion forthcoming on this issue for complete clarification.

[Guest db99wj]

One thing about this argument that amuses me, every time it happens, the people are against it, will always argue that the LEO is not special, they are not this, they are not that, it's not fair. When this is not the problem. It is the law and the interpretation of that law, and the intent of the law, and the dumbass's that came up with the law. Who knows what it was meant to mean.

My interpretation of the law is that a LEO, during their shift, is on duty and in actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer at all times during the shift, whether they are eating, whether they are driving, whether they are chasing down a bg. As I mentioned if the call comes in, they have to leave, they can't say, well call someone else, I'm at lunch, or ignore the call. They drop what they are doing and go to the call.

I believe the intent was for LEO's who are not on duty, not on shift, that goes out with friends, can not carry in a restaurant that serves.

This is my opinion, right or wrong, it is mine, and I am happy to say it. Until the AG comes in and makes a ruling, I am going to continue to have this same opinion.

[DaveTN]

Second, they are citizens--just like everyone else--they are subject to the laws as everyone else. The laws are not different for them than for us, although ofttimes we make a distinction that should have never been made to begin with.

No one has to stand by and watch while they see what they believe is a crime being committed; especially by cops. As I have said before if you think a cop is doing something wrong you always have recourse. If this bothers you, the next time you see it call the non-emergency number for the PD. Ask to talk to a Command Officer and tell them you want to make a complaint. They will either explain the law to you over the phone or they will come out and meet with you.

If you do not like their explanation you can call or go to your local DA and ask them to explain the law to you.

I doubt the AG will be issuing an opinion on this unless local DA’s indicate they do not understand the law. But maybe they already have; have you checked?

Third, there are "special groups" because they are told they are special. I'm not special because I have a permit. I'm just an average citizen

No, you are not an average citizen. The average citizen can’t carry a loaded firearm at all.

You are arguing that another special group has more privileges than your special group. Making a bunch of noise about being an average citizen doesn’t change that.

Do you have a carry permit?

[Mike.357]

Does a cop clock out to go eat lunch?

If not then I am guessing they still serve in their official capacity.

Heck I am glad someone can carry when in them places.